Krush_Burner's reviews

The most basic, and most important, thing one should know about "A Quiet Place Part II" is pretty simple: it's an extended version of the first part. Everything which constitutes an essential element in first film, appears here, and John Krasinski carefully expands these ideas to continue the story. So, this is a good sequel in a most straightforward way: it's just following the original.

At it's core its still the film about the family surviving in a hostile world. But dramatic pieces are moved to the background for the sake of suspense and pacing. There's also less character development (since most of them were already established in the first part) but more horror. Krasinski uses "stay quiet to stay alive" concept for lots of chills and thrills. To keep the tension, film also uses parallel editing and it's really looks refreshing.

Of course, some of the family members (as well as Cillian Murphy's character) sometimes acts kinda rushy, but all such decisions look and feel convincing. There's some shortage of gore and blood, as well as in the first film, given the speed and ferocity of the creatures. Last but not least, great acting work from Emily Blunt and Millicent Simmonds. Go see it if you're fan of the original. Or if you just love small-scaled post-apocalyptic stories with a human touch.

The main point I'd like to start with is that this is not the film about Mortal Kombat tournament, this is feels more like an origin story or rather a spin-off. Scripts deals greatly with training and team building and heritage, leaving nearly everything else behind. This certainly sets new MK apart from 1995 version let alone (epic) failed 1997 sequel. Sure, this is still Mortal Kombat, but different in some important ways.

Cole Young character seems totally unneccesry as an audience surrogate, Johhny Cage (whose absence is unforgivable) or Stryker easily can replace this one to introduce unfamiliar moviegoers to MK mythology and story arc. Character designs are good (great sometimes), but most locations looks unimaginative and pale to say the least. Dialogues are... alright, let's just skip this part.

But regarding the fights and its style, Mortal Kombat is an eye-candy.

Most battles ends with a gruesome fatalities, hearts are ripped off, hand and legs are thrown apart. The climatic clash between Sub-Zero and Scorpion is a truly remarkable piece of maritial arts cinema. The blood and guts, basiclaly, redeems all the flaws between action sequences. If you're an open-minded MK fanlike me - go see it and have fun.

Gretel & Hansel is the classical fairytale originated from German sources, but this film first of all is about contemporary society, albeit the story is set within a fantasy setting. The script basically follows traditional narrative of a sister and brother lost in the woods and trapped by a witch in disguise, but underneath lies a detailed social commentary on women's place in society, feminism and search of the self. Oz Perkins frames this film as a coming-of-age story, blending horror, fantasy and drama through suspenseful mood of a constant menace hiding somewhere behind the scenes.

The visual part is no doubt the strongest element of the film. The forest and witch's house are unforgettable pieces of design and camerawork, added by the creepy musical background. There's not much gore, but lots of slow-burning tension, which is anticipated by the audience but not the main characters, since they're know nothing about the mysterious house and his inhabitant. There's also a dreams which haunts Gretel's imagination, and they're adding greatly to the film's bizarre atmosphere.

The conceptual part is surprisingly noticeable, and is represented mostly through The Witch and Gretel's relationship. Perkins toying with well-known idea about connection between fear of the witches and women's independence, but he's rarely using a straightforward (anti/pro)feminist clichés, relying more on the character building, which says for itself. This is the point of similarity of "Gretel & Hansel" and Robert Eggers's recent horror hit "The VVitch", but this similarities are only thematically, not ideologically close.

However, film definitely has its problems. The most obvious one is the pacing, the whole second act and part of a third one is moving quite slow, sometimes to the point of annoyance. Another problem is almost complete lack of Hansel's development as a character, which is weird even if film focusing mostly on women's part of the story. Finally, the script provides a lot of possibilities for a wild ride of imagination, since the setting is dark fantasy, filled with monsters, witches and nightmares - but it seems that Perkins barely using half of this potential.

Still, the film stays on a high level as a piece of a classical dark fantasy tale, but made in a modern world and for modern audiences. Not great, but decent work.

It took quite long to make a sequel to 'Zombieland', but patience is definitely rewarded. There's not much new stuff here, but that's not the point - cast and mood is the point. The great chemistry between all the main characters is still working, and make you want to see more, no matter what they do, discussing the relationships status, strolling across the deserted mall, or killing zombies. Of course, there's something new. First of all, there's several new kinds of zombies. Then, new location of 'Babylon Tower' (inhabited by hippies) serves as the battlefield for the final clash with an army of improved undeads. Plus, a couple of new characters are added, and they're pretty much fits the story. Oh, and Bill Murray is here too, don't go away after the end credits roll. However, all those additions seem to be just a minor elements, since the heart of 'Zombieland: Double Tap' is the characters and good, smash, bloody action. Its not about SFX or tricky plot twists, its about people killing zombies, talking about their Iives and trying to survive.

This is definitely one of the best Stephen King's adaptations ever, in terms both of style and faithfulness to the original source. Andy Muschietti did great work as a director, creating this long (probably longest horror film ever made), grim, intense and imaginative horror masterpiece. The basic point is that second film is much complex and multi-layered than the first one, dealing with different albeit interconnected themes. On the outside this is a horror story about how adult members of the Losers Club join together once more to kill nameless monster they've encountered 27 years ago. This story has many spectacular merits on its own right: the images of It are very different, artful and scary. There's a lot of atmospheric moments, action sequences and monsters to remember. On the inside it's a story about anxiety and pain of letting the past go, which are inescapable parts of any adulthood as a process. But there's a bit of dialectic here, since the characters, intending to beat Pennywise, must keep their inner child to some degree, but within the framework of a grown-up experience. So, on the third level this is a story about the power of imagination, which can save human from evil, but in order to do so it has to be used with good hands and clear mind. There's a slight amount of problems with this adaptation, however. Unlike the first film, the script (written exclusively by Gary Dauberman now) contains several plot lines which are unnecessary in the way they're introduced in the film; for instance, Henry Bowers' actions now add literally nothing to the main storyline. There's also a bit of jokes and one-liners overdose, which blurs creepy scenes sometimes. But, luckily, that minor problems cannot overshadow the whole picture, which is still very enjoyable. Visit Derry, it's a great New England town. But beware of the red balloons. They're float.

This is Øvredal's second work in USA, but his directing here is clearly bears heavy influence of Guilermo del Toro, who is the main producer of this project. So the director's name is a bit misleading here, which become obvious as the story progresses and more and more typical del Toro's trademark themes are introduced. This is a version of coming of age story, wrapped in horror clothes, the tale of lost innocence and deliverance from past. The structure is taken from horror anthology, with several interconnected stories and wraparound story, but the basic difference is that here the characters trying to change their future and they're not mere observers or narrators. The setting is classic: 1960s rural town with haunted house and other familiar locations, such as corn fields with scarecrows, mental asylum, and, of course, high school. What is a bit more surprising is a presence of a political context on the background: famous elections and subsequent winning of a Richard Nixon serves as a clear reference for current situation with Donald Trump's presidency. As for visuals, there's a lot of beautifully crafted monsters (my personal favorite is The Pale Woman from the hospital), albeit sometimes Øvredal wastes some great opportunity for a suspense building in favor of a direct jumpscares, which is somewhat disappointing. However, since the story, acting and pacing are all good, total impression is rather satisfying. This is obviously not an adult horror, but if you take it as it is - a child's tale of supernatural forces and pains of grown-up - then you'll be rewarded.

The most important thing one should know about this film is: "Nekrotonic" is a truly guilty pleasure for anyone who's into gunfirghts, gore and flat jokes. Now, let's elaborate this by numbers. This is a second work of Kiah Roache-Turner ("Wyrmwood"), and most of his style also appears here. That means - lots of action, decent amount of blood and guts, comic-style characters, and cheesy dialogues. The good news is all of this works good in this kind of movie. The basic concept (Nekromancers vs. Demons) looks like "Ghostbusters", but with an R-rating. There's also references to horror classics (such as "Hellraiser" and "Exorcist"), but not much. The acting is not the most attractive side of this film (Monica Bellucci is clearly overacting, but I'm sure that's the point here), so just foeget about it. Enjoy the little things. Like old-fashioned SFX (less CGI, more good prosthetics), pretty girls with guns, and good soundtrack. I mean - where else you can see slime-covered badass girl killing demon-possessed people with "Can't Take My Eyes Off You" by wonderful Andy Williams on the background? Yes, zero character development. Yes, really bad jokes. But if you're looking for a bloody and fast-paced mix of a horror, action and comedy - you're on the right way.

The most surprising news about this installment is that it's definitely the best of all three films involving Annabelle. Gary Dauberman, long-time screenwriter for "The Conjuring" franchise, got solid direction and knows how to make story interesting. Third part is revolving around "The Artifact Room" in Warren's house, and Dauberman truly releases most of its potential. There'll be a lot of creative creepy scenes, not only with Annabelle, but with different items (and creatures) almost every of them can be used for the whole separate film. Instead, Dauberman generously placing cursed boxes, hellhounds, ghosts and some more supernatural stuff around the house, slowly builds tension and knows when to ease it with a one-liner jokes. This is pure story-driven film, with minimal using of jumpscares and CGI, but maximum reliance on lights and shadows, dark corners on the background and simple, but likable characters. Go see it, if you're a fan of "The Conjuring" universe. Go see it if you're just a fan of good ghost stories. And... go see it if you're fan of Annabelle. She's waiting for you there, under the glass.

There is first and foremost word one should know about this film before watching it, and this word is: "Gesamtkunstwerk". In 1840s Richard Wagner used this term to describe the work of art which embraces different forms of expression and unifies them within a single form. This constitutes "Total Work Of Art", and "Mandy" is definitely looks like one of such works. This parallel my seem odd and even ridiculous, but Panos Cosmatos's film is nevertheless great example of a film in which form and content are united inseparably and supports one another. On the surface lies amazingly crafted revenge action horror, tenderest love letter to every grindhouse fan, full of gore, creepy soundtrack and fantastic acting (besides brilliant Nicholas Cage there's a great performances by Andrea Riseborough and Linus Roach, plus cameo by Bill Duke), with a lots of geeky references. But this is only the beginning. In the deep abides dark, twisted story, which incorporates themes from religion to current political agenda in an visionary style, filled with bright, screaming colors and aesthetics of a violent vengeance. This is obviously very personal film, made from particular point of view, but it has an universal meaning thanks to story and acting. Tragic and sarcastic, violent and sentimental, with it's tongue-in-cheek humour and witty dialogues, this simple story becomes something magnificent. In this way, again, "Mandy" can be regarded as an attempt, conscious or not, to establish a total work of art, perfect blend of narrative, music, acting and subtext into something very powerful. This is 1980s-inspired exploitation film made by genius. Go see it. Think of it. Let it flow through you. Enjoy the ride.

It's been 25 years since first "Jurassic Park" has hit the screens, and it's great to see another part of the Isla Nublar saga - surely, this film aims to please every fan of both the original trilogy and previous installment. In doing so, director J.A. Bayona and screenwriters Derek Connolly and Colin Treworrow covers wide range of contemporary social issues, and this is the most curious aspect of the film. It's safe to speak now that "Fallen Kingdom" clearly attempts to be thought-provoking story, even it's still a big, bright popcorn blockbuster with dinosaurs.

Be sure, dinosaurs are here: they're big, they're fast, they're deadly! You'll see a lot of action-packed sequences, and witness the fall of the prehistoric kingdom under volcanic ashes. But this film is probably the first in the series which clearly centers much more on humans interacting with other humans, and relatively rare using traditional "humans vs dinos" theme. It's not a perfect choice to make, because due to lots of human affairs something feels missing in the story, and dinosaurs play lesser part in this than in any of previous movies.

What is also surprising is the social commentary. If "Jurassic World" was the film about greed for fun, "Fallen Kingdom" is the film about corporate greed. Its lust for money that drives bad guys here, and this point has a great illustration during the story. The film also has several references to environmental issues, such as preventing the extinction, and questions probability of a coexistence between man and dinosaurs. The main question, however, is about should people ever save what already extinct and was re-created? The answer Is given, but not in straightforward way, this is a pleasant surprise in such kind of films.

I wouldn't say this film is the most interesting part of the franchise in terms of entertainment, and it certainly has a lot of minor flaws, but it's still an enjoyable ride into the world of Jurassic Park.

This film is a successful horror at several levels. The screenplay contains at least two different basic aspects, each of them are intersting on its own, but writer and director Ari Aster is able to fuse it into a powerful but standalone story, using not your average jumpscares but a great suspense-building. On the surface "Hereditary" is rather a family drama than horror, the whole storyline focuses on a members of one family with dark past. Toni Colett does a great acting here, and truly sparks the screen. The film invests a lot in characters, since it's only a handful of them here, so don't expect immediate drive into the ghosts activity or demonic posession. It's a film about dissolution of a one particular famliy, and such process Asters shows with great attention to the details. There's no direct social commentary here, it's rather about personal degeneration and desperation, about the past that still haunts. Under all this dramatic surface lies great modern horror, made with respect to classical themes and style. As story goes by, transition from family drama to occult horror begins, and Aster manages to procced it smoothly. A lot of traditional horror elements (such as disturbing dreams, bizarre rites, and so on) can be found here, but this film relies more on the of tension and eerie logic of the events than on conventional jumpscares or blood and guts. Overall, it's a great slow-burner, made with all respect to genre fans, and luckily escaping most of the cliches - a rare film among contemporary horror films. if you like dark and nervous movies with acting over SFX, put this one on your watch list.

The basic question, which is always appears when one speaks about a remake is obvious: "what's changed?" Well, to cut a long story short – in this installment of a classic zombie horror everything is changed, but it is still "Dawn Of The Dead" – Turbo Edition now. Let us recall what original movie is. George A. Romero' s "Dawn Of The Dead" is an epic zombie horror with a strong elements of satire and social criticism. There's a lot of space to think and to interpret, but there's also a lot of character development and (of course, bloody) action. And – this is the first thing you should keep in mind while watching this remake – new "Dawn of the Dead" is the more bloody, more gory and more action-packed version of a Romero's tale. That means the second thing you need to know: no social commentary, no satirical components, there's only some minor references to it during the whole film. And third thing you should know about this film is very simple: this is a great remake. But (and one must always remember this) this is not a shot-by-shot re- edition of a classic; it is a retelling of classic story for a new generation. It is, therefore, a completely different film, even if it uses legacy from the predecessor. George Romero made a story about mindless consumer society (with zombies). Zack Snyder made a story about zombie apocalypse (with some surviving people).

Well, "The Final Friday" is not your typical "Friday The 13th" movie, and this is the first thing one should know when one's going to watch it. This part finishes the classic franchise (which lasted for 8 films in 9 years, from 1980 until 1989), and not in a good way, to be honest. But let's try to go by the numbers to make it little bit more clear. The first thing I'd like to say, is that TFF really gives us the whole explanation of Jason Voorhees's phenomenon – for good or for bad. If you're a fan of the series, you need to see it just no know how the whole story ends. Then, second thing worth mention, is that TFF is not much of a slasher, it looks more like supernatural mystic horror movie. It is completely not in line with any other parts of the series, and to make such film as a conclusion of a Camp Crystal Lake's saga is at least bizarre decision (actually Jason is on screen only for a several minutes for the whole movie). However, it has its moments: there is some suspense, nudity, gore and lots of killing – but in all-new context, which is, to be honest, not working pretty good. I would like to recommend this one only for die-hard "Friday The 13th" fans for research reasons.

"New Blood" was the first "Friday the 13th" film I ever watched, so I keep warm memories about it all my life. I guess this flick made me a slasher (and horror) fan since I was kid. This is the most grim-looking film in the classic series, you can feel it right from the start, while listening the opening narrative (and, I should mention, part VII features the scariest Jason's look without mask). It also features the most remarkable and popular Jason Voorhees's impersonator (Kane Hodder). The story now revolves around Tina, the girl with telekinetic abilities, who must fight with Jason; the potential of this idea is realized quite good, but don't forget this is a slasher film first of all. So, there will be enough of well-made killing scenes with lots of suspense (but not much gore). The characters are well-written, but nothing special (with the exception of Tina and her rival Melissa) – once again, it's not the drama, it's a slasher with huge body count. If you're a fan of the genre, do not miss it, it's a flick worth watching.

This part is one of my personal favorites. It has less suspense, that is true, but offers a lot of other things to enjoy. First of all, Jason Voorhees is back – and he's on the road of revenge again. It is interesting that "Jason Lives" strictly follows the classic plot structure (which was introduced in the very first part of "Friday the 13th"), but at the same time film manages to incorporate new elements into the basic story. This is possible mainly because of returning of Tommy Jarvis, who is now actually steals the show sometimes. The subplot of Tommy and Jason's clash is the basic story driver here, and it's working pretty good to keep your attention. Secondly, most of death scenes are remarkable for one reason or another: Jason is on the killing spree, and there will be no mercy for anyone who tries to stop him. Thirdly, this part has a very catchy soundtrack, including not only Harry Manfredini's famous tunes, but also some portions of good old 1980's hard rock (most notable song is, of course, Alice Cooper's "He's Back" which plays during the end titles). So, I could say, this is a perfect example of a slasher flick from golden age of such films. Take your popcorn, open your Pepsi and have fun. Camp Crystal Lake is open again.

Yes, it looks like an answer to James Cameron's tale of bold blue people - but it's not. This story is much older and... better. From my experience I'd like to say that is a modern version of "Flash Gordon" - bright, somewhat even ridiculous, but at the same time atmospheric and sometimes astonishingly epic. There's some minor problems with the script (setting is so vast that several details could easily have been lost), and the cast is also not as good as it should be. But the story works and works great - mainly because of amazing Barsoom world, filled with different creatures, mechanisms and characters. There's a lot of great visual elements (fighting scenes, flying ships, The Tarks) that make this Martian world believable and somewhat beautiful.

This installment is not my favorite, but it does not mean it has nothing to offer to a horror fans. The most important thing about this part is, of course, the emergence of Jason Voorhees (albeit not in his iconic image yet). The plot is quite simple, characters are plain, and killings are well-made. Unfortunately, story is focusing more on character relations (which is not very interesting matter here anyway), than on Jason's origins. But it is interesting enough to see this film as a part of a growing franchise: you'll see some trademark elements, which will be repeated in almost every other sequels. I don't know how many fans of a modern (post-"Scream") horror films can appreciate this one, but I think anyone who wants to explore the roots of a Hockey Mask Killer should not be disappointed.

Third part is one of my favorites, mostly because of high dynamics and great "final chase" sequences. Another reason to love this part for me is more personal: in this part we can see the classic image of Jason Voorhees finally complete. There's also a lot of minor advantages in contrast with previous sequel: remarkable characters (Shelly!), some interesting details about Jason's past (Chris's memories), and catchy synthpop soundtrack. The killing scenes is also very good. There could be some questions about the weird ending, but I don't think this can ruin the whole movie. So, if you're looking for a solid slasher classic – take this one and have fun.

Let me say this right from the start. I'm a big fan of "Friday The 13th" franchise as long as I remember myself. But I'm not the fan of the very first part of the whole series. The most obvious reason for that is an absence of Jason Voorhees here (OK, he's here, yes, but only for a couple of minutes). Second reason is more personal: this part wasn't my first, when I started to watch (first was part VII and VIII), so I already had a strong image of an Hockey Mask Guy in mind when I started to watch this one. As a result, I was quite disappointed. But, after all, this is not important. What is important is that "Friday The 13th" is a classic slasher from the Golden Age of such films (late 1970's - mid-1980's, roughly from "Halloween" to "A Nightmare On Elm Street"). The classic plot structure of slasher movie is presented here in its pure form, including all basic elements: a group of youth (1) in an isolated location (2), having sex (3) and subsequently having a terrible death (4) - with only one exception. There's not much gore, it's more about atmosphere and setting than about blood, but it's quite enough for the first installment. And, of course, there's not much acting here, but - once again - what you get is enough for such kind of movie. So, if you're a slasher fan, it is strongly recommended to watch this one at least. Sure, you may watch all other parts, since they much better, bloody and creepy, but it's always useful to know where and how it all began. And the only film that could give you the right answer is the first one. Welcome to the Crystal Lake.