LoneWolfAndCub
Joined May 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings659
LoneWolfAndCub's rating
Reviews345
LoneWolfAndCub's rating
Halloween was meant to be a stand-alone film, Carpenter never intended it as a franchise. After the success of Halloween Carpenter was asked to write Halloween II which he did not want to do, in fact in an interview he said he wrote one night with a six pack of beer. It shows as well, Halloween II pales next Halloween but is good enough as a slasher. Halloween III was meant to begin Carpenter's anthology idea, have a new story based around Halloween each entry.
This was entry focuses on Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) who becomes entangled in a plot which revolves around a cult aiming to kill a lot of people on Halloween through cursed children's masks. It sounds outrageous and it is, but it is original and a hell of a lot of fun. The plot moves swiftly and is often engaging, Atkins is excellent as our hero and he plays well alongside Stacey Nelkin (who plays Ellie Grimbridge) and a deliciously evil Dan O'Herlihy (the villain Conal Cochran).
There is a lot to like here aside form the acting: the score is excellent (and no one will soon forget the infamous Silver Shamrock jingle) and the gore effects are fantastic. In fact this film is incredibly gore and is often not mentioned when talking about cool death scenes. One man gets his skull crushed by someone's bare hands, another their head ripped off by bare hands and one poor lady has face melted off with a laser. And the movie has the balls to kill a child in a fairly graphic way. The downbeat ending also plays in the films favour.
I think this film deserves way more attention than it gets. It is by far one of the strongest entries in the franchise and as a stand-alone works well. If this were not Halloween III but just Season of the Witch it probably would get far better reception.
This was entry focuses on Dr. Challis (Tom Atkins) who becomes entangled in a plot which revolves around a cult aiming to kill a lot of people on Halloween through cursed children's masks. It sounds outrageous and it is, but it is original and a hell of a lot of fun. The plot moves swiftly and is often engaging, Atkins is excellent as our hero and he plays well alongside Stacey Nelkin (who plays Ellie Grimbridge) and a deliciously evil Dan O'Herlihy (the villain Conal Cochran).
There is a lot to like here aside form the acting: the score is excellent (and no one will soon forget the infamous Silver Shamrock jingle) and the gore effects are fantastic. In fact this film is incredibly gore and is often not mentioned when talking about cool death scenes. One man gets his skull crushed by someone's bare hands, another their head ripped off by bare hands and one poor lady has face melted off with a laser. And the movie has the balls to kill a child in a fairly graphic way. The downbeat ending also plays in the films favour.
I think this film deserves way more attention than it gets. It is by far one of the strongest entries in the franchise and as a stand-alone works well. If this were not Halloween III but just Season of the Witch it probably would get far better reception.
Annabelle: Creation is a prequel of a spin-off, a frightfully bad spin-off at that. Annabelle was a shoddy movie through and through, taking the premise of a haunted doll and turning into a yawn- inducing cliché filled mess typical of most Hollywood horror.
When they announced a prequel I first thought: why? Why do a prequel to such a crappy film which was poorly received by critics and moviegoers? Why not just come up with something origin....hold on, we've heard this before haven't we? Anyway they went ahead with it and we have this, a movie for intents and purposes does not deserve to be this good!
Annabelle: Creation shocked the hell out of me, and not just because it was scary, it was actually good. Yes there may be a reliance on jump scares and characters making silly decisions, and generally there are minimal surprises in the plot but what makes this movie good is solid cast, choice of setting and director David Sandberg's confidence in scaring us. Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto add a touch of class to an already solid cast, which makes the proceedings that much more interesting when you have characters you actually care about. Lulu Wilson and Talitha Bateman, the two young orphans who become the target of the doll, give great performances. The movie really rests on these two young girls, and the scares revolve around them, so kudos to these two for such a good job.
The country setting is used very well here, the house is a character on its own and the certain scenes that solely rely on this house to scare really work. David Sandberg directed last year's Lights Out, a very successful film critically and with many horror fans. Although I found it only average I could see potential in many scenes. I think Sandberg has found his breakthrough film, or at the very least cemented himself as someone to look out for. He definitely knows what is scary, and how to use light to his advantage. The way certain scenes are framed to show us only certain things, or make us think we see something we don't is particular clever.
Annabelle: Creation will not win any awards and nor is it the best horror film of the year but what it is is scary and at the end of the day, isn't this what horror is all about?
7.5/10
When they announced a prequel I first thought: why? Why do a prequel to such a crappy film which was poorly received by critics and moviegoers? Why not just come up with something origin....hold on, we've heard this before haven't we? Anyway they went ahead with it and we have this, a movie for intents and purposes does not deserve to be this good!
Annabelle: Creation shocked the hell out of me, and not just because it was scary, it was actually good. Yes there may be a reliance on jump scares and characters making silly decisions, and generally there are minimal surprises in the plot but what makes this movie good is solid cast, choice of setting and director David Sandberg's confidence in scaring us. Anthony LaPaglia and Miranda Otto add a touch of class to an already solid cast, which makes the proceedings that much more interesting when you have characters you actually care about. Lulu Wilson and Talitha Bateman, the two young orphans who become the target of the doll, give great performances. The movie really rests on these two young girls, and the scares revolve around them, so kudos to these two for such a good job.
The country setting is used very well here, the house is a character on its own and the certain scenes that solely rely on this house to scare really work. David Sandberg directed last year's Lights Out, a very successful film critically and with many horror fans. Although I found it only average I could see potential in many scenes. I think Sandberg has found his breakthrough film, or at the very least cemented himself as someone to look out for. He definitely knows what is scary, and how to use light to his advantage. The way certain scenes are framed to show us only certain things, or make us think we see something we don't is particular clever.
Annabelle: Creation will not win any awards and nor is it the best horror film of the year but what it is is scary and at the end of the day, isn't this what horror is all about?
7.5/10
A brief foreword: Stephen King's It remains my favourite horror novel ever since I read it 13 years ago. It terrified me then and terrifies me still. I always wondered how they could adapt this huge 1000+ page novel into a well-made, scary film. In 1990 a miniseries was released and unfortunately failed miserably. As much as I like Tim Curry as Pennywise and the flashback scenes the series is generally terrible and fails to do the book justice.
Enter this adaptation which, while not 100% faithful, captures the essence of the book. The film is set in the 80's, not 50's, and follows only the parts of the novel that deal with the group as children (rather than flashing forward and back). A few other parts of the novel are changed or left out which I won't go into much detail about so as not to spoil anything. Some of the omissions I can understand, others are slightly disappointing as I think they would have made the film scarier.
Briefly, the film follows The Losers Club, a group of seven children who face day-to-day challenges of overprotective, ignorant or abusive parents while trying not to get eaten by a shape-shifting entity that often takes the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown.
The movie's biggest strength lies in the casting. The group of child actors are just so fantastic and an absolute pleasure to watch. In fact, I could just watch a movie about their antics without any of the horrors for hours. The actors give life to such an eclectic group of children and they deserve all the praise they are getting. Bill Skarsgard absolutely nails Pennywise, rather than Tim Curry's more human looking version, Skarsgard appears demonic and alien from the get go (also thanks to a fantastic SFX team).
Thanks to cinematographer Chung Hoon Chung It looks beautiful, every shot feels carefully framed, clearly a lot of effort was put into making this so. Everything from the opening scene with Georgie running through the rainy streets of Derry to the children playing in the quarry could be framed a work of art.
Andres Muschietti is the man behind all this and I must respect his vision for It, even if others may not see it or agree with it. Previously he has directed Mama, a fairly standard horror film and not in the same league as this. Maybe this was a special project for him, whatever the case this is a massive improvement and a fantastic showcase for his directing abilities.
As I mentioned earlier the screenplay deviates slightly from the source, generally not to the movies detriment. However, it feels somewhat light on scares and tends to focus more on "Stand By Me" type scenes. If there is one thing I would have liked more of is scares but not at the expense of spending time with the characters. The films running time is over 2 hours but this goes so quickly a few more scenes of horror wouldn't have gone astray. What is there is genuinely frightening with some scenes more effective than others. The film is not overly graphic (I expected more honestly) but stays true to some key scenes, particularly young Georgie's famous encounter at the beginning. What I did find interesting is the stories focus not only as It as the villain but the adults almost like secondary villains. Aware of the evil present but preferring to turn the blind eye. This idea stood out quite prominently, and further highlighted the children's struggles, which in turn makes the film even more satisfying come the credits.
Ever since I read It I dreamed of what a film adaptation would be like, and how scary it could be. This may not be exactly what I pictured, and there are things I would have done differently, but as it stands this is an excellent film. A beautiful blend of drama and horror with a group of lovable kids and a terrifying villain. This is easily one of the best King adaptations put to screen and quite simply a high quality horror film, something I haven't seen in some time. Consider me thoroughly excited for Chapter Two, and for The Losers Club to confront It one last time.
9/10
Enter this adaptation which, while not 100% faithful, captures the essence of the book. The film is set in the 80's, not 50's, and follows only the parts of the novel that deal with the group as children (rather than flashing forward and back). A few other parts of the novel are changed or left out which I won't go into much detail about so as not to spoil anything. Some of the omissions I can understand, others are slightly disappointing as I think they would have made the film scarier.
Briefly, the film follows The Losers Club, a group of seven children who face day-to-day challenges of overprotective, ignorant or abusive parents while trying not to get eaten by a shape-shifting entity that often takes the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown.
The movie's biggest strength lies in the casting. The group of child actors are just so fantastic and an absolute pleasure to watch. In fact, I could just watch a movie about their antics without any of the horrors for hours. The actors give life to such an eclectic group of children and they deserve all the praise they are getting. Bill Skarsgard absolutely nails Pennywise, rather than Tim Curry's more human looking version, Skarsgard appears demonic and alien from the get go (also thanks to a fantastic SFX team).
Thanks to cinematographer Chung Hoon Chung It looks beautiful, every shot feels carefully framed, clearly a lot of effort was put into making this so. Everything from the opening scene with Georgie running through the rainy streets of Derry to the children playing in the quarry could be framed a work of art.
Andres Muschietti is the man behind all this and I must respect his vision for It, even if others may not see it or agree with it. Previously he has directed Mama, a fairly standard horror film and not in the same league as this. Maybe this was a special project for him, whatever the case this is a massive improvement and a fantastic showcase for his directing abilities.
As I mentioned earlier the screenplay deviates slightly from the source, generally not to the movies detriment. However, it feels somewhat light on scares and tends to focus more on "Stand By Me" type scenes. If there is one thing I would have liked more of is scares but not at the expense of spending time with the characters. The films running time is over 2 hours but this goes so quickly a few more scenes of horror wouldn't have gone astray. What is there is genuinely frightening with some scenes more effective than others. The film is not overly graphic (I expected more honestly) but stays true to some key scenes, particularly young Georgie's famous encounter at the beginning. What I did find interesting is the stories focus not only as It as the villain but the adults almost like secondary villains. Aware of the evil present but preferring to turn the blind eye. This idea stood out quite prominently, and further highlighted the children's struggles, which in turn makes the film even more satisfying come the credits.
Ever since I read It I dreamed of what a film adaptation would be like, and how scary it could be. This may not be exactly what I pictured, and there are things I would have done differently, but as it stands this is an excellent film. A beautiful blend of drama and horror with a group of lovable kids and a terrifying villain. This is easily one of the best King adaptations put to screen and quite simply a high quality horror film, something I haven't seen in some time. Consider me thoroughly excited for Chapter Two, and for The Losers Club to confront It one last time.
9/10