OH Empire (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Joelrobinson -> OH Empire (15/4/2011 12:59:24 AM)

I think I will definitely start getting my reviews elsewhere, just cant please these fucking critics.




adambatman82 -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 1:24:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: vad3r


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

It is going to take a lot for a movie to beat Black Swan as best horror of the year.



Black Swan is a (psychological) drama. Not a horror.


It is a horror in the same way that Rosemerys Baby is a horror, and the same way Suspiria is a horror. People just forget what this sort of A-Picture horror movie is like.




I've not heard of anyone involved with film or any reviewer call it a horror.



And yet that is what it is. And plenty of reviewers have called it a horror film.



I interviewed Aronofsky and Cronenberg and Rosemary's Baby were two of the big reference points for me, and he agreed fully. Cronenberg-esque body-horror has been a major calling card of Aronofsky's since Pi, and is one of his big influences.

Re- "No reviewers referring to the film as horror". Check out this piece from Devin Faraci. The clue is in the title of the review -

http://www.badassdigest.com/2010/12/17/review-black-swan-is-the-best-horror-movie-of-the-year-and-the-best-art-movie-too

I also get paid to write about films, and referred to it as a horror film in my review. I won't link it, because I know the mods aren't keen on that sort of thing. Oh, and Empire themselves referred to the horror. -

With its under-the-counter trade in body horror the bone-fracturing realities insidiously supplanted by arguably over-literal daymares of toes fusing into webbed fowl feet and dark down jabbing through skin

And if that wasn't enough evidence stacked up, Vanity Fair already answered this question. -
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/12/is-black-swan-a-horror-movie-and-24-other-urgent-questions.html




odddaze -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 1:32:05 AM)

Honestly, next to comedy, I think Horror is the most opinion splitting genre, there is so much love and hate for all horror films. I kinda know I'm going to like this movie, it's one that was tailor made for me, the 2 star review does not scare me.

Black Swan can definitely be described as a horror film, it's one of the things that makes so damn good.




craighepworth -> This review is so wrong (15/4/2011 5:34:19 AM)

Saw a screening of this a few days ago and this review could not be more wrong. This is by far the best Scream Movie since the first one and is packed with witty converstation an inane opening and clever finale. Its bloodier and more full on then any of the other films and has a clever and witty charm about it. The new cast are brilliant (Hayden and Emma do great), the regular cast are superb (Campbell really comes in to her own at the end of the film) and the explanation at the end is a clever dig at online media and fame. It looses some suspense however due to the comedy and thats a shame but the kills are good and the cinematographey is fantasic.




zombiewarehouse -> This review is garbage (but may be a self referential parody of the reviewers own reviews) (15/4/2011 10:29:27 AM)

Calling the Saw movies imaginitive is wrong on so many levels that I cannot believe I just read that. I think the reviewer has tried to be clever here.... he's actually tried to pull off a self referential, parody of his own reviews here. I think he's greatly mistaken as Scream 4 is a solid flick that is a million times more imaginative than any of the Saw movies. I'd be interested in Kim Newmans thoughts.




fraser1978 -> (15/4/2011 10:45:57 AM)

Judging by the majority of comments and people,s reviews on IMDB it looks like Empire have got it wrong again. However, I have not seen it yet so cannot agree or disagree. I just get the feeling that I'm gonna love this film!




dee123 -> Really? (15/4/2011 12:15:00 PM)

Do i have to remind you people gave SCREAM 3 three stars, in NO way shape or form is number four worse. See ya Empire I'm going to Total Film.




MonsterCat -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 12:57:31 PM)

Got round to seeing it this morning, and even though I thought it was the weakest of the series so far, I still had fun with it. It's a tightly constructed movie that moves along at a good pace and I enjoyed figuring out who might be the killer this time round, but it lacks the big scares of parts 1 and 2 and the Sidney, Gale and Dewey characters were merely blanks simply going through the motions. In fact, the movie should of gone off in a different direction into a new universe with an entirely new cast of characters in order to keep things fresh.

The other characters were fairly bland slasher fodder, but I enjoyed Hayden Pantierre's (sp?) performance, and I found Alison Brie to be cute and fun.

I'm assuming that Craven, Williamson and Dimension will want to make Scream 5 and Scream 6 if 4 makes a sufficient amount of money at the box office, but they will have to pull a genius move to stop the franchise becoming stale.




Gkel -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 12:58:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


It is a horror in the same way that Rosemerys Baby is a horror, and the same way Suspiria is a horror. People just forget what this sort of A-Picture horror movie is like.



** I think the definitions of horror or thriller can get murky but Horror as a genre usually encompasses things like witchcraft or grisly murders or serial killing-my memory on those films are sketchy but I know it had the supernatural as a real element of the story. I am not sure about the body count. I dont think Black Swan can be called  horror in a strict definition sense of the genre unless the transformations are real and not imagined.
The transformations in Cronenberg's early films were  real. Body horror/science fiction-horror.

Psycho gets classified as horror (sometimes) without supernatural elements  but it has grisly murders and corpse collecting.

I havent seen Black Swan but if it has no serial murders and only delusions, that makes it psychological drama or maybe suspense no matter how disturbing or horrific those transformations are.

Scream has serial murders so its horror (or horror comedy or a thriller).

Then again Seven had serial murders and corpses but I dont see that called horror.
Maybe because it revolves around police detective work.






tonethestone -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 1:19:03 PM)

Just seen this, loved it, as good as original, reviews coming out this wk have in the main been 4/5, looks like Empire were not invited to the Premiere.




MonsterCat -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 1:23:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tonethestone

Just seen this, loved it, as good as original, reviews coming out this wk have in the main been 4/5, looks like Empire were not invited to the Premiere.


No, they gave it two stars because Wes Craven gave Chris Hewitt an atomic wedgie.




ElephantBoy -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 2:09:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Also its Wes "When did he last make a decent movie" Craven, and the fourth installment of a horror franchise. It ain't exactly going to be a shock if this isn't good.



Red Eye was fun. Well, I thought it was anyway.

Right you are Redeye was a fine piece of work, but besides that his output was very patchy as of late, I hope that changes with the new Scream film.




losthighway -> SCRE4M Review (15/4/2011 2:41:25 PM)

***SPOILERS***

I'm angry. VERY angry! You won't like me when i'm angry... just ask HR!! I've just come back from seeing this film. It's the fourth in a franchise that I love, and that I felt had a storyline which was nicely wrapped up at the end of a trilogy, yet here we are for part 4. I was open to a fourth, i was sceptical but i was open... Well, the pre-credits sequence sort of works, it's fun to see Stab 7 popping up on screen and the film within a film within a film sort of works. Then we move onto the main story and watch as new and old characters spout yet more postmodern lingo about remakes, reboots and the like and yet all the time, you just don't engage with any of them - including Sydney, Gale and Dewey. In fact, that's my main problem with SCRE4M, it lampoons all these supposedly inferior remakes/reboots and yet actually falls into the trap of being inferior than most of them, e.g. the TCSM remake is more enjoyable than this film; even SAW (which i'm not a fan of) is more fun! You don't care about any of the characters as they get bumped off one after the other after the other after the other. The new rules state that the unexpected is the new norm but i'm afraid it just makes it the new bore! As the ending inevitably chugs along (and admittedly you haven't a clue who killer is), but when the big reveal does come along, it's a bit 'oh is that it!' and so a fourth section of the film ensues where we're taken into new Scream territory - the killer POV. However, the film then wraps itself up rather quickly with everyone dead and an overall ending which backs the entire franchise into a narrative cul-de-sac (and something which shits all over the wonderful ending of the woefully under-rated Scream 3 (believe me, Ehren did us proud after this installment!))... One of the remaining cast says at the end (to the killer) - 'you forgot the golden rule of remakes, never fuck with the original' - QUITE!!! I'm afraid to say you leave the cinema thinking what a totally and utterly pointless, shameless cash-in this whole film has been. It's not a bad film, it's just a totally pointless one. Definately a watch once and forget it ever existed affair.

Overall: 2.5/5




guypb -> A better end to the Trilogy (15/4/2011 3:28:37 PM)

Just saw it - not as good as 1 & 2, but WAY better than 3!
Stick the 3 Williamson Screams back to back and you have a great trilogy (which I think was probably the intent) - now it's time to call it a day though.




amgm98 -> 2 stars is extremely harsh (15/4/2011 3:35:50 PM)

I'd ideally give it a 3 and a half. waaaay better than the third film, not nearly as good as the first two. Most people will guess the twist, but then the fun is not knowing for sure. Most knew the twist of the first film to be honest. Really loved the killers motive, thought that was quite inventive with what they did with the cast by the end of the film . A few moments seemed a bit too scary movie though - still not sure about the opening.

Anyway, terrible review. Total Film is more on the money with theirs.

edited out spoilers.




theoriginalcynic -> RE: 2 stars is extremely harsh (15/4/2011 4:05:49 PM)

No spoilers! Scream 4 is superb - ignore the BS Empire review (go and see it!)

It's as good as part two, not quite as good as the original.  Best line - from Sydney (that's not a spoiler.)




theoriginalcynic -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 4:06:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

IGN have rated it four stars, Total film three stars.

This is a terrible review. It doesn't even sound like he's watched it.




And you have?

Also its Wes "When did he last make a decent movie" Craven, and the fourth installment of a horror franchise. It ain't exactly going to be a shock if this isn't good.



I'm not being paid to review the film.  And yes I have seen it now (see above)




straight2dvd -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 4:07:15 PM)

I really enjoyed Scream 4 (Saw it earlier today) and I would say it definately isn't on same par as the first but it is as good as the second and way better than part 3. For me, it had some genuinely cool "scream" moments (the opening alone is worth the price of the ticket) and the humour is as it should be. I think Neve Campbell felt a little bored of the role but Courtney Cox clearly enjoyed bringing Gale Weathers back to the franchise. The eventual reveal is a little difficult to swallow personally because you don't quite get the motivation behind wanting to kill the people. Overall, I would give it 7/10. I would really hope they do make this a new trilogy but given the poor ratings it has been given I think this movie franchise is as dead as Ghostface...




straight2dvd -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 4:11:54 PM)

One thing I will say is that if I was to make Scream 4, I would have had Gale, Dewey and Sidney all cark it in the opening scenes and then expand on the new younger generation characters. I haven't spoilt anything with this post so don't worry...




theoriginalcynic -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 4:13:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr Grady

quote:

ORIGINAL: theoriginalcynic

IGN have rated it four stars, Total film three stars.

This is a terrible review. It doesn't even sound like he's watched it.




That's absurd.  Is the reviewer supposed to just agree with the others?  Do you?

This is one persons opinion, thousands will have their's. 



Where did I say he had to agree with them? I didn't. My point was, it didn't sound like he'd seen the movie.  He says, after the inventiveness of saw, a killer with a knife isn't scary and it's boring.  If someone broke into his house with a knife, wouldn't he think it was scary?

The saw movies are terrible. 




CasualLuke -> This Review is too Harsh! (15/4/2011 4:16:24 PM)

All anyone needs to know is that if you enjoyed the original trilogy at all, you will no doubt enjoy this aswell. It follows the same formula with a few new twists to seperate it from the other three films. I saw it this morning and thoroughly enjoyed it!




vipey -> Past Post-Modernism (15/4/2011 4:49:11 PM)

Not bad, but not great. I'm afraid that the knowing, ironical, post-modern horror movie is long since dead - so why try to resurrect it here. For a movie like this to really work - you have to care about the characters and Craven and Williamson clearly don't - they're too busy trying to show how clever they are. Still, there are a few effective scares and a few laughs. But overall, the feeling is one of ho-hum.




The REAL Bozz -> RE: Past Post-Modernism (15/4/2011 5:32:18 PM)

V.good. It's the best out of the sequels. If you enjoy this kind of film I'd be surprised if it managed to dissapoint. As a fan of the series I was shocked at who made it and who got the chop. Also the reveal at the end left me with my jaw on the ground. Never saw it coming. Difficult to go into specifics due to the nature of the plot.




xlostxjoeyx -> (15/4/2011 6:45:10 PM)

Just saw it. It is no Scream 1, but is on par with Scream 2. I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. It is not particularly scary, but is a fun thrill ride with a satisfying ending.

Two stars from Empire is totally wrong. It's a solid 3 stars, if not 4.




skeletonjack -> RE: (15/4/2011 7:08:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xlostxjoeyx

Just saw it. It is no Scream 1, but is on par with Scream 2. I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. It is not particularly scary, but is a fun thrill ride with a satisfying ending.

Two stars from Empire is totally wrong. It's a solid 3 stars, if not 4.


I pretty much agree with that word for word.
The biggest problem for me is the same problem I had with the other Scream films, which is once Ghost Face is finally unmasked it goes on a little bit too long.
I'm being picky though, this is a welcome return to form from Craven.




fuzzy -> RE: Scream 4 (15/4/2011 9:55:12 PM)

Just seen it today, and it's definitely (as most on here have said) on a par with the first couple and better with the third IMO. I guess that's why people see the 2 star review as a bit harsh.

And this rating even comes after having to endure watching the film with 30-odd annoying teens (most under 15) who pretty much talked, shouted, joked and texted their way through all 111 mins of it. Maybe there was subliminal enjoyment from the fact that the movie featured annoying teens getting slaughtered. I really should check when the local schools break up before booking my next ticket. [:@]




tysmuse -> fun (15/4/2011 10:16:39 PM)

Good fun, if you're in a forgiving mood. I like the intro, thought it was clever. The phone calls are a little less scary, but Ghostface still reels off some great lines. Couple of cool set-pieces. It's just a shame it's NEVER scary. I thought the post-modern stuff was very well handled, lots of nice jokes (the one about Cox and Arquette's marriage was great!) The problems are the same that Scream 3 had: it doesn't actually stick to the formula that 1 and 2 set. And again, just like 3, once the killer of killers are revealed, they are not scary, unlike the first 2 where they were still engaging characters. Also the climax of this one is a lot silly. But personally, as long as I saw Ghostface killing people, I was happy.




DJ Satan -> Great fun! (15/4/2011 11:20:19 PM)

Just as good as the first 2 and way better than the third. The intro was fantastic, the scrip nice and sharp. The only downside was the lack of balls in giving it the ending it deserved.




moritz -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 11:40:39 PM)

Saw this earlier today and really enjoyed it; not as good as the first two but definitely better than Scream 3. The teen cast were alright, of the lot Culkin and Panittiere were the best and most developed.
The high body count seemed needless when the running time could have been used to extend the better sequences of the film (in particular the Barn scene), increasing the stakes and more importantly the scares. It also meant meant that by the start of the third act you had pretty much worked out one of the killers as the list of potential suspects dwindles.
Given the performances there were a couple of the new characters that could have really excelled given meatier roles (McDonnell especially) and worked more logically as the killer in my view.
Going against the Empire review, I was glad about the style of killings; generally fast, ferocious and involving a knife. For me they play into the main appeal of these films for me, the killer isn't Michael Myers it's just a human being- they can be easily hurt and they can be killed .
It's worth going to watch if you're a fan already but this is most certainly not a reboot and it probably won't create a new generation of fans. Though there probably will be a Scream 5.

SIDE NOTE: Yes it has a 15 rating, but that doesn't mean that it's any less bloody than the previous instalments, it just means that after a decade of Saw and the 'extreme' horror films what once was extreme now appears tame. There probably something ironic in that...




theoriginalcynic -> RE: RE: (15/4/2011 11:52:02 PM)

Spoilers to follow!!!

--------------------------------------------------------

Spoilers to follow!!!

--------------------------------------------------------

I'd give it four stars.  But I didn't like the part when Hayden's character went to the barn (after her friend had just been killed - really?) and it was too obvious that Sydney wasn't dead (the killer would have known that!) They should have killed Sid off this time (that would have been a shock) and it would have been better if the blonde had taken the bullet to the head.  But over all, it was a much better follow up than expected (as good as scream 2)




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125