prequel set before the haunting of the Lambert family that reveals how gifted
psychic Elise Rainier reluctantly agrees to use her ability to contact the dead
in order to help a teenage girl who has been targeted by a dangerous
Dermot Mulroney, Stefanie Scott, Angus Sampson, and Lin Shaye
and directed by: Leigh Whannell
audiences to something very creepy, and extremely weird. "Insidious:
Chapter 2" followed that up almost reaching that same level of creepiness,
but really not explaining much more about 'the Further.' Enter "Insidious:
Chapter 3," the prequel that supposedly will fill in some of those blanks.
Yes, they went the prequel route to offer audiences something more, but did
Lets start with what many fans,
including myself, want to know more about...'the Further.' Obviously there's
some venturing into 'the Further,' as there is in the previous movies. However,
it's a great disappointment because nothing new is learned about it. It's still
creepy and weird, but that's it. For me, it's the one thing I really wanted out
of this movie, and it failed to deliver.
That doesn't mean it's a complete
waste. If audience's like Elise (Lin Shaye), then they might enjoy the look at her
character before what happens in the previous movies. They give her a little
back-story that would have be nice to give to 'the Further.' Audiences will see
her confronted by the strange woman in the dress, and how she meets the two
ghost hunters who become her co-workers. The audience gets to see a little
about where they come from as well.
Since this is before the Lambert
family, the attention is on the Brenner family, more specifically the teenaged
daughter Quinn (Stefanie Scott). Her trouble starts when she tries to reach her
mother, who's passed away. She visits Elise for help, but that only makes
things worse. Something is out to get her, and Elise has to overcome her own
struggles in order to save her. Stefanie does a decent job in her leading role,
but Dermot Mulroney, who plays Sean Brenner, fails to show he’s a father that’s
genuinely concerned about his daughter.
As far as scares and creepiness, the
entity that haunts Quinn is creepy in its own right. There are several
unsettling scenes of Quinn along side of the entity. One of the best scenes
comes when Quinn is possessed by the entity, and attacks the people who are
trying to help her. There aren't many scares, except for something that comes
out of nowhere to make quite an impact. It might get some of the audience off
their seats. As mentioned, the woman in a dress makes her presence felt, but
doesn't seem as scary this time around.
While "Insidious: Chapter 3"
isn't a bad movie, it just feels as if something is missing from it. Could that
be James Wan? The movie is creepy, but not quite the same as the others. Could
it be the back-story for 'the Further' that some people wanted to know? That is
certainly a possibility. Did it feel as if this chapter is really necessary
after watching it? While it does give some back-story, again it's missing the
most important back-story. The most telling sign that it isn't necessary is the
weak ending in their attempts to connect it to chapter 1. With that said, I
give it 2.5 pools of blood.
family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to
rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive.
Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie DeWitt, and Kennedi Clements
by: David Lindsay-Abaire, and Steven Spielberg (story)
As a horror fan, it continues to be a
struggle to find a movie that truly scares me. At a much younger age, the
original "Poltergeist" did plenty to scare me. While the remake
didn't scare me, it was good to see it scare others in the theater. It
apparently did for them what the original did for me, but was this
"Poltergeist" remake a good movie?
Knowing the story already, it's hard to
find anything surprising. The family moves in, paranormal stuff starts happening
to Madison (Kennedi Clements), all hell breaks loose when she disappears, the
family brings in people to help, and then they try to rescue Madison. What is
surprising is the continued need to inject some light comedy into the movie.
Whether it's a comment from the dad, or something fun that happens to one of
the kids, it really takes away any chance of sustaining any kind of tension.
The story seems to move kind of fast,
which is all right, but it didn't really let the audience get a connection with
all of the family members. It feels like the audience gets to know the parents
some, their son Griffin (Kyle Catlett) maybe a little more, but not so much
with Madison. The problem here is that when the ghosts take Madison, the
audience isn't going to be on the edge of their seats for her safe return. The
only real reason they are going to want her back is because she's a cute little
girl, and maybe they feel bad for the family.
So what did some of the people in the
theater find scary? Well, there's a tense scene where one of the ghost hunters
is trying to set up equipment in a room, and gets his hand stuck in the wall.
Too bad for him the ghosts are on the other side of the wall. The scene is ok,
but probably ends with more hardcore horror fans wanting a bloodier ending. The
best scene is probably when Griffin is flying a drone where all of the ghosts
are. The audience gets to see them crawling all over themselves, and it looks
pretty awesome. However, again it doesn't produce much in the way of scares.
Overall, the best way to describe this
"Poltergeist" remake is that it's a much much lighter version of the
original. The story is pretty much the same. The family structure is the same.
The ghosts try to do the same thing to Madison. The big difference is that the
scares aren't scary enough, and they add too many comedic moments. However, I'm
happy it did scare some people, but it's just not going to scare hardcore
horror fans. The movie itself is ok, so I give this it 2 pools of blood.
(Note: I wrote this review trying not to get into many direct
comparisons with the original because I'm sure there are plenty of those kind
of reviews out there. You don't need to me to go compare each thing in the
movie to the original, and complain about how it's not the same.)
a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, two rebels just might be
able to restore order: Max, a man of action and of few words, and Furiosa, a
woman of action who is looking to make it back to her childhood homeland.
Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, and Nicholas Hoult
by: George Miller
by: George Miller, and Brendan McCarthy
What an action packed adventure!
"Mad Max: Fury Road" has everything an audience could want in a
high-speed chase across an apocalyptic desert. Lets start with the vehicles.
Furisoa (Charlize Theron) drives one mean War Rig. It looks like one of those
typical trucks that carry oil, but it's fixed up to be a well defended, fast
moving machine. It's a great choice because it has plenty of room for the characters
to run up and down, fight on top of, and climb underneath.
And what does it have to defend itself
against? How about dune buggies covered in spikes? They almost look like
porcupines on wheels. Of course there's a monster truck doing what monster
trucks do. And then there's a biker gang speeding all around, and launching
their motorcycles through the sky. Oh, and no one will forget the Doof Wagon
carrying the guitarist with a flaming guitar. Where do they come up with these
Speaking of crazy things, the whole set
up in the city before the chase begins is weird. There are all kinds of strange
people including the leader Immortan Joe (Hugh
Keays-Byrne). He has woman connected to machines giving their breast milk, an
army of guys who are as white as milk, and a hulked up right hand man. However,
not everyone is ugly. Joe has several good-looking wives locked up for himself
until Furisoa decides to do something about it.
Then there's Mad Max (Tom Hardy). These
crazy people capture him, and soon after chain him to the front of a car when
the chase begins. The only reason he survives that chaotic scene is because
he's the main character. Actually, it's kind of surprising that the story seems
to be based more on Furisoa's actions than Max's. The audience also gets to
know a lot more about her than Max. However, it's still a great story, and
there seems to be plenty more to be told in another movie.
But that's getting way ahead of
ourselves. Lets talk about that ending chase through the desert. It's like all
of the previous chase scenes times two! Cars are crashing, and people are dying
left and right! It has Max jumping from car to car fending of bad guys. Hell,
he's even grabbed and swung through the air by these guys on poles that are
swinging back and forth over the cars. And then there's the moment the audience
waited for the entire time… a close encounter with the guitarist!
As for the acting, Charlize does an
excellent job in her role as a strong rebellious woman. Whether it's her or a
stunt double, her character is involved in plenty of action, and they are
terrific. Tom doesn't seem to have many lines, but also handles the action
scenes well. Nicholas Hoult, who fans might remember from "Warm
Bodies", is almost unrecognizable in his strong supporting role as Nux.
“Mad Max: Fury Road” is an action
packed movie from start to finish. Just as the action dies down, another
exciting scene is just about to start. It has all kinds of bizarre people
driving vehicles hell bent on taking out their enemies. The story, and acting
top it all off. It looks like this is just the beginning of an awesome trilogy,
so I give it 4 pools of blood!