mathijsschaap

Last Saturday we went to see "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" in the cinema and it touched me very much.

Now, I'm a nerd who's all about the details, so I can complain. The mini Marshmallow men for example. In the original 1984 movie, the marshmallow man was a once created entity: a force of destruction that took shape as a result of Ray Stantz's choice. For that reason, the marshmallow men should never be in another Ghostbusters movie. But they're so much fun and cute, that it's totally forgivable. They also reminded me of the Gremlins.

Bob Gunton is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. As Egon Spengler in the beginning of the movie, he's totally unrecognizable, but he did a terrific job.

I loved the references to the cartoon as well, especially the Bug-Eye Ghost: I had the toy when I was a kid.

Bringing Egon Spengler back as a ghost, because Harold Ramis passed away in 2014, was done in the only good way. It was a very smart decision not making him speak. It was moving, chilling and beautiful. This is how a heartwarming tribute should be done. It moved me very much.

The special effects are amazing. When watching the 1984 original nowadays, a lot of the special effects have not stood the test of time. This movie never ceases to amaze in its special effects.

But I missed Rick Moranis. The duel between Gozer and Phoebe reminded me of Voldemort vs Harry Potter.

Let's remember that no one can recreate the 1984 movie. The charm, humor and well balanced ingredients could not even be repeated by the same people involved. We all know what a mess "Ghostbusters II (1989)" was and this one is so much better.

A perfect film for a sequel to a legendary movie.

Every scary scene is predictable and this movie relies on repeating formula's of the previous two movies.

Vera Farmiga again plays the clairvoyant, but powerless Lorraine Warren with her droopy, melancholic mimics and relies once again on the abilities of her husband.

There is absolutely no character development of Ed and Lorraine Warren.

It misses the James Wan touch and it is filled with cliches. This movie has no build up in suspense and is fueled with jump scares.

Nevertheless, this is a good movie. Good enough for a part 3. We saw it in cinema last night. However, I doubt it will be a good movie when you see it again or watch it at home, where it will not have the same impact.

This movie was nice to watch once. But it's many plot holes, continuity problems and anything but an original story all aimed at a younger audience makes it a mess that you don't want to watch again.

Let me start by saying I did not mind John Connor's death at all. It's what this franchise needed in the first place, just like Halloween's need to change the brother-sister subject. Since Edward Furlong, not one actor could replace him portraying John Connor.

I don't know why, but the first half of the movie, I could not stop wondering why Tim was not in this movie. You know: John Connor's ginger friend. He was pushed aside by the T-1000 in T2. Tim must have felt that exact moment how cold this T-1000 was, no human warmth at all. It would have been a logical choice to make Tim the new hero of the future. Actor Danny Cooksey is still out there, acting and all. It would have been possible.

The action scenes were terrific and kept me on the edge of my seat, which I did not expect at all.

It has its flaws. An REV-9 apologizing for destroying a shed? He's a cold killing machine, for crying out loud. Terminators never apologize.

But all in all, this movie is a very good sequel to T2. Nice to see they've made a collection of the good things from T3, T-Genisys, Salvation and the tv-series.

Lena Heady did a great job portraying Sarah Connor, but Linda Hamilton will always be the original loved one. Emilia Clarke however was a lame Sarah.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's part is exactly right in this one. I had a hard time accepting the fact a T-800 can produce offspring, but he moved me with the line 'This time, I won't be back'.

I've been a fan of the Terminator for 35 years now. I absolutely love this one also.

This is an enjoyable movie. Yes, it's predictable in the way that within the first 10 minutes, you'll know the way the story goes in this movie. But, come on... It's Bumblebee! You just gotta love him. It's the best Transformer movie so far. Michael Bay is not involved in directing, which is a good thing. We need more Transformer movies like this one.

Today, fort he first time since it's realease 30 years ago, I watched this movie. Being a fan of the first two, I had to see it of course. I expected the worst, but like the first 30 minutes, it was not as bad as I expected. It has some beautiful shots. It was very nice to see Ralph and Pat together again. But in the end, the whole movie sucks. It has major flaws. Ralph Macchio looks too tall besides Pat Morita this time, his face looks like he's on prednison and he's acting like he's on energy drink the whole time. His female sidekick cannot act at all and is just throwing out her lines as if she's reading it from a card. Pat Morita's 'karate skills' are really bad and the difference between his portrayal as Mr. Miyagi and Fumio Demura's portrayal in the action scenes is way too obvious. Pat Morita's alcohol problems show through his performance really bad this time.

There is no character development, but in reverse. These portrayals look like a degeneration compared to the characters in the first two movies.

Other characters are untrue, unconvincing and way too stereotype to accept. Everything seems rushed, unpracticed and amateuristic. Martin Kove's presence is an insult to this gifted actor.

Nobody asked fort his movie and it was never necessary. But it wasn't as bad as 'The Next Karate Kid'.

The end credits are still rolling while I start writing this. Watched it for the first time, and I loved it.

John C. Reilly to me never was just 'that guy' in acting, and I always knew who he was and which movies he was in. This movie is the one he deserved. Portraying Oliver Hardy is something only he could have done.

Steve Coogan as Stan Laurel to me -at first- was not a convincing idea, but I was wrong. He does not resemble Stan Laurel as much as John C. Reilly resembles Oliver Hardy, but his voice is exactly like Stan Laurel's voice. John C. Reilly's voice is not quite similar to Oliver Hardy's voice.

Both fail to own some little comedic mannerisms that the real Laurel & Hardy had many times, but as the movie continues, they get better at it.

The movie made me cry. Why? I do not know exactly, but probably because my father is such a Laurel & Hardy fan. My father is still alive, but his health is declining for a long time now, so maybe watching Oliver Hardy's health declining made me emotional about the hard truth of reality in human nature in general, especially of my loved ones - and my father especially.

The movie pays respect to Stan & Ollie without becoming overdramatic. It's realistic, yet light-hearted and worth an applause.

Yesterday we watched it on Netflix, after looking forward to it for over a year. It's a dissapointment. How Jesse's story continues seems more like a 'deleted scenes' summary. His story could have been told within 10 minutes.

We're tremendous 'Breaking Bad'-fans, but characters we love so much barely share screentime. Bryan Cranston's appearance as Walt is the most disappointing as he's obviously wearing a bald-cap.

The movie was over before I knew it. I still was expecting something big to happen, and then the movie was already over.

It's a letdown.

As a kid, I was an E.T.-emo kid. Owned the puppets, boardgame etc. The movie touched me many times.

As an adult, I'm done with it. Why? First of all, I never liked the character of Elliot. He's a depressing kid, not enjoyable to watch and a character that doesn't even try to make the best of the situation he and his family are at the moment.

As Robert Englund once said about the ANOES-remake: You never should start a movie with kids who are already depressed. I think this goes for E.T. as well. There's nothing to like or identify with in Elliot.

That being said, I have to talk about the 2002 digital 'upgrades' by Spielberg. The first one in the movie is a good one: E.T. running towards the space-ship, being chased by Keys and his gang, used to be just a stiff doll on a tracking rail. The digital upgrade is a very good improvement.

But the rest of the digital upgrades are trash. Everybody knows about the walkie-talkies being replacements for the guns. Even Spielberg himself regrets that today. But the worst are the scenes in which the beloved alien is replaced by a digital version of him. The animated E.T. acts and behaves way different than the puppet versions and moves as if the laws of nature towards physical life do not count for his part. The additional scenes add nothing to the movie. I was looking forward to them when I first heard about it, but they were a letdown.

Because of these reasons I have grown to dislike E.T. Except for the soundtrack by John Williams. Listeneing to that is a time-travel trip back to 1982 when as a kid I was enachented by the magic of this movie. Thank you, John Williams!

I'm a Tarantino fan. Nothing special about that, but I have to admit I didn't enjoy 'The Hateful Eight' at all. That one was a letdown.

But 'Once upon a time' is Tarantino at his best. Leo DiCaprio portrays an actor who has had his golden years, but in the end turns out to be a hero. Why? Because we, the audience, know the real story behind Sharon Tate and the Manson family and Tarantino's take which means leading it in another, fictional direction, makes Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth heroes for the public who recognise their influence on the Manson family and preventing the murders on Sharon Tate and her guests. That touched me. It moved me. It speaks to the subconcious that many people will share: the idea that horror can be prevented. Like the wish we could travel back in time and prevent something, because we know it will happen if we don't interfere.

Having explored every detail in the Manson murders myself when I was in my twenties, made me quite emotional watching Sharon Tate surviving the Manson family without her realising what the horrible truth the real Sharon Tate had to face in real life.

I think I would have liked more screentime for Steve McQueen and more other famous characters from the past, but this movie is the Tarantino one that is very enjoyable and both touching at the same time.

I Always look for the Dutch elements in Tarantino movies. This time, I didn''t have to look very hard. The blue neon windmill in the Hollywood hills as Brad Pitt is driving there, was Obvious in a nice, subtle way.

Yesterday we watched this movie. For me, it was over 25 years ago I had last seen it. It surprised me on many levels. First, it was still very scary. Second, the way of filming was very smart. Close to Alfred Hitchcock-style every now and then even. Editing is very clever. Third, Dee Wallace and little Danny Pintauro did an amazing acting job. I have not read the novel yet, but I bought it today, because the movie made me want to read it.

We went to see it last night. Saw the 1989 version in cinema 30 years ago as well; that one scared the hell out of me. This one didn't. It relies only on some jumpscares, the acting is good. But in the end, the 1989 version is better. It has better practical effects, as in the new version it should not be obvious the cat is animatronic in certain scenes. Building the suspense in the 1989 version is way better. But I love the gothic scenery in this new version and exploring characters more as well as the wendigo myth. The emotional, dramatic motivations for Louis to bring his loved ones back to life is portrayed way better in the 1989 version. This new one deserves a 6, the 1989 version an 8.

We went to see this movie today with the kids, and MAN: I had a blast! I expected it to be a nice movie, but I was so surprised by every single minute.

Jack Black is at his best in this kind of comedic roles. He's hilarious in this one too. Dwayne Johnson and the rest also give a very entertaining performance.

It is so much fun: I cannot stop talking about it!

I did have to force myself to stop thinking about Robin Williams, for emotional reasons. This movie is a great tribute to Robin.

Yes, it does have some continuity problems with the Robin Williams movie, but it's forgivable. The movie is full of action, good humor and special effects you'd wish they had back in 1995 with the first movie.'

Go see it!

Expecting nothing after the lame 2014 'Annabelle' movie, last night we went to see 'Annabelle: Creation'. I love it! With echoes of the 'The Conjuring', it delivers. Of course, this has nothing to do anymore with the 'true' case of the Annabelle doll, but it pays trivia to the real doll with showing the Raggedy Ann doll.

But of course, everything within The Conjuring Universe is fictional. Even though Ed & Lorraine Warren claim otherwise, we must not forget they are catholics to begin with, which means they literally believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns and seven-headed dragons.

I've read the book 'The Demonologist' and Ed & Lorraine really believed the stupidest things, that one would think of as 'medieval beliefs'. They believe in the real existence of werewolves and ghosts transporting money through walls. Yes, ghosts can steal your wallet, if you believe Ed Warren. Ghosts are not likely to rob a bank in that way (which would be the most logical choice) but your wallet.

Ed & Lorraine Warren are romanticised way too much in the movies. In real life, for example, they barely were involved in the case of The Enfield Poltergeist, which the second Conjuring-movie was based on. The only reaction Ed Warren gave tot hat case, was that he could gain good money out of it. The Warrens had practically no involvement in the Amityville case and The Warrens have been criticised tremendously in real life. But they make up good stories for movies. Their stories are not real, of course, but as Don King would quote: 'Only in America!' Now, today The Conjuring Universe is expanded in a similar way like Superhero franchises, like Marvel or DC.

But this IS a good movie! It does not contain Ed and Lorraine Warren, so we can easily distance ourselves of any 'true story' claim. It is refreshing, very good acting by all of the kids and the adults and just enjoy it as a classic already!

Man, do I love this movie! We watched it in cinema, and this week again on bluray. I was on the edge of my seat both times the whole movie.

Astonoshing photography, filmed on beautiful locations, a lot of action, 'Tour of Duty' atmospheres and re-inventing a Kong story in a good way. John C. Reilly and the other actors give a good performance, the beasts are re-invented in surprising new way and nothing looks ridiculous.

Peter Jackson's 2005 remake was a visual beautiful experience, but a familiar story that originally was 80 minutes, stretched out to 180 minutes which made it a torture for your butt to sit that long. It also took way too long before we got a glimpse of the mighty Kong. The xtras in that movie got crushed under the feet of the dinosaurs and the leading actors ran between the dinosaurs unharmed.

This movie is anything but all that. I love it, man! Best Kong movie ever!

I do not understand the hate for this movie. I really don't.

Back in the eighties I was more of a Freddy Krueger fan instead of being a Jason Voorhees fan, but Kane Hodder as Jason in part VII 'The New Blood' made all the difference.

Two years ago I wanted to make a Dutch video for YouTube in which I reviewed ALL Friday the 13th movies, so I watched all of them again. And the original movies, especially the first four of them, were quite bad. Betsy Palmer made a terrible performance in the first one and the actors as Jason in Part II, III and IV were walking like a Frankenstein monster, because they were unable to move their neck due to the heavy prosthetic latex make-up on head, neck and shoulders. The special effects were really bad and obviously fake. The acting was quite bad also. Back then, there was not one good Friday the 13th movie in which Jason Voorhees was just a mortal man.

Derek Mears made all the difference in this reboot/remake. Even though I missed the crazy elder man that we saw in the original first two movies, this is a good movie. Derek Mears made Jason Voorhees terrifying again. The mortal Jason, that is, because this is a reboot of the first 4 original movies. For as far as I'm concerned, only two actors did Jason Voorhees justice: Derek Mears as the mortal Jason and Kane Hodder as the immortal/supernatural zombie that Jason became from part VI and on. I didn't like the movies after part VII (Jason in Manhattan? Jason in space? Did they steal stories from the Muppets or what?)

The acting is good, Jason with a sack over his head this time does not look like 'The Elephant Man', special effects are convincing and stand the test of time. This IS a good movie! Haters are just hating this movie because of their own personal emotional-psychological reasons.

Whenever I think of Jason Voorhees movies, I think of part VII 'The New Blood', because this is my all-time favourite from the old days and this movie. I cherish them both...

Shame on me: I saw the original 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre' for the first time only two years ago, at the age of 39. And I loved it! Good old claustrophobic horror that still holds up today!

I saw the 2006 movie once, but I didn't like that one. Today, we saw this 2003 remake for the first time, and -like the original two years ago- it fascinated me, scared me and enjoyed every minute of it! Tobe Hooper should embrace this remake. This is what a remake should be: retelling the story without copying the original: make it your own, OWN it! This is exactly what the creators of the remake have done! And even when Michael Bay was involved! You know: Michael Bay; that overrated, talent-less, narcissistic guy that nobody wants to work with when they have worked with him... That guy who thinks every Transformer movie should be about degrading images about women, as sex symbols, and fast cars, as if every guy is interested in that, especially in the 21th century.

But Bay obviously did not direct this great remake! It has only some gore, do not let the haters tell you otherwise, because this is the movie Tobe Hooper would have made if he had the budget back then!

Loved this remake, man! I love both: the original and this remake! It has elements you have not seen before, and way more... CHAINSAW!!! ;-)

This is Marlon Wayans at his best! I loved 'White Chicks', but let's be honest: it was Terry Crews who made that film great. 'Little Man' was only funny for half of the movie and the 'Scary Movie' films are quite good, but the 'Haunted House' movies are the best.

I laughed so hard, even with this sequel. The first one was the funniest, but this one comes close. Even the special effects are really good!

I loved the spoofs on 'The Conjuring' and 'Annabelle' and so on. I did not like the too many sex jokes, but the rest of the movie makes it up.

These two movies were surprisingly funny!

Shyamalan is back! Ever since we heard of this movie, we wanted to see it, especially 'cause I work in the psychiatric care field. But it wasn't until we started to watch it that I knew Shyamalan directed this one!

Shyamalan is back! With this movie, he proves he managed to prove us he rediscovered his mojo that he had when we were introduced to 'The Sixth Sense', 'Unbreakable' and... Hack: I even loved 'Signs'!

His movies from 'The Village' and on were very disappointing. But 'Split' is good old fashion M.-work.

James McAvoy does an amazing job and shows us that not only Edward Norton can play these kind of degenerated characters.

Ans the ending with Bruce Willis... It made me feel super... Unbreakable even ;-)

Love it man! Haters just have no idea what film making is about...

This movie has great potential. It has some of my favourit actors, like Jack Nicholson, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro, John C. Reilly, Luis Guzman and even a great cameo by John McEnroe.

But here's the flaw: Adams Sandler is in it. You know, that overrated guy with no talent, acts even worse than an amateur with no experience, brings nothing new to his character, looks the same as ever (thank goodness he is not wearing a cheap dollar store wig in this one) and is never, ever convincing as a character with anger issues. He's just being Adam Sandler. Only the name of his character is different. Same haircut as ever, same attitude as ever, thinking he's a funny guy. And he is no funny guy. He never is.

That's why I've got mixed feelings about this movie. I love the acting by the others who's names I've mentioned above, but Adams Sandler should never work with actors of this veteran status anymore.

As a big Addams Family fan I wanted to see this movie ever since I first heard of it. But over here in Holland, it isn't available so I wasn't able to see it. Until today, when I discovered the full movie is on YouTube.

Since Raul Julia's death I thought Tim Curry would be the perfect follow-up as Gomez Addams. I was wrong. Very wrong. Tim Curry surely has the looks to be Gomez, but his acting in this movie is lame and he doesn't get the heart of Gomez Addams. It's hard to imagine this was the same actor who scared so many people in his portrayal as Pennywise the Clown.

Daryl Hannah as Morticia is just another example of miscasting. She does not have the Gothic heart to portray Morticia as Carolyn Jones and Anjelica Huston had.

Even 'our very own Dutch' Carel Struycken is not able to reprise his role as Lurch as he did in the movies with Raul Julia and Chrisopher Lloyd and seems to have lost his Lurch-mojo here.

Patrick Thomas as Uncle Fester is something I liked. This had some promise. He is way different from Christopher Lloyd's portrayal, but is more close to Jackie Coogan's interpretation of the character. But Patrick Thomas unfortunately also had to suffer from low budgets and bad directing/lighting/production fails and looks more like a guy who dresses up for Halloween in an attempt to be Uncle Fester than that he is convincing, But this is not because of his acting, but because of the cheap and bad make-up.

The same goes for the wardrobe of the other characters: cheap, way too 'clean' and all looking like it was bought at the dollar store. Especially the clothing for Pugsley.

The special effects are bad, but that's something I could accept as it is a made-for-TV-only movie. The lighting and editing are also very bad.

Frankly, I was excited when the news came that a complete new Ghostbusters movie was going to be made. I loved the artwork on the first posters and an all female cast to me was everything but a problem. I liked that idea.

But when the trailer premiered... That already was like a cold shower... And then the movie was released... I didn't wanna go see it in the cinema, so I gave it a chance last night at home.

After the first 5 minutes I already wanted to quit. But I kept watching until I had seen the first 15 minutes. Then I could no longer stand this insult to the viewer's intelligence.

This isn't a Ghostbusters-movie. It is a too expensive, too long of a 'Saturday Night Live' parody with CGI effects that make it look like a video game from the nineties.

The humor isn't humor. It's jokes for jokes sake, and those jokes are spreaded out way too long, they don't fit and nothing is real or human about the female lead characters.

And what's Leslie Jones doing there? It's not acting. It's not bringing humor or anything good to the table. It's 'Look at me! I think I'm funny! I'm having the time of my life and I don't care if it's funny for you!.

I would have given this movie a subzero if that was possible. The worst movie ever in reboot/remake history.

Man, I love this movie! I had mixed feelings before I saw it, because I've become some sort of 'Steven Spielberg-tired'. I may have been the only one who never thought much of 'Jurassic Park' and our beloved alien 'E.T.' is outdated, because we all know he would have stayed in touch with Facebook nowadays. Many of his films to me are over-dramatic or obviously suffering from Spielberg's 'Peter Pan-Syndrome'. But, man! This movie is awesome! I loved the humor, the CGI is very good, the giant is just portrayed perfectly and it never becomes dull. Exciting, not too terrifying for young children and very creative. A true tribute to the late Roald Dahl.

I remember watching 'Avatar' in cinema. It was a beautiful experience to watch, but way too long in running time and predictable in storyline after only 5 minutes.

James Cameron's ongoing same storyline of human industrialism pushing the buttons and finally costing our heads is always present in his movies. Wheter it is about fictional human inventions like a Terminator, exploring space and bumping into a bunch of predator aliens (I know he made a sequel to a movie he wasn't involved with, but still...), the forces of nature in 'Titanic' and so on, Cameron didn't even try to come up with an original storyline in this one.

Instead, the story weighs heavily on beaten paths, predictable story lines and stereotype characters in a movie that could have been so much more.

I cannot bear watching it anymore. Maybe for about 45 minutes and then I'm bored to death, even slightly irritated.

It's a shame, because it is such a beautiful experience for our ocular organs.

It's a pity. A lost chance.

The Neverending story was the very first fantasy film for children ever and the most expensive production outside the U.S.A. at the time.

The movie is only half of the book's story. There are more differences between the book and the movie.

In the book, Atreyu is a warrior with a green skin. That's why I firmly believe that James Cameron's and his 'Avatar' was heavily inspired by Michael Ende's book. But that is no longer the issue here ;-)

There are more differences, mainly because back in 1984 CGI wasn't possible yet and much couldn't be realised, like the centaurs. But also the horse, Artax, which can speak in the book. Back then, horses were made to 'talk' using peanut butter on the inside of the upper lip of the horse. Just imagine how ridiculous that would have turned out within this movie ;-)

The movie has never bored me and it still gets me in renewed ways. The effects are way outdated, the typical '80's synthesizer music sometimes is too much nowadays and there are some more issues these days.

But the moral of the story is still as strong as ever. Dispair as a result of losing your imagination in present society and the idea of the possible forces behind it. The magic mirror in which your true self is reflected. In which the brace discover they are cowards and the nerd turns out to be a hero. I love it!

The movie is often described as dark and terrifying for kids. That's bullshit. The movie got me when I was only 8 years old. People who think this is terrifying for children, are practicing a nice dose of Freudian projection, like the mother who is afraid of lightning and passes this fear on to her children.

For years I've been hearing about a new movie based on the book and I've been looking forward to it just as long.

Until then? We're lucky to have the book and the 32 year old movie every now and then ;-)