Reviews by kyleslittlewor

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.

'A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge' is not to me the dreadful film as reputed, but, while its attempts to do something different is admirable, it should have been much better than it turned out to be. It is very difficult to not feel disappointed when you inevitably compare 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' to its first sequel and find that the drop in quality is so significant and hard to ignore. Whether 'Freddy's Revenge' is the worst of the series is debatable, to me and many others it is one of the weaker ones.

'Freddy's Revenge' is not a complete waste of time. It starts off very promisingly, with the bus scene is thrillingly unsettling. Easily the film's scariest moment and the scene one remembers the most. Robert Englund is still very freaky and shows why Freddy is so iconic as a villain, he may not be quite as terrifying but the material isn't as strong here and he is still highly effective.

It's not a bad-looking film, there is a slickness to it and there are some nightmarish effects. There are some eerie moments, though none of the rest of the film lives up to the bus scene, and some amusing dark humour. The music is suitably haunting.

However, there are also a fair share of problems. The scares don't come enough, and while there are effective ones there are also just as many that are perfunctory and pretty tame by 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' series standards. Credit is due for trying to do something different and there are parts that do intrigue. A tighter pace and less pedestrian direction would have made the execution better, as well as trying to do less and focus more on the quality of the scares and how the story is told.

Jesse is such a dull damp squib of a character who lacks a quick-thinking or logical brain let alone any kind of presence. The one-note expressionless acting of Mark Patton accentuates this. The rest of the cast are nowhere near as bad, but when it comes to the acting the only one to properly rise above the material is Englund. Lastly, the ending is a slap in the face and really undoes Freddy's character, he would never do what he does at the end and it doesn't make sense for him to do it.

Overall, not that bad but could have been much better. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.

After the 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' series showed signs of severe fatigue, that it was suggestive of the series being completely dead, original director Wes Craven makes a welcome return and brings new, fresh life to the series. 'New Nightmare' may not be as good as the original, none of the follow-ups are (though two of the previous sequels, the third and fourth, were good), but it is the best of the follow-ups since the third and is one of the best in the series.

'New Nightmare' has its faults. Its biggest one is the ending, it is just ridiculous and jars tonally with the rest of the film, which took a darker and more serious direction (perhaps more so than the original). Count me in as another person who didn't care for Freddy's look here, it looks rather goofy and doesn't do Robert Englund's creepy performance and the way Freddy's written justice.

Heather Langenkamp also seemed a bit bland and seemed rather anaemic for a character written more dramatically than previously.

On the other hand, 'New Nightmare' looks very atmosphere and made with a good deal of style and slickness. The production design has a suitably nightmarish look and the special effects are great and perhaps superior to the original's. The music score is haunting.

The writing may lack the one-liners seen before, but the more serious direction the dialogue took was appreciated after the fifth and sixth films did such a poor job with the one-liners and comedy. The dialogue isn't mind-blowing but it flows decently and intrigues at least. The semi-documentary-style adopted for some of the film is very interesting, making for one of the most original ideas of the follow-ups and the series overall too, while still delivering on the shocks, suspense and creepiness.

Despite the goofy look for Freddy, Englund is very creepy and even with not much screen time he burns long in the memory.

In summary, one of the series' better entries and worth staying awake for. 7/10 Bethany Cox

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.

As far as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' sequels go, there are good ones such as 'The Dream Master' (number 4) and especially 'Dream Warriors' (number 3) but also disappointing ones with 'The Dream Child (number 5) and this 'The Final Nightmare' (the second film 'Freddy's Revenge' was also underwhelming but not as much as 5 and 6).

Very little to recommend, with the only good things being Robert Englund doing his conscientious and freaky best and the haunting music.

While a little better-looking than the fifth film, being not as crude and self-indulgent, the suitably nightmarish at times production design is wasted by the film looking drab and dreary and it can look sloppy. The 3D looks cheap and was truly pointless. Like the previous film, erratically paced (both rushed and tedious), ridiculous and non-atmospheric story with scares that are unimaginatively derivative, too far and between and vapidly tame on the whole. It lacks any kind of originality and is all very ho-hum.

Englund aside, the acting is both bland and annoying. The cameos from Rosanne Barr, Johnny Depp and Alice Cooper were just as unnecessary as the 3D and are neither interesting or funny. Like the fifth film though, the cast have to work with an awkwardly clunky script and irritating characters that are written childishly and make decisions that frustrate. Even the humour doesn't work, Freddy's one-liners are more stale and toe-curlingly groan-worthy than twisted or witty and what was darkly comic before is replaced by an overload of cheese. The direction is largely unimaginative, while there is far too much of an over-reliance on gimmicks (none fresh or clever) and the ending is one of the lamest and most tacked on there is in horror.

Overall, an incredibly tired entry and suggestive that the series is dead. 2/10 Bethany Cox

The original 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' is still to me one of the scariest and best horror films there is, as well as a truly great film in its own right and introduced us to one of the genre's most iconic villains in Freddy Krueger. It is always difficult to do a sequel that lives up to a film as good as 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' let alone one to be on the same level.

'A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child' is one just of the weakest sequels in the 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' film series, and one of the weakest films overall. It is such a big disappointment after being so impressed by the surprisingly good previous two sequels (was also underwhelmed by the second film, which to me is actually marginally better than this one). The third film in particular being the best sequel by far if not quite on the same level as the original, a very difficult feat.

'The Dream Child' is not unwatchable by all means. The music score is still hauntingly ominous, the scariest that the film gets is by listening to the music and it is sad that most of the rest of the film doesn't match it in effectiveness. Robert Englund's material is beneath him, but that doesn't stop him from giving it his all and giving a freaky performance.

Production design is the most dream-like the film ever gets and has moments of being nightmarish, just wish that one can appreciate it more because the way it's photographed and edited doesn't do it justice. A couple of the deaths are cool, though there is nothing inspired or creepy here.

However, 'The Dream Child' is an example of style over substance and sadly the style is not done very well...at all in one of the worst looking and most self-indulgent-looking films in the series. The production design is undone by an over-reliance on sudden, amateurish and often misplaced shock cuts and incredibly crude imagery that belongs more in a rock video-like cartoon. This feels like an attempt to compensate for an erratically paced (both rushed and tedious), ridiculous and non-atmospheric story with scares that are unimaginatively derivative, too far and between and vapidly tame on the whole.

Apart from Englund, the acting is very poor (even Lisa Wilcox isn't anywhere near as winning as in the previous film), with the actors having to work with an awkwardly clunky script and irritating characters that constantly make silly and illogical decisions. Even the humour doesn't work, Freddy's one-liners are more stale and toe-curlingly groan-worthy than twisted or witty and what was darkly comic before is replaced by an overload of cheese. The direction is largely unimaginative, and only a couple of the deaths are cool, the others are forgettable at best.

In conclusion, lacklustre and a long way from a dream. 4/10 Bethany Cox

This is a horrible attempt to trade off the most iconic slasher film ever made. Aside from the music, the fact that is has Jamie Lee Curtis in it, and the mask it has no resemblance to the real thing. Worse than that-worse than being a bad Halloween installment it is a bad horror movie. It is as boring was boring could be- the complete antithesis of the original John Carpenter, low budget, thriller. The attempt to create a supernatural thread tying this dumb story to the original is just disappointing. This only has two stars because of nostalgic reasons. It actually deserves less than that. What were they thinking. What was JLC thinking?

Halloween Kills is a mindless splatter movie, and that's already all that the movie got for you - some well staged killings. The rest is a rather tiresome affair, including characters who I can't related to and don't care for. The story? Just filler time till Michael does his next job. Is it the worst Halloween movie? I don't know, because all those new additions of the late 90s and after 2k I watched only once and are hidden behind a dense cloud named oblivion. To be honest, I can't remember anything of those movies. Verdict: Halloween Kills won't get a recommendation, but if you just need some dose of splatter, you may give it a try. This one is for sure just made to milk an almost dead cow.

John Carpenter's 1978 'Halloween' is wholly deserving of its status as a horror classic, as a horror film it is one of the most iconic ones and very influential. To this day it is still one of the freakiest films personally seen and introduced the world to one of horror's most iconic villainous characters, and characters overall, in Michael Myers.

The numerous follow-ups are very hit and miss (leaning towards the miss), with none of them being anywhere near as good and the quality decline generally was pretty drastic. 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' was an exception, while the Rob Zombie films and 'Halloween: Resurrection' were abominations. Hearing that there was going to be another film, part of me was really excited as it did look very creepy and word of mouth was positive. There was a little nervousness though as well, due to not being impressed generally with most of the 'Halloween' follow ups. Watched it though as part of my seeing as many 2018 films as possible quest, which has been a worthwhile one mostly but also hit and miss.

Found myself breathing a big sigh of relief walking out of the cinema. While 'Halloween' (2018) is nowhere near as good as the 1978 classic, alongside 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' it is one of the best of the series since. There are flaws and it is not one of my favourites of the year, but there are a lot of strengths and there have been worse films this year. As far as 2018 horror films go, the year has been patchy for horror, it's one of the best ones on the most part.

Starting with 'Halloween's' (2018) problems, some of the humour is misplaced and out of kilter too much with the rest of the film and a few elements of the story could have been explored and gone further more.

The big twist also didn't seem fully realised although a brave one and the ending felt rushed and abrupt, also felt that there could have been more tension and less unintentionally silly camp. Have always been wary of open-ended endings and that they can be dangerous to do in case a planned sequel falls through.

However, there is an awful lot to like about 'Halloween' (2018). Along with 'Halloween H20: 20 Years Later' it is the best looking of the follow-ups, it is very eerily shot and is close in style to the autumnal look and visual iconography of the original, something that most of the follow-ups failed to do. Loved the haunting music score, here an asset rather than a drawback in how it adds a lot to the atmosphere and enhances it, coming close too in being a character of its own.

While flawed, the script is mostly smart with in-jokes and references that are effectively embedded and coming over as affectionate rather than random. There are humorous moments too. 'Halloween' (2018) succeeds in being fun and creepy, with the atmosphere being riddled with tension and suspense. The deaths are horrifyingly creative and the most shocking since 'Halloween H20', the gore not going overboard on the shock value or looking cheap, not distracting at all. The beginning is unsettlingly tense and Michael Myers has not been this freaky in a long time. Some moments have surprising heart and the scares made me jump and bite my nails. It was great for the film to return to the franchise's roots and treat the original with respect, while with enough new touches of its own. One of the better examples this year in attempts to cater to everybody.

Didn't find myself annoyed by the characters and there was personality to them to stop them from being bland. 'Halloween' (2018) is one of the best acted 'Halloween' films. Jamie Lee Curtis has still got it, none of what made her character great is lost or forgotten, and Nick Castle is supremely terrifying as Myers.

Concluding, didn't bowl me over but found myself enjoying it all the same. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I also recommend the TV series, but not the sequel. I still think that Tarzan is the last great Disney movie, but pretty much everything else after lacks the magic that Disney once had, as far as I'm concerned.(with the exception of the surprisingly good Fantasia 2000, Bambi 2 and Emperor's New Groove) 10 years ago, this was one of my all-time favourites. I remember, every time I went swimming, I felt really inspired to be a mermaid. That's the effect this movie and the TV series had on me. The animation is absolutely gorgeous, especially the underwater scenes, and the storm. The script is intelligent and witty, and everyone involved did a marvellous job putting it across. The songs are fantastic, as always with Alan Menken. In fact, the only score of Alan Menken's I don't like is "Home on the Range". My favourites are "Part of your World"(my sister is always singing it around the house) and the wonderfully energetic "Under the Sea". The characters are probably the most memorable in a Disney movie, especially Ariel, a beautiful and feisty mermaid, with a dream of being a human. She has a beautiful voice also, well we have the talented Jodi Benson to thank for that. Sebastian is so funny here, a he was in the series, but as well as Flounder(another great character)he was ruined in the sequel. Kenneth Mars's Triton is an inspiring father-figure, who reminds me of my grandfather. The best character is without question, Ursula, who scarred me for life after watching her. Likewise with The Evil Manta from the series. Whilst her song is probably the least memorable song of the movie, it still works. Flotsam and Jetsam are also really creepy. Miles better than Ursula's really bland sister Morgana at any rate.To round off, I can't forget Louis the chef. He is so funny here, unlike in the sequel, where the same joke was repeated but badly underplayed. I can't believe some people hate this movie. It is one of Disney's best along with "Beauty and the Beast", "Lion King", "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" and "Sleeping Beauty". Highly recommended for all ages. 10/10. Bethany Cox

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the very first animated film featured by Disney and one of the most charming. While it's a bit different from the original fairy tale, Walt Disney took this familiar classic and turned into a family film that is still talked about over 60 years later. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is such a charming film and is another example of beautiful animation and a terrific story that could charm it's way into your heart. I still enjoy watching this film to this day, who could love the seven dwarfs? They all were so funny to watch and are so memorable. They pretty much represent our moods, they're kinda like a mood ring that's put into one room, lol. But Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is the perfect family film that is still holding up very well all these years.

Snow White is a lovely princess who one day is just traveling through the forest. She comes across a house where it's a total mess, she decides to clean it as a favor to those who are living there. It turns out that seven dwarfs live there and when they find her, they realize they got a good thing going here, a hot girl who'll clean for them. But not everything is happy, the evil wicked queen wants to be the fairest in the land and Snow White has just beat her by a land slide. So she disguises herself as a witch and offers Snow White an apple, she eats it, and dies. Now the queen's the hottest girl in town, but the dwarfs come up with a clever plan to get her true love, the prince, he must kill the queen and save Snow White so they could live happily ever after.

I'd say that's a nice summary, I try my best anyways. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is just one of the greatest Disney films ever made. It's such a charming film and is very much apart of our pop culture today and as far as films go, this is just a great one. I can't wait to show this to my kids one day, they'll probably laugh thinking how old this movie is that it's hand drawn, but I think that's what makes it so special. The voices, the songs, the animation, everything about Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was just beautiful. I highly recommend this, it's a great family film.

10/10

This is a hugely enjoyable film, based upon the book by Roald Dahl. The film does have a number of merits, especially the flawless performance of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, a characterisation that is charming and funny at the same time. Another standout is Jack Albertson as Grandpa Joe, his scenes with Charlie were lovingly realised, but in his song, he was just hilarious, and his singing voice was remarkably good. However, whereas Peter Ostrum is perfectly agreeable in terms of acting as Charlie, he is let down by his lack of any real singing ability. Though the film does look beautiful with excellent cinematography and colourful sets, and the supporting characters like the Oompa Loompas, the odiously spoilt Veruca Salt, television addict Mike Tevee and the rather disgusting Violet Bueragarde, are very well done, and the actors are further advantaged by a wonderful sparkling script. The songs are lovely, especially Oompa Loompa, Imagination and I want it Now, though I will say I felt Cheer Up Charlie was rather tedious and slowed the film down quite considerably. Overall, a beautiful film, and I do think it is underrated. 8/10 Bethany Cox.