Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

Personal statement: I’m a non-denominational protestant Christian. I work for a company called Geeks On Call. We provide on-site computer maintenance to homes and small businesses. I enjoy the work, but my schedule and pay (I work on commission) is incredibly unpredictable, which makes scheduling and budgeting very difficult.

     I’ve been big into martial arts since I was seven, and fitness since the late 90’s. A lot of people see body builders as “muscle heads.” You’d be surprised how much planning and study go into effective fitness. The best builders know more about biology and anatomy than just about anyone short of a phd. If you don’t know WHY your body grows, you’re never going to effectively learn HOW to get your body to grow.


So, to sum up, I’m a Christian. I’m a geek. And I can kick your butt if you have a problem with either.

[more]

Interested in: No particular genre

WraithTDK's movie tags

Advertisement

  • Good if you don't care about details...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Freddy Vs. Jason  (2003)

    This movie really got on my nerves, because it ignored the finale chapters in the evolution of both of the title characters.

    It starts with Freddy resurrecting Jason, because he needs people to fear him in order to gain power, so that he could return. The thing is, he did it by just “convincing” Jason to come back, at which point Jason rose from his grave.     Wait. Back up a minute. Grave? Jason Vorhees was definitively killed by a family member. Not to mention his body was blown to pieces. So how was Jason once again whole, and in a grave? And if he could come back at any time, why didn’t he? Seems like a pretty cheap cop-out way to bring him back.

    Then there’s Freddy. Freddy got his power from people fearing him. That much is true. However, in Freddy’s Dead: The Final Friday, they finally revealed how it is that he keeps coming back, no matter what they do to him: he wasn’t just a restless spirit, he had made a pact with three dream demons. The pact allowed Freddy to “be forever” in people’s dreams. The thing is, Freddy’s daughter brought him into the real world, where he could be killed. He was blown up, and when that happened, the dream demons left him, and THAT is why he couldn’t come back. He no longer had his demonic “backers.” So how is he now still empowered?

    Moving forward, apparently, all the adults in the town of Springwood know of and acknowledge Freddy’s existence (though, apparently, an entire town of adults remember him wasn’t enough to empower him) as a supernatural evil, but, instead of moving away from what they know to be a cursed town, they decide to cover it up by quarantining any kid who learns about Freddy, and giving them drugs that prevent them from dreaming (which, FYI, would in reality cause a person to go insane). They hid all records of any Freddy-related deaths, and none of them speak of it. Riiight.

    Then there’s the comment that “Freddy died by fire, Jason by water.” Did the writers even WATCH the final movies of those two series? Really, that should be a requirement before re-launching a series. Then there’s the scene where Freddy makes Jason revert to his childhood state by pouring water on him. This happened in first in Friday The 13th Part VIII, Jason Takes Manhattan. It was also one of the many reason I put that movie on my list of the worst sequels of all time (see the list here: http://www.flixster.com/movie-list/worst-sequels-of-all-time-2). It really didn’t make any sense, and was never explained why that actually happened. And the idea of Jason being afraid of Water seems a little strange to me, considering he practically lived in Camp Crystal Lake.

    As a few people have said, the one redeeming quality of this movie was watching Freddy fight someone who, for once, he just could not kill. Someone who may not have had the versatile offensive abilities of Freddy, but who could withstand them and just keep coming. And really, the look on Freddy’s face when he’s pulled into the real world realizes that he’s now face to Face with Jason, and for the first time since he was human, he’s outclassed; that was priceless.

    All in all, the movie was an o.k. horror flick if you don’t care about continuity, or haven’t watched the last chapters of Friday The 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street series. However, if you’ve watched them all, and you’re kind of a stickler for details, be ready for some irritating moments. Three stars. Not bad, could be better.


  • The series gets a mercy-killing.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    My word, it’s no wonder  Wes Craven felt the need to redefine Freddy in “A New Nightmare.” By this point, he’s like a cartoon villain. The killings (while I’ve never been that guy who watches these things for them) were like watching a sicker version of Bugs Bunny. There was even cartoon sound effects! Freddy looks a little better than he did in the last movie, but not by much. He now looks more like he’s got  a weird skin condition than horrible, disfiguring burns.

    And the plot didn’t make a whole lot of sense, either. We start with an on-screen message that says the movie takes place ten years from now (well, ten years from 1991, when it was made. Although nothing looks different), and apparently, Freddy has killed every kid in Springwood (the town Elm Street is located in). The killings are all rules “mysterious deaths and suicides” and apparently all the adults are suffering from “mass hysteria.” Alright, so we haven’t even seen an actor yet, and ALREADY things aren’t making sense. First of all, if every kid in town was systematically murdered, and the streak went on for ten years, why the hell did people continue to live there? Call me crazy, but it seems to me like that would be the type of things that makes someone want to get out of Dodge. Secondly, after the largest string of “mysterious deaths and suicides” in American history, and this place isn’t quarantined, or under constant surveillance, or at LEAST a notorious American mystery?

     Once again, we get the “Freddy’s back, but we’re not gonna make any attempt to explain HOW, since he was supposedly destroyed in the last movie” issue. At least this time we get some explanation for how Freddy became what he is (we already got the story of his twisted birth in the last two movies). Apparently, when he was killed, he was confronted by dream demons, who promised that he would live forever in dreams, as long as he did their bidding. The ultimate solution, the one that was supposed to finally kill Freddy for good (and actually DID until over a decade later in Freddy Vs. Jason) was that they had to pull him OUT of their dreams (like Nancy did in the first movie), and kill him there. Why he looked normal he was taken out in this one, when he was sill burnt up and crazy when they did it the first time is beyond me. The real question is why he didn’t just return to the dream world like he did back then? When Nancy did it, all Freddy had to do was grab someone, and collapse into the dream world, taking Marge (Nancy’s mom) with him. Fortunately, instead of just turning her back on Freddy and stealing his power (which, IMO, was a much better, much more creative way of killing him), Maggie (Freddy’s long-lost daughter) actually beat him senseless and then blew him up with a pipe bomb.

    And so, my trip down Elm Street with the original series proper comes to a close. It had its up points, but for the most part, I can’t believe they made six of these things. I have to agree with Wes Craven, and many of the series fans; if Craven didn’t make it, it wasn’t good. That’s not a pretentious “loyalty to the writer” statement, it’s my God-honest review. The first one was good. The third was good. Wes Craven made both. The rest of them, including this one, just plain sucked on ice. Two stars.

  • A Major Disapointment...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Take Mortal Kombat, add more characters than you have time to do anything with, and remove everything that wasn't a fight scene, and you've got Annihilation.

  • The worst of the series.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Shatner: good in front of the Camera. Poison behind it. 'nough said.

  • The movie that spawned "The Highlander Rule"

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Widely accepted as one of the worst sequels of all time, Highlander II takes the story of an ostensibly mystical race of immortals, fighting for the prize of ultimate power, and redefines it as a sci-fi tale, where the immortals are in fact alien beings exiled to earth, with the prize being the ability to return home, or grow old and die on earth. When Connor McLoud, now an old man, kills another alien who has just been sent to earth, he is made immortal once again; and must use his abilities, along with help from Ramirez (who, apparently, Connor can bring back from the dead just by calling his name, which kind of makes you wonder why he took this long to do so), must battle an oppressive future government to save the world. This movie was so bad that it spawned what I refer to as ?The Highlander Rule?, which says that when a movie sequel reaches a certain level of awful, I simply refuse to acknowledge its existence when speaking of the franchise.

  • The Worst of the series

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Easily the worst chapter in the series*. Be it the lack of interesting characters, the completely, utterly incomprehensible ending, or just the fact that in a movie named "Jason Takes Manhatten", Jason only spends about five minutes IN Manhattan, this movie was just plain crap.


    *It should be mentioned that since V goes off on such a tangent that it doesn't even include Jason, I do not consider to even be part of the series.

  • Quite possibly the worst sequel of all time.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    So I turn on Sci-FI today at 9pm to watch The long-rumored Highlander movie about Duncan's search for the origins of the immortals?!

    The one that was never released in theaters? The one that I've not seen ANY ads for? It's just on? WTF?

    O.k., so I watched it.

    Well, now I remember why I call the Highlander rule "The Highlander rule." OMG it was awful. It was just. Freaking. Awful. It takes place in, I dunno, the future? I mean, the world had descended into complete chaos and it was all post-apocalyptic, but Joe was still alive, and he was mortal, so it couldn't be too far away. About 90% of it was done in front of terrible looking blue screen. The acting was meh. The writing was awful. Lots of random encounters with bands of post-apocalyptic crazy people. The visuals were awful. And the ending? oh. God. The ending.

    Apparently, "there can be only one" does not mean that they had to kill all the others; it just meant that there was only one with a pure enough heart to pass the test of the source, and thus allow him to make a child (which immortals were otherwise not able to do).

     

     

    WHAT THE HELL?! HALF STAR!

  • Never give up on your ideals.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    A classic tale of uncompromising idealism winning over all.

  • A True Classic.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    A true classic, this one has everything. Great acting, great script, great plot, and one of the few depictions of a Catholic Priest actually ACTS like 80% of the Priests out there, instead of the clichéd, over-used stereotype of the hypocritical , Bible-bashing villain in sheep’s clothing. Five Stars.


  • The Worst of The Series So Far...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

            A couple weeks ago, I started watching the Elm Street movies. The second one was awful, and was immediately placed on my Flixter list “the worst sequels of all time.” I didn’t think they could MAKE a worse Elm Street flick. Then I saw part 5. Ugh.
              It starts with the acting. Horrible. Every cheesey line was PAINFULLY delivered. The Plot wasn’t bad, but it was hideously executed. How the hell did they come to the conclusion that Amanda Kreuger hung herself if they never found the body? And why was her dead body still standing? If she did hang herself, shouldn’t her corpse still be hanging there? Did she somehow die standing up? And how did her body get sealed up in that room? Then There’s Freddy Himself. Not only has he been turned from a classic being of pure evil into a flat-out comic book super-villain (a transformation that, I think, started in the second movie and got slowly worse), but the instead of using makeup to give him his trade-marked burned-up look, they just slapped a cheap looking rubber mask on Englund. Instead of looking horrifying, he just looks ridiculous. I could spend twenty bucks in a costume shop and come out looking more convincing. And that’s not the only place where the effects were cheap. The blood looked like strawberry syrup, the blue-screen effects were ridiculously obvious, how is it that fiveyears after the first movie, the effects got that much WORSE? Then there was the ending. If you don’t can’t the crappy “twists” that they slapped at the end of the other movies (which were clearly after-thoughts), this was by far the worst of them.honestly, I can’t think of a single redeeming quality in this movie. Half star.

  • Better than part 2, but still unnecessary.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Still better than part 2, but all in all, just another unnecessary victim of the dreaded "sequel rule."

  • The best of the series so far...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I remember when I first started hearing about Freddy Kreuger in the 1980’s. I was too young to know the term “lucid dreaming”, but I understood the concept (and years later how to actually do it), and I always thought that if I was in the situation the Elm Street Kids found themselves in, I would have used it to battle Freddy.

         Clearly, I wasn’t the only one to think of this, as that’s exactly what happens in Nightmare on Elm Street 3. Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy Thompson, the only surviving Elm Street child from the first movie, who is now a psychiatrist specializing in dream therapy. Nancy arrives at a psychiatric hospital specializing in sleep disorders, and finds that the last of the Elm Street Kids are being terrorized by Freddy. This time, however, things are not quite as one-sided as they were during her first encounter. One of the children, Kristen, has a special gift that allows her to pull others into her own dream. They devise a plan to use this gift, along with lucid dreaming, to fight Freddy and beat him at his own game. Meanwhile, Freddy’s horrible origins are further revealed, and an attempt is made to destroy him by laying his earthly remains to rest.

         So far (I’m watching the movies in order), this is my favorite of the series. The imagination that was so lacking from the second movie is present here; and if I was going to write one of these, this is the how I would do it (conceptually speaking, anyway). The Elm Street kids aren’t terribly creative, given that they could make themselves into anything in their dreams, and the best they came up with was a fruity looking wizard, and there is some 1980’s cheese (not to mention some 1980’s cheesecake), all in all, I thought this one was pretty good. Four stars.


  • A timeless story of passion and parental pressure.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Jazz Singer  (1927)

    Possibly the best silent movie I've seen, The Jazz Singer a story about a timeless subject: the difficulties and pressures of growing up in a family steeped deeply in tradition.
         Al Jolson's character is born into a Jewish family that has produced Cantors for five generations. While Jakie Rabinowitz (who changes his name to Jack Robin) is expected to carry on the tradition, his heart isn't in it. He instead wants to be a jazz singer. This breaks his father's heart, causing him to disown Jack.
         Throughout the movie, Jack is torn between wanting to stay true to his family and his faith, and hiss passion for jazz.
         This is truly a timeless story, little different than the actor who was "supposed to be" a doctor, or the rock musician that was "supposed to be" a laywer, like their father was.
         As a black man, seeing Al put on black face made me uncomfortable, but ultimately, I found it acceptable within the context of the movie, that is, he wasn't actually portraying a black man, he was portraying a singer in a vaudeville act, which, historically did include black face, and even then, all he really did was sing.

         All in all, I'd say this movie is worth of its "classic" label. Four stars.

  • Just another needless sequel...

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    Just another pointless victim of the sequel rule. The characters were two-dimensional, the story was less original; all in all, it was just a sad attempt to cash in on the success of the original.

  • A pleseant surprise.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    This movie was pleasantly surprising. It avoided the cliches I've come to expect from this type of movie, such as the woman that the male protagonist is with being a cartoonish bitch, and the guy pursuing the female being an unlikable idiot. It was actually very romantic and well done.

  • Horrible.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hannibal Rising  (2007)

    Vile and disturbing. Movies are typically considered "entertainment." I feel a great deal of concern for anyone who is entertained by a story such as this.

  • meh.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Red Dragon  (2002)

    Meh. Better than Hannibal, but not really all that different from Manhunter.

  • An unsatisfying finish to an otherwise wonderful show.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I actually found this a bit disappointing. Daria was one of my all-time favorite shows, and with this movie, it just didn't go out the way it "lived". Daria's usual witty sarcasm seemed to have dried up, and this just came off as the animated version of a typical "teen drama." I understand that the idea was to wrap things up, but it just seemed to me like it ended with a fizzle rather than a bang.

  • An unsatisfying finish to an otherwise wonderful show.

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I actually found this a bit disappointing. Daria was one of my all-time favorite shows, and with this movie, it just didn't go out the way it "lived". Daria's usual witty sarcasm seemed to have dried up, and this just came off as the animated version of a typical "teen drama." I understand that the idea was to wrap things up, but it just seemed to me like it ended with a fizzle rather than a bang.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go