Reviews

A Van Dyke family project. I suspect a few more than listed IN IMDB. There is a special thanks at the end to the Family Van Dyke. It is nothing like the James Cameron film.

First red flag is a bloke on an ice flow in his denim jeans - was the costume brief "dress for a shopping trip in January"? "Oh change in the script, we'll set this scene on an Ice flow instead of the high street in Hemel Hempstead......

I suppose people would book a cruise on a ship called the Titanic II, it looked more like being on a ferry, not very glamorous.

Not much of a film if they had learnt anything from the mistakes of the original Titanic. More in the vain of the Poseidon Adventure and Towering Inferno.

I'm not well versed in diving gear, but for icy waters don't they need drysuits rather then wetsuits? The leading lady is busy climbing into a wet suit to avoid freezing, but dingy sailing in the Solent in winter we opt for drysuits, wet suits are for the summer. They didn't bother sharing the oxygen in the end so oddly Hayden drowns ..... what really surprised me was they didn't have him come spluttering back to life at the end. Given the film being pretty poor, quite an upturn when the credits start to roll. Given that the star was the "director", the credits then list the assistant director, then the 1st assistant director, the 2nd assistant director, and the 2nd 2nd assistant director. Then the 2nd and third units had directors - how many directors?

Pretty old 18 year olds! Costumes and effects on a budget. Weirdly compelling to watch.

When Sophie was 8 her Mother was killed by a monster under her bed. 10 years later Sophie, a bit of an outsider at school, ends up throwing a party for her 18th birthday. Unfortunately this being the eve of her 18th the monsters are now after her. The film is categorised as a comedy horror. The funniest bit was the sudden introduction of Helga the German exchange student, who only spoke German. - did the script writers suddenly feel the need to introduce fresh monster fodder to be found still alive by the main cast, in order that she could inform them that one of their friends was still alive? Gary, amidst the drama needs a pee - of course go to the bathroom, don't check the room first, of course gets attacked by a monster, and is, not for the first time in the film, rescued by the girls. The flow of the film has regular breaks from the monsters to fill us in on what's going on. One of these they find Sophie's mum's weapons room, a tape player, this explains why the monsters are yet to kill Sophie, plus the location of a Chain Saw. Unlike the norm for the genera, the solution is not some supernatural ritual, but liberal use of a chainsaw. Left wondering if this film was intended as the pilot for a British version of Buffy.

Not all that good. The cast didn't pass for teenagers. Some of the acting was really ropey - good idea to blow up the police men - their acting was particularly poor.

I hit the 10 before the titles - totally hooked from the first shot of Wednesday. It looks fabulous, plus Tim Burton has been responsible for many of my favourite films. The feel is exactly as it should be. It's Wednesday, it works without the comedy of all the proceeding versions of the Addamses. It occurs to me that those that love the Addams family are drawn to the dark deadpan delivery, not really needing the funny. As a coffee drinker from infancy, I love that Wednesday's coffee order is the same as mine (4 shot espresso). End of the episode and it's still a 10. The whole cast has the odd surprise, but they work so well. CZJ as Morticia - a big surprise, I'd not looked up the cast in advance. The first scene with her in the car - that "I know I know you, but who are you" feeling...... I remember her fro The Darling Buds of May back in 1991. On to episode 2 ..... still a 10 and plus an "Ohh!" ..... I have to go now and watch this a few times. This is good!

I loved the UK version from the first episode. The creators also appeared as ghosts (same creators of Horrible Histories). I'm sure all of the characters in the UK version had been developed many years before the first airing in 2019. Also with the UK version has a lot more history available to weave into the plot.

I watched the first few episodes of the US version.... the first couple of episodes are copies of the UK version - but it all felt rushed. The introduction to Sam and Jay - truncated. The first time we meet them is the solicitors office, where the UK version we meet the living couple flat hunting, small flat hunting at that - to Brits this conveyed everything about their class and economic standing - very important to the future interactions with the ghosts and neighbouring landowners. In addition an inheritance in the UK can include a title, which is a funny element about Alison being a Lady. The quality of their scripts lack the comedy and personality of the writing for Alison and Mike. The US version we are told what the live couple do for a living. The UK version we never know..... but they both want to take on the house. The UK version also takes time to introduce us to the ghosts, leaving the viewer with mini cliff hangers wanting to know more about each of the ghosts.

The house is also has a staring role. I don't know if the UK version was filmed on a sets, but the feel is that they are on location. There is an authentic feel of an old house that has fallen into disrepair. Touches such as the cup that the one without trousers pushes to the floor is complete with tea stains. The US version looks like sets filled with brand new reproduction furniture.

Then there is the "accident". The UK version establishes a number of elements the one without trousers (a politician) pushes Alison out of the Window - but this supplies the back story on Lady Button and therefore explains why she was so repelled by her husband's portrait. US version, Sam falls down the stairs after tripping on the vase that the one without trousers (a banker) had pushed to the floor.

A few of the ghost are copies from the original series, the others are developed for the US version with cross over characteristics to th UK ghosts.

The UK a series is 6 episodes, the first UK season of Ghosts was released over 6 weeks. It makes one pay attention to each episode, therefore having the US episodes all available at once one zones out.

I'm giving the US one a chance. It stands on it's own when it has a unique story, but does not compare to well when replicating the UK story line.

Initially was thinking this was an early film in Scarlett's career, Starts off all a bit gritty, Chinese mafia, drugs etc. It takes a turn for the better after they use her as a drug mule, but then she is beaten up leading the drugs to leak - this gives her super powers. It gives her greater access of her brain and memories. By the end gripping.

I'm not into religion. Mostly a 2 hander. Quite good, the end was all a bit open. I would like to have seen a resolution at the end - it is a movie.....

Watched on BBC IPlayer one night thinking I would doze off. I watched all episodes, did not doze off, fascinated by the idea. Death one come straight away at birth, cord around the neck, I related as this happened to me - - - (I don't think I died - or did I?). The story was set in a period with a few more perils. The Influenza pandemic was poignant, it took a few attempts to survive the flu, and there were a number of reiterations of WW2 - or are we about to be plunged into something worse with Russia's mad man. Exhausted in the morning - loved it.

A film with Ghost in the title you expect ghosts. No ghosts, just someone who sort of walks in his sleep / coma.

Just re-watched this movie. There were a few bits I remember from having seen it 10 years ago. It starts with the issue we still have, loads of remotes, although I'm sure we all know what controls what in our own homes. As it's an important motivation for the central character to go in search of a universal remote control he has no idea of what the very different looking remotes actually controlled - for comedy purposes of course he tries the 2 button garage door remote when he wants to turn on the TV.

I was surprised by the number of stars cast in this film. As often seems to be the way there were bits of the film that today would be on the outskirts of acceptability. When Adam's character goes into his offices all the women bar his assistant were all extremely glamorous, all slim - it just didn't have the right feel for an architects office. David Hasselhoff's character was the owner of the company, why was it necessary for him to have two leggy female employees sat either side of him, legs stretched out on his desk while he had a boss to employee conversation with the main character? Architects office crossed with Hugh Hefner's playboy mansion ..... unnecessary!

The key of the story line is the the remote controls Adam's character's universe. He want's to do well at work to provide for his family. His boss will be enjoying his weekend but expects our main character to deliver work he's just been given by Monday morning. He first fast-forwards the weekend so that when he arrives at work he's able to deliver the project. The remote has helped him land the contract that should have given him a promotion, but his boss wants more before he makes him a partner in the firm. A bit of extra functionality appears with the remote, it has an AI ability. When his pressed FF once for something the remote now fast forwards every time. While he's on fast forward there is a version of him on auto pilot, but our main character has no idea of the conversations or events his forwarded over. He fast forwards to get to his promotion thinking it would be weeks but turned out to be months. The remote having learnt to Fast Forward to the next milestone, Adam misses how he arrives at these points in time. The film being a metaphor for parents who get the work life balance wrong and end up losing their family.

Over all a watchable film but the morel of the tail is kind of sad.