Reviews

Whilst it is possible I overlooked some issues because of what an emotional powerhouse this movie was, I do think some of the one star reviews writers' rage blinded them to the point where they did not even take in the numerous fantastic moments and aspects this movie has to offer.

Most of all I'd like to point out that, unlike some haters claim, this movie definitely is not just a family screaming each others' names. There are countless beautifully written, shot and acted moments of humanity in a devistating situation that you shouldn't miss out on. Some of my personal favourites being when the just reunited mother and son debate whether they should climb a tree before a possible third wave kills them or to go try locate the screaming young child they hear. And later when they all sit up in the tree that little 3-year old boy reaching out to touch the mother in what I interpretted as his need to feel a mother's touch, even if she's not his, as well as to comfort the woman, in the lonely, scary and traumatizing situation.

And personally, I don't understand where here people see wooden acting. It's all very fine and I was actually really impressed with the child acting. The threr pre-pubescent actors of Daniel, Thomas and Simon do a great job, they're rare among their peers. Tom Holland, too

There's no cgi here, it's all models and tons of real water and practical effects which in combination with the acting and the way evefything was shot and edited truly makes you feel like you're there with them.

Yes, it's awkward that they kind of "white-washed" this story. But to me it seems like they did it mainly to enable the movie to be in english language and to cast huge stars. In order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible for max profits, but perhaps also because a story like this needs to get a wide audience. When you're safe and sound in your little corner of the world it's easy to forget these disasters and impossible to really understand what the victims go through when you only read news articles. After this movie you're not likely to forget.

There's no need to get offended for the real life family, as they were deeply involved in the screenwriting and talking with the actors, and have said they're proud of this movie, and do not care about skin colour. As for all the people who suffered worse than this family...Sure their stories deserve to be told in a movie format. Someday they might be if they want to share in the first place. But why should this story be any less worthy of tellng and watching just because they were wealthy and lucky? They are just as much human and went through much of the same pain and trauma as anyone else. This is a story about and for human beings, not about or for any specific race or class status.

Frankly, I didn't even really notice how priviliged they were. Because it was not at all important to me. All I saw was a loving family violently and suddenly torn apart without any warning and then desperately trying to reunite, and having lost family members myself I didn't care how they travelled back home as long as they did.

This movie is so intense and authentic feeling that any worse story told in this particular film might have been too much to sit through. Worse ones need a lighter/different approach. And one more time: Why should this family's story be any less worth telling? It is also casting light on essential parts of any other that did not end so soon or well.

This movie is very realistic, immensely powerful, has fantastic visual and sound effects, beautiful moments and great actors. I see no reason to not watch this. But do sit down with a pack of tissues and don't show this to young children. This is deeply upsetting and disturbing even for most mature audiences. I would say anyone under 13-ish is absolutely too young. Would recommend age 15 or older.

This show is nothing like the Lion King movies and it suffers even as a kids' show because of that. "The Lion King" really wasn't made to be a base for a whimsical little kids' show which is why this TV show does not represent the movies, and because it unsuccessfully tries to connect to the movies' canon it doesn't really work as well in what it wants to give to kids as it could if it was an original creation. I feel that every episode has a valuable life lesson but because it desperately tries to be a part of something much bigger and deeper than itself, with that very limited episode run-time and juvenile execution it fails to have proper substance and therefore the memorability of the lessons diminish. Because of that and because this is harmless, I don't recommend showing this to your kids unless they really really want to see this. They'll get the same thrills and lessons from any other, better made, kids' TV show.

There are some adult Lion King fans who love this series but if you fell deeply in love with the more emotional and deep/mature aspects of the first two movies and of the first movie especially...Be warned. This TV show was made for little kids aged 2-7 and it totally shows no matter how much Disney tries to push it on to Disney Channel instead of just its original home at Disney Junior, and it's NOTHING like the original film even though it's supposed to celebrate its 20th anniversary.

This pilot episode and its following episodes don't do a very good job with fitting into the movies' universe yet it's obviously trying to be an extension to those movies. This show introduces a full-blown magical roar ability that has been passed down for generations and that makes the Earth shake and characters fly miles away and so on. Linked to a magical "tattoo" type of symbol on the fur coat. While that has its base in the same spirits-in-the-stars and summoning aspect of the Lion King universe, it has a juvenile superpower feel and execution instead of feeling like the mystical part-of-nature magic from the first two movies, the kind that could not be harnessed whenever convenient.

In this show Mufasa can just pop up in the sky any time he wants to give advice - which is the utter opposite of the first film's intent and important story detail and is only one of the many things that disrespectfully contradict the movies. Some characters have been totally butchered, such as Simba - and in a later episode also Zira. Simba is not protective over his children unlike he was in "The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride", which painfully shows in the final scene of this pilot movie/episode.

In the final scene of this pilot episode, the climax is that Kiara gets trapped in a stampede of antelopes stirred by hyenas. An obvious call-back to cub Simba's experience with the wildebeest in the first movie. How does Kiara get out of that? Does her father, Simba, attempt to rescue her like his father did before him? NO. Simba just stands there. The child honey-badger friend of Kion's makes his way next to Kiara - with a jovial and whimsical cheering attitude might I add - and...he lets out a massive fart which makes the antelope scatter away from Kiara. Simba left his daughter's life in the hands of other children, did absolutely nothing himself to save her at any point, and afterwards doesn't really check on if Kiara is okay but only focuses on giving his blessing for Kion's choice of the Lion Guard members.

That is this show's call-back to a scene in the first movie that portrays a father unhesitatingly risking his life and limb to save his child's life, the brother of that father maliciously murdering him, and the little boy witnessing his father falling to an ugly, slow and painful death. (Assuming Mufasa didn't die from the fall. Anyway, his body would have been mangled in real life but it is a G rated film, so...) And in the aftermath shows this little boy in vain trying to wake up his father, panicking all alone in a vast canyon, calling out for help from anyone at all until breaking down to cry and crawling to lie in the arms of his dead father. Not only does the scene in the original film include all that but it was immensely powerfully executed, bringing the viewer up close with all of the characters and the action and showing the death-fall and the body on screen.

"The Lion King" was created to reflect human suffering, responsibility, family love/bond, and bravery. "The Lion Guard: Return of the Roar" craps on those values with its call-back scene.

This pilot and its following episodes were made for toddlers in attempts to give them laughs and some life lessons through unrealistic premise execution and whimsical little adventures that other original shows are already doing better - so I don't see the point in this show's existence. Some say that they also meant this to "introduce The Lion King to a new generation" - but if you think of it; how exactly does this do that? It's NOTHING like the original films, it literally farts on the first film's arguably most meaningful scene, and over-all doesn't hold a candle to the movies' power and feel.

I watched "The Lion King" in the mid-90s with my then-3-year old cousin and he was just fine and wanted to see it every single time he came over, which was often. No, he was not traumatised by Mufasa's death scene. Do your kids a favour; show them the "The Lion King" and "The Lion King II: Simba's Pride" instead. I daresay they'll get more out of them in a long run than they would out of this show.

This is an underrated sequel. Because regardless of the gaping plot holes of how the heck did the Outlanders end up in Simba's pride in the first place and why weren't they in the final battle seen in the first movie, and whatever happened to Sarabi, this is fairly well done sequel. Because those plot holes are easy to fill with common sense and Sarabi isn't important to the story, so it's not like they'd ruin the movie in any way. And the idea of basing this on a shakespearean play like the original was, works perfectly well.

As does how this still isn't really a love story but more a story about Simba and Kovu; two confused young men who are expected and trying to follow in their fathers' footsteps believing they're doing the right thing, causing them a lot of trouble with their families and with each other. The Romeo&Juliet love story aspect is more of a thing around the basic story, the thing that brings closure to the story.

I think this story's writers had their heart in it and made it believable and well. I mean not only all the above, but some criticize Simba as being out-of-character but he really is not. If you really bother to think of everything that has happened to him from a very young age and the way he spent most of his life, as in everything that is shown in the first film, the way he is in this sequel is utterly realistic. In fact just about the only way he could be.

I also appreciate that they turned the genderless cub from the first production, into a daughter instead of a son. Because we already have a movie about a prince and it is much more interesting to watch someone in Simba's situation, trying to raise a child of the opposite gender seeing to himself which would be a bit of a challenge to any parent. Kiara with her personality, also has new blood to offer to the line of rulers. And I love how she struggles between her responsibilities as a future ruler and herself at such a young age, trying to figure out if she could be both in one. She's a great new character.

Leading me to the "falsely fan-promoted". You may have read fans speak of "Kiara's brother, Kopa who was murdered by Zira / disappeared" - that is utter bullcrap. Kopa is an official Lion King character but NOT a movie character. He was NEVER in the movies, the cub at the end of the first film was kept genderless in essence until Kiara. Kopa's ever existed only in a few books in which Kiara does not, so they are not related in any shape or form and do not exist in each others' stories.

As in, the only crucial and stupid mistake this film's creators did is the re-design of Simba and Nala's genderless cub from the end of the first film, without literally revealing in the film that it and Kiara are one and same - because apparently too many fans' common sense isn't sharp enough to grasp the fact that because the movie doesn't refer to any other cubs than Kiara, no one else exists and thus the differences to the original film's end are nothing more but a remake of a genderless cub. They have made it clear on the commentary track of the first film, in the official trailer of this sequel film and in a magazine interview, for those whose common sense needs more to wake up, but apparently that has not been enough.

Although this isn't as talented and beautifully animation-wise as the original, the story isn't quite as powerful as in the original, the soundtrack is nowhere near as great as in the original, and this is a bit more cartoon-ish in humour than the original...This is still a worthy official sequel to it and one of the best Disney classic sequels. One of the rare few that are even good.

You won't lose that much if you decide not to watch this, but this is definitely worth watching.

The movie script was written by the original author, so the point and lesson of the story remains instead of turning into mindless horror. This movie is also definitely a treat to a fan of psychological horror and I believe to a fan of gore too. There is not much of gore but the little there is, is very...impressive.

I was delighted to see how dynamically he got the entire point of the story and every crucial element into the first five minutes of the film. All of it happening during a sunny day in a relatively happy atmosphere, sets a fine mood to the movie; we get the feeling that this idyllic happy family is going to go through hell in an unusual way. And because it and the scene, crucially involves an innocent little baby, most people get emotionally drawn in immediately.

Although it made it impossible to portray Wendigo even nearly the way it is in the novel while possessing the bodies, I was glad that they cast a 2-year old child as Gage. Because it is highly important for emotional effect that the child was a baby. And I consider that more important for a movie than having a full-blown Wendigo portrayed, even for horror. The only thing that bothers me is that Gage looks like he died quickly of some inner cause instead of an ugly death by a high-speeding truck. There is no way anyone could repair a toddler's body that perfectly after such a death. To have it come off even semi-believable, they should not have shown the full grown man so horribly mangled by a truck and thus create an illogical contrast.

But, because showing Victor Pascow is crucial to the story and there is no way you could stuff the needed make-up on a toddler without torturing him and making it impossible for him to have patience to play nice, the beautiful baby body is excusable and doesn't distract too much. And what Wendigo-Gage did to the old guy was disturbing enough anyway, perhaps even more so with the angelic baby looks than it would've been if he'd looked like the zombie he was.

The creepiest movie character ever; Zelda. In the novel she's actually a 10-year old child but here they had her be a full-grown woman although portrayed by a man...Anyway, I hated the Zelda-bits even in the novel, so I really did not enjoy them in a visual form in a movie. She's just TOO creepy in all fate, looks and the insane mentality and the things she says. Be warned; she is VERY disturbing and scary in this movie. Not as much in the novel.

The story's point of how far a human being may go in his/her deepest and most immense grief, and how much horror a human mind can take before it goes insane...and most importantly the lesson of how sometimes dead is better...are the reasons why this story is worth knowing to anyone who can stand horror at all. Because I don't think there is any better way to make those matters clear, than this story's way is. It all just hits home perfectly well and memorably. Those basic points and the lesson this story tries to teach, are the reason why this is worth watching over and over again and isn't as disturbing and sick as this otherwise might be. Of course also the great actors add to the worthiness of watching. Especially Gage's, Louis' and Pascow's actors are spot-on. But Ellie's is rather awful...but bearable.

The basic points and the lesson are brought up relatively well in this movie adaptation, but I think could've been done better if they'd dug more into the minds of the characters, at least by voice-over narrating or something.

I'm not gonna spoil the ending but just want to say that the ending is hands down the most important part of a story because if the ending is utterly changed, the very essence of the story utterly changes, and therefore if you're not going to respect the ending of an author's story, there is no point in adapting the story into a movie at all. In most adaptations of King's novels, they change the ending. But not this time! This script was written by King himself. Thus, not only is this movie respectfully novel-faithful all in all but indeed the ending is what it should be; just like it is in the novel apart from one addition. But since it was by the same author, it doesn't count as a change of that kind. (And minus Gage's character who is much tamer in this movie than in the novel, but it's excusable because you can ask only so much of an actor who's at toddler age.) Sooo, this movie including the ending ought to be delightful for the fans of the novel and should creep the ever-loving crap out of also those who don't know the novel.

Denise Crosby, (Rachel Creed's actress), has an interesting idea about the ending, which she revealed in the 20th Anniversary Reunion. After you hear that, you might enjoy this movie even more because it changes the way you look at its horror aspect, into a quite fascinating point of view. (Her idea is only her personal interpretation, NOT necessarily Stephen King's vision.)

Hence the intense and in some sense disturbing horror aspect of this brilliant and deep story, you'll be happier if you don't watch this or even read the novel. But hence the basic points and lessons of the story, it is not all bad and can be essentially enjoyable. Consider carefully which format you can take without regretting the decision, or if you'd better just study the story without personally reading/watching it.

First of all; There is no intelligent plot built around the sick premise and no meaningful message included. That alone makes a movie not worth watching unless it's clearly a horror comedy, which this is not supposed to be. The main victim characters are bleeding imbeciles who do not fit into the movie. They're so moronic that they're not even funny, as in this wouldn't work even as a parody.

Second of all; This premise is so weird that at least I can't wrap my mind around its sickness and thus with me this film fails even as the pointless thing it's trying to be.

Third of all; The trailer makes the beginning look scary, but is it really? NO. Because the two girls are the dumbest bimbos in the long sad history of dumb horror movie bimbos. The list of reasons is lengthy so I'm just gonna reveal the two biggest ones:

They accept a drink from (a creepy-looking) stranger although he made the drink out of their sight, and they drink it even after the guy had said that he doesn't like human beings. His exact words! He did not say "I don't like people." He said: "I don't like human beings." And they don't even try to get out IMMEDIATELY after he left the room, after saying that and behaving menacingly. Finally the other girl states that they have to get out of there right now and this is the point when the other girl drinks the water all up regardless of all the screaming warnings they'd just had. And...a minute later they're still sitting on the spot without a single attempt to even get up, even though the drugged water hadn't yet made them completely disabled.

At the point I had to watch the girl empty the water glass into her mouth, I seriously wanted to bang my head on the wall over a fictional movie. Those characters would not have worked me up like this if this was supposed to be a serial killer movie like "Friday the 13th" which aim at as huge body count as possible, as in, a movie in which brainless bimbos are almost justified seeing to its aim. But this is not trying to be one of those.

Seriously, I hope Six has learned since this film, that in order to make a scary movie or in any way enjoyable movie, one should not create characters whom the viewer actually wants to be killed off in as painful way as possible because the characters are such bleeding imbeciles that it's unbearable. (I should make clear at this point, that I do NOT feel this way about anyone real like those girls. I would not wish them dead nor tortured, I would just be extremely annoyed. But it's easy to hate on fictional characters whose fates don't hurt anyone.)

These characters DON'T come off as victims we should feel sorry for and they DON'T come off as suicidal either. I mean, other than the series of irritatingly moronic choices that they make, the movie does not make them come off suicidal at all nor even retarded. Which leads to the conclusion that they're just simply imbeciles and crappily written characters, and so make the movie that much worse. Hence, those girls made a series of moronic choices before that water glass thing. (And kept on doing many more afterwards!) You'd think the sick premise would be at least a little enjoyable then as it attacks those crappy characters? Well, it's not. At least I was so annoyed with them that I wanted to see them offed, not have to bear with their moronic mistakes in efforts to escape from utterly weird scientific experiment which wasn't in any way interesting even in itself. This of course leads to that the script sucks over-all.

The actor of the villain was certainly well picked but does not save the movie that has nothing good to offer and has the most moronic victim characters ever.

Painfully crappy writing, too weird premise. Don't waste your time on this film. There are much more entertaining movies waiting for you.

The trailer sucks and does not do justice to the actual movie which is a wonderful experience.

Joan Allen is the most natural actor I think I've ever known, although the rest of this movies' cast did a great job too. This leads me to how delightfully and perfectly genuine this movie's story turned out to feel like not only through the entire presentation but the actors contributed tons to that aspect. I mean, it didn't even feel like I was watching a movie with actors playing roles, but more like watching real life happening in the neighbourhood or something. A part of this is in the general atmosphere which is very calm all through the movie but never gets boring, not ever but more like draws you in. Yet this doesn't lack interesting drama - it just doesn't come off as movie-ish as usually in movies.

Even so, I daresay even those who are more into action and adventure, may very well enjoy this. At least me and my brother who are fans of stuff like The Lord of the Rings, Sherlock Holmes and other such, we truly enjoyed this movie.

There a very graphic gory moment which is one of the humorous moments of the over-all pleasantly genuine humour in this movie. I bet gore is something you'd never expect to see in a movie of this genre, but they totally made it fit in. It suits the situation in which it happens by the how and why it happens. Even if yo're sensitive to gore, I daresay that scene will not bother you but rather amuse. I daresay this because even my other brother who is extremely sensitive to any violence in movies, was not bothered and found it funny regardless of how graphic it was. But of course we're all individuals, so be warned; there is a really gory moment that is likely to rather amuse but might disturb as well.

Now, personally they lost me at some point with the whole anger-philosophy one of the characters speaks in voice-overs. The beginning was easy to follow and understand but along the way and at the end I it got more complicated...but it hardly matters because the story itself already got its point through when it comes to anger. Especially through the ending twist which you kind of saw coming but not really. I bet no one could guess the rather shocking revelation of the full picture. Here I must warn, that the final truth of the story is somewhat depressing, maybe even slightly disturbing for the most sensitive of people. But again, that twist adds to the genuine-life feel and power of this movie, and makes this the memorable and important piece that this is.

I warmly recommend this to anyone, no matter what your preferred movie genre is. You're going to miss a lot if you don't watch this movie.

The trailer for this movie is FANTASTIC in some sense BUT doesn't give even nearly correct image of what the film really is like. I recommend to NEVER watch a non-American or non-British horror film after seeing only the trailer, because you may end up watching things you didn't want to & you can't unsee what you saw.

The trailer doesn't include ANY sort of warning about incest, new-born baby being raped, necrophilia of the sickest possible manner & of much more such things this movie includes and much is shown in graphic style and explicitly. This film may be well-made in cinematic sense like atmosphere and all that but in essence this film is sick and nothing more.

It seems this movie was done simply for shock-horror purposes but even if this was supposed to be "metaphorical", I do NOT recommend this to anyone. Even fans of shock-horror can find their kicks from less immoral content, while I see no valid reason for anyone want to stain their minds with images of the things this movie portrays. I mean...

...just stop and think about it for a minute; would it somehow increase the quality of your life, or make you happier, to get shocked by seeing a fictional imitation of a new-born baby being raped, a father raping his own 6-year old son...(not that the age makes much of a difference but just to be specific), and a guy raping a woman even after chopping her head off? If not, then why make yourself watch such things just because you like being shocked, not to mention if you don't like to be shocked? If seeing fictional imitations of incest, baby rape and necrophilia does actually increase your happiness or the quality of your life, then good heavens I hope you get the help you need before it's too late.

The baby rape, necrophilia and incest are only a few examples of the mountains of immorality and sickness this movie throws in the viewer's face. I really think this movie should've been banned everywhere because this is utterly unnecessary and sick movie that has nothing good to offer to the world.

A great cinematic aspect and success as shock-horror, does not redeem a thing that in essence has nothing but sickness to spread and when crossing the line to unnecessary extents.

I do not recommend this movie to anyone, and I do believe that sane fans of extreme horror can do without seeing this. If you are not an obsessive/addicted fan of extreme horror, as in if you have a free choice - stay far, FAR away from this movie, for your own good. Because there's 110% likeliness you will regret the decision to watch this, and sadly you can't unsee what you saw.

You might think the idea is boring but they made it not so by making it very intense, and the wolves added some nice drama. Gore was perfectly little but not completely absent which is for my taste, and as the end credits started to roll I felt somewhere between entertained and almost depressed.

I personally found myself more thrilled and pained than scared and I totally enjoyed this flick. I didn't let the fact that no one could really survive one night up there distract my enjoyment. Or the fact that what a crappy ski chairlift doesn't have some sort of an emergency system in it... but because it's possible that some cheap version doesn't... it was OK.

Though it's true that if even one of the events that lead to them being stuck in the lift didn't happen, they wouldn't have ended up stuck, and that the causes of this movie's situation put together is highly unlikely. But it's possible to happen. And it's the realism of the possibility - however slight - that we are supposed to grasp, not the fact how unlikely it is. The trio just had a really, really shitty luck! The wolves seem to be the most complained aspect. As in how is there a pack of wolves in New England in 2010 when in fact there aren't in real life. I think the film makers were fully aware of that there are no wolves in New England anymore. They make a point in the characters' dialog that for some reason there are wolves where no one expected them to be. And it's not impossible. We are not in control of where wild animals and their packs decide to and can wander. Again, it's not the unlikeliness we are supposed to focus on but the slight possibility of it happening.

Personally I think if everything in this film was highly likely to happen, it would decrease the intensity and fright. But when they create a situation that is unlikely but possible, it wakes you up into reality that things aren't as safe and controlled as we'd like to think they are.

People keep forgetting that it's completely another thing to watch a movie from the warm comforts of their homes, even knowing a lot of what's going to happen, than to actually be in the real situation completely unaware of the future and in constant need to improvise. And in this case to act on the survival instinct in a frightening situation. I acknowledge in some movies the characters are idiots or alternatively unrealistically perfect and clever. But this movie is not one of those. There are realistic young people making realistic choices and mistakes.

One fine movie! Thrilling, suspenseful and fine horror too in some ways. Just realistic human beings against relatively realistic nature with no technology to help them and acting on the survival instinct.

I think this is the best in the movie series so far. They didn't waste time on made-up supposed-to-be-funny unessential stuff, not even on any unessentials from the book, they didn't stick to battle scenes for too long, the atmosphere stayed nicely dark and the actors did a great job, and so on. Sure many scenes could've been done better but this movie did truly entertain me just as it is now.

The biggest minus in this film is that Voldemort didn't attack after Nagini in Bethilda's house, and thus they didn't show us and Harry, the flashback to the night his parents died and he himself didn't. None of this story would exist without those events and they don't even show it to us. But I must insert a question mark after this minus as they may be showing it at some later point, adapt it into the last movie. Though I can't think of any situation that could be better for that flashback that that where it should've been.

For once someone understood better what it should sound like to be tortured by the Cruciatus Curse! Go, Emma! All the most exciting and actiony bits were left to the last part. And that is a lot. Thus it's very uncertain what will become of the quality of it. Especially if they are going to waste time on the Epilogue. Which has been filmed twice if I've understood correctly, so they probably will.

I think they ended this part to a very good point and did wonderful job with the scene. (:

This lacks in so many things that I think makes the original so affective. This lacks intensity and mystery on some essential level and this makes it all too complicated. Also there are too many "boo" moments in this. Freddy's literally in it way too much.

I dislike the idea that they stripped Freddy off of the essential of being a child murderer all along and having pedophile tendencies only hinted in his behavior. Because 1.) I don't think pedophilia should be focused on in entertainment purposes like the NOES universe. Though they never ever actually say the word or in any way directly say what Freddy was but there are clear hints. 2.) Freddy's original point was that he was a child murderer more than a pedophile. "The Springwood Slasher".

Not that idea of child murders would entertain me either but I can stand its use in fiction better than pedophilia. As the NOES universe isn't made for educational purposes. I think in NOES type of films they should stick to the more common horror stuff (as in murder/death) instead of trying to make entertainment out of (in my opinion) a more sensitive issue. What fascinates me in NOES is the idea of a mortal man becoming a dreamworld monster able to do what Freddy does and how he can be defeated. But the characterization and the background story is important too on the psychological affect, of course.

Perhaps it was the fact that I'd read the earlier script and knew what could be expected in some familiar looking scenes is the reason why many scenes didn't impress me much. But I'd say it was also that they were just averagely done with not intense enough atmosphere. Especially when subconsciously I was probably constantly comparing it to the atmosphere of the original film, which is more mysterious and more intense.

IE. "the ceiling scene" as in Tina's death. I first saw that scene from the original film when I was thirteen and have seen it numerous times since but I still remember clear as yesterday that very first time. I think the same effect might be on people who see this remake first because as stand-alone scene and without any comparison, it might be kinda impressive.

But to me Kris's death was a pathetic version of Tina's. I'm not fan of gore so I'm glad there wasn't as much of that in this version as there was in the original but something else important is missing. Tina was chased first, then we see there's clearly someone invisible under the covers with her, we see that invisible someone *drag* her up to and on the ceiling while she makes dying sounds, then is dropped dead on to the bed. And the gore happened bit by bit all the way.

But Kris? She isn't chased, she literally floats up into the air - (WTF is up with that?!) - is hit against the ceiling, does a few acrobatic stunts on the ceiling for like 10 seconds, dropped on the bed and then is graphically slashed once and she's dead. Plus Jesse VS. Rod, Rod's intense reactions beats Jesse's slightly panicked reaction any day. But then again, as said the guys saw a very different toned death. The remake scene left me a bit… "Ummm… OK? That was weird and quick" instead of scared/impressed. It's the psychological effect of the scenario and length and atmosphere that the remake scene lacks big time.

But the film has its moments and Freddy his cool lines. "Oh God." "No. Just me." That scene's perhaps my favorite in the remake because it's intense and has an interesting discussion, ending into another cool line "Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet." and then he does something more or less unexpected. Even Freddy's stupid voice and stupid Voldemort-looks didn't bother at all.

There were some impressive scenes like the first death which I totally didn't expect to happen the way it did. And I think the actor of Freddy did well for having to work on so much less complex character.

I think these are completely different stories with completely different psychological themes. I like the original's better. I fail to grasp what's the remake's psychological theme since it doesn't seem to be same as the originals: "the boogie-men and how to defeat them" combined to a supernatural reality.

Whatever it is, I think the original's theme is better because it's more easily relateable to anyone and it has a more haunting atmosphere and it doesn't make the background storyline too complicated.

The haunting, mysterious, dream-like, boogiemen theme/aspect this remake lacks in many ways. Yeah there's a lot of dreaming and a lot of talk about insomnia and all that but they just lack in the atmosphere. I think it's partly because they put in the whole "micro naps" thing when one falls asleep without knowing it and thus they could not change the atmosphere between the dream moments and the waking moments.

I think this remake's makers were focusing too much on the background story and leading the characters and story into the source instead of putting effort in making the current situation's horror more effective/atmospheric.

So in the end I guess the remake can entertain but likely the best those who don't know the original story/movie and/or haven't seen it. I would recommend to watch the remake first if you're going to watch it at all. But in my opinion, you're not missing out on anything special if you choose to ignore it and just see the original.

The translated title (to my mother language which isn't English nor Swedish) combined to the back cover text made this sound childish but finally I gave it a chance and found out this is the one titled "Let The Right One In" which had been recommended in serious vampire discussions and I was not disappointed.

Films spoken in a language I don't understand much, usually don't hold my attention, but this one totally hooked me from the start. Interesting setting, constantly dark atmosphere, and this doesn't reveal too much about the characters or their lives, leaving deliciously enough to interpret and ponder after the film. And the actors are great.

I fell in love with Eli and Oskar's dark friendship/romance that has a touch of pre-teenage sexuality lurking in there, portrayed in some elegant, sweet way. The fact that they are basically just children, made it all the more powerful. Well, Eli isn't actually a child though is anyway and it's shown well, but this film doesn't sugar-coat at all the fact that Eli's a monster. Yet this doesn't throw it at our face the way most gore-related movies do these days. At least I found the gory moments in this film rather dramatic and slightly scary, unlike in most films. And this film doesn't over-do how Eli suffers. They portray it perfectly well and in the right amount. There is nothing childish about this film. And to me this is so far the only movie/story wherein the vampire/mortal love story trick doesn't feel cliché, old and used and stupid. But rather the opposite. What I sensed about Eli's character and later turned out to be true, only makes it all the more unique and fascinating.

The ending is surprising and dramatic. And very memorable. The very last scene crowns what I loved about the Eli/Oskar relationship.

If this film has any flaws, I didn't notice them at the first view. Not that I even care if there is. This is an excellent movie. Especially as a vampire movie.

As an independent film, this is almost entertaining, but more a pain. Let me explain first, why you shouldn't trust this as an adaptation of the novels by Anne Rice. The film makers think they stayed true to the spirit of the books. But how could it be possible, if they don't respect anything about the books?

Most of the original character's personalities are totally altered or reversed; especially Jesse has no personality characteristics in common with the novel version what-so-ever. Lestat, who in the novel is joyous and happy, and becomes a rock star "to see what happens" and to do good for the world by revealing secrets of evil... is suicidally depressed in this film!! Marius is aggressive and cold, though in the novels he is very loving and gentle, especially with Lestat, and would never ever do some things he does in this film. Does that sound like sticking to the books's spirit and adapting the books's characters into a story adapted from the books?

But then, what the heck, they also completely rewrote the "guts" of the story - the producers himself uses that phrasing about the matter. Completely rewriting something that crucial, isn't adapting. "Rewrite 'the GUTS' of the story", says the producer. Tthat is in other words 'multilating the insides'. As in, butchering. They butchered the books and they admit it! They just don't give flying *beep* about it! But still, they talk about the production as if it was adapting type and this film is unfairly advertised as "Anne Rice's" though pretty much only the names are in common with her work. It's very misleading for others and very infuriating for some of the passionate The Vampire Chronicles fans, who usually are already dropping heads for the butcher in itself.

I find it funny the producer complained about "information overload" as for why they couldn't stay more loyal to the books - yet they waste half of the film on something that wasn't in the book(s) at all. I'm talking about the so called "romance" between the characters Lestat and Jessica.

Those minutes they could've used for real information from the books, on the Queen of who the title is about and the vampire history. Not only is that history important but it would've also given a lot of awesome atmosphere for this film as a vampire film as well. But even without this actually does work. You are only left to use your own imagination and speculations, which should not be all that bad thing.

I think some changes they made good and working perfectly for the film since they were not really adapting the books anyway. They changed the person who makes Lestat into a vampire - that change just serves the film's limited amount of minutes so well, and even for the characters that was perfect. Even when comparing to the novels. (I have in-depth analyzed Lestat and that character's relationship in the novels, for two years.) This film however lacks showing how excellent substitute maker he is, because they abused the original characters' personalities.)

Can't compare Townsend and Cruise as Lestat. They had completely different scripts in their hands: Cruise had a wonderful script helped by the author herself. Townsend has a horrible mess of a butcher from a production that literally told Anne that they'd do whatever they want. And since that was a story completely different than in the books, it wouldn't have made any difference if Townsend had read the books. It's the story what makes the character who it is. But it's undeniable that Tom Cruise did put 100 times more passion into his portrayal, than Townsend did. But ST still makes a very fine Gothic rock star vampire and showed potential for a true Lestat in the very few in-character moments that were left for him in the film.

As an independent film this is a pain because it's full of old clichés, which however could be bearable if only they had a logic storyline & relationships there, but it's all utter nonsense! Above all the Lestat/Jesse "paiting" they have there. Lestat clearly hates the woman and has every reason to, and he doesn't even imply at any point that he'd be interested in her in any emotional way - actually at all as a person. I don't know what the film makers were smoking when they made the certain two scenes, which had NO realistic development into them. In fact, one of them had a moment that totally contradicts something very crucial that Lestat had said in the same scene, like 5 seconds earlier! WTF!? I repeat; I don't know what the writers were smoking. And why there is no realistic development for the Lestat/Jesse relationship, is because the characters had NO romantic nor sexual chemistry what-so-ever, while they also meet only twice before the ending and they're both loaded with negative emotion from Lestat's side.

This works well as a vampire movie in general - but if you want to introduce yourself to Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" and "The Vampire Lestat" - this film is not the way. If you do not know the books, and can ignore utter nonsense, you're probably the one enjoying this the most. And if you are a fan of the book - do keep open mind and think before you judge.

The cast; everyone are great in their roles. They would've just deserved more true versions of their characters! I especially love Stuart Townsend as Lestat and Vincent Perez as Marius. The atmosphere of this film is darkly romantic. The music is hooking.

Pick this film if you like vampires and you don't have anything else but this and Twilight at hand. Because, the two are the worst you could waste your time with, but this one is superior to Twilight, as this has actually vampires in this.

That is me hoping there won'r be more Shreks. Because this part's story and morals truly made a perfect closure from where and how it all begun in the original "Shrek". Also, I think this part gave a whole new depth and meaning for the theme song "It Is You I Have Loved All Along".

I don't think a 3D version has anything to offer, you might as well watch this in 2D. (But I think the whole 3D thing is pointless anyway. Movies ARE meant to be watched and not "lived". That's why they are movies and not real life experiences. That's why we don't NEED them at our face.) Anyway... This is totally worth the price of the movie theater ticket, if you can look at the film from a little bit new perspective.

I understand why some might think this not as good and magical as some of the earlier parts as this does lack action and fairytale feel, relatively seeing to them, but I don't think this needed any of it, to be as great as they. Because I see this as a closure, which needed to focus on the morals rather than magic and fairytale elements. And the moral of this part, in my opinion, is the deepest and most important of them all. Count your blessings before they're all gone and don't throw them away for something you already chose to give up, because what past choices seem insignificant for the moment, may have make all the difference in the world. This is combined to the lesson of how you should always read any contract before signing it. "You took the day I was born!" "Correction: You GAVE it to me. Since you were never born, you have no wife and no kids. And when this day ends, your life will end." No Shrek movie has ever taken its morals to this utter level and meaning. I find it completely fascinating and extremely well portrayed in the story.

I didn't find the humor remarkably childish or in any way changed seeing to the earlier parts. At least, not during most of the movie.

Also, I don't care if the entertainment relied much on the beloved characters, because the characters were put in completely different situations than they had ever been in, which caused them to have developed some new feelings and characteristics. Especially Fiona, and Puss.

And one of the new characters I find relatively outstanding. Rumplestiltskin. All the other versions I have known, portray him as a rather helpless dwarf, who only pops up here and there and demand a mother to give him her baby, while he perhaps cracks some supposed-to-be-good jokes. But here, they portrayed him as a clever, cunning, bitter, angry fellow with a new obsession and turned him into downright a little sh*t. And the way they had drawn/animated him reflected every bit of that. I think he's a wonderful character in this film.

Perhaps there is less for kids to enjoy than in the earlier parts, but can you even say that any of the Shrek movies have been targeted essentially to kids anyway? I never thought they were.

This fourth Shrek is officially one of the most inspiring movies I've seen for quite a while and does stand strong ground next to earlier parts of the series. Warmly recommendable to a Shrek fan, and to anyone who's out for good entertainment.

...it totally did. Even to the extent of my having to come here and say something. I really, really don't enjoy gore but only to some extent, and this was pretty far across my line. Wes Craven's Scream is one of my all time favorite movies and it, too, mostly because of the psychological aspects, not the gore.

I thought this is more likely to entertain only big gore fans, but I was positively surprised that the critics were right. The film makers certainly did take it so way over the top, and none of the actors took the roles too seriously, that it seemed more comical than disturbing, and left me feeling very positively entertained.

Someone once said that horror is close to humor. When something is too horrible, you laugh in order to protect yourself. Unfortunately that has happened to me only once before this film. It wasn't even a horror film, that one. Anyway, when that happens, there's a great gore movie, even if the psychological aspects are missing or thrown aside. And I think this movie is a good example of such. I doubt any of the things I saw in this film, can come haunting me.

So, even I found myself laughing out loud - partly in defense, partly in a heartfelt way, for one when there is the chaos in the mortuary and one of them throw the decapitated head out of the door and the black guy just happens to walk by just then, looks at the head, then at the chaos and hurries away. It's one of those have-to-see-it-to-get-it moments. And when Dr. Hill was walking to the mortuary, holding his own head on a tray. There was just something too comical about those moments.

Besides, Herbert Wsst is a wonderful character and the actor is just perfect. He alone makes the film very much worth watching.

I even found myself feeling a bit disappointed, when the end credits rolled in. I would've gladly watched a bit more of this fine horror comedy. But I understand that any longer, it might have lost it's power. I don't think I want to watch this again though, as I really don't care for gore much. But I genuinely did enjoy this, this once.

I warmly recommend this to any fan of horror and/or horror comedies - of course excluding those who are very passionately against gore, or very sensitive to it/easily disturbed.

One last thing; Don't watch this as your first taste of horror. First off; there is some pretty twisted scenes in this film. Secondly; I think you should first get used to gore and then watch this film. Otherwise this might be a shocker and take a lot away of the enjoyability.

I don't wonder why this, as far as I know, is considered one of the worst Disney classics ever and I DO wonder how in the world did they manage to have this as the iconic theme for Disney? I guess it is Disney that has made Peter Pan's character well known throughout these decades but only seemingly. I think it's not fair that they take so much credit, when they have never ever told the original story or introduced the original characters as they were meant to be or even got close.

First: The characters. This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona characteristics in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. The supposed-to-be-scary crocodile is a drooling puppy dog in this film. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been completely disgraced in this film is Tink. Even for an independent film that is a bad thing; none of the characters having any originality or depth in them.

The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)

And the ending is happy through and through. The story made NO difference to any of the characters what-so-ever. Their adventure was POINTLESS even if they were making memories. For the viewer there was no memorable scenes either. I kept forgetting almost everything about this film over and over again, even though I saw this countless of times when I was a kid, like 5 years old or so. I tried to watch this a few time when I was a teen, but again - forgettable! Clever bastards! Making it so forgettable that people end up watching it over again and again. I won't ever again, as now I've written down what I thought of it.

Ruining a great story like this, just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.

And as said, this film is very forgettable all in all. It can be enjoyable for very small children but almost insulting their intelligence by not being... well, more intelligent! And more colorful and more original. This just annoys me to no end.

Honestly, in my opinion, shocking scenes and disgusting elements take so much away from the movie. It's like the makers really don't know how to entertain people in the million other ways there are. I didn't think of the original HHE scary at all either but it was at leas a good film. It's atmosphere was dark and fascinating.

The remake spoils that by for example: - Why should the cannibals look any different from us? They made them somewhat deformed because of some radioactive thing at the area on the mountains. Perhaps they were trying to make it different enough from the original version but the way they did it, sucks. And anyway the deformity thing is old. Used. - One takes a beautiful pet bird, bites of its head and squeezes its blood into his mouth. Yay. *roll eyes* - One steals the already killed mother from the car and the boy finds him with the body, and sees him eating it. We actually see him tear of the flesh and put it into his mouth, as the son is watching. A bit disturbing but more disgusting. - When the hill people attack the family's trailer killing some of them, one of them who sexually harasses the girl in the original too, in this version he threatens the baby's life so she'd let him. Holds the gun pointing at the baby's face the whole time.

Then there's of course the long, long and pretty violent scene where the baby's father is trying to save the baby.

SO, many of the scenes were much more emotionally loaded than in the original, but never in any way but disgusting.

Tell me why is this supposed to be "A version to die for"? as one of the critics state in the covwr of the DVD? It's nothing but a cliché version of a well-don original, and focuses way too much in shock-horror.

I'd say sincerely, if a person wants to see a movie "The Hills Have Eyes", should watch the original version. It's much more enjoyable.