mlwitvliet Reviews

Hemel (2012)

Completely pointless movie

[1/10 · 29 April 2020]

It's true. Hannah Hoeksta did an excellent job portraying a disturbed girl with a huge oedipus complex, but this really is the only positive to this movie.

The rest of the movie is pointless, pointless sex, pointless relationships, no storyline, terrible acting by all the other actors with no depth at all.

This movie is just a complete waste of film and funds.

Bates Motel (2013–2017)

Good entertainment but in no way a homage to Psycho

[7/10 · 22 May 2017]

I finished watching Bates Motel yesterday. I must say that I have very mixed feelings about this series. I did liked the story lines and it was good entertainment till the very end. But to call it a homage to Alfred Hitchcocks Psycho it stretching the truth to breaking point .

Although there are similarities and there is a lot blatant copying from Psycho, the time-frame and story lines are completely wrong and over exaggerated and therefore can not explain the psyche of Norman Bates from the original book.

Norman Bates mother was a puritanical old woman who forbids him to have a life outside of her and not he gorgeous sexy woman in Bates Motel. More of this is explained in Psycho 4. With this series they could have done a much better job but unfortunately they choose to take a different path.

Does this make Bates motel completely useless? Absolutely not. The writers of Bates motel did make a good storyline. The scenery is fantastic and I personally think all the actors did an excellent job. The relation between Norma en Norman is believable and there is enough going on to make anyone crazy if these things would happen to you.

I personally think this series would have received higher marks if they would have left the Psycho movie for what it was and made the series with completely new characters. Because they didn't 7 out of 10 for me.

The Mummy Resurrected (2014)

I wish they gave that 3.000.000,= to me. I would put it in a much better use

[1/10 · 19 January 2017]

This movie learns me that I'm one of the stupid ones that believes that a movie can't be that bad as they say it is. Fortunately i saw this movie in the internet so I just spend about 10 minutes to watch the movie and conclude "Wow it really IS that bad".

The acting, the filming, the story line and the music is as cheap as it can get and if they told me it was a school project I would have believed it.

I really can't understand where the $ 3.000.000,= is spend on certainly not if you think that Cult movie "the Evil dead" from 1981 is made with a budget of $350.000,= OK, this was in another era but still!

They should have given the $ 3.000.000,= to me. I would have put a much better use to it.

Frankenstein (2004)

This should be a must see for everybody

[10/10 · 19 January 2017]

I'm (as most people) familiar with Frankenstein because of the 1931 Horror flick Frankenstein and to my shame I must admit I like it. Shame because this movie also shows that Hollywoods arrogance was already there in 1931 by taking someones story and maim it completely for commercial purposes. Because it's a very simple horror entertainment story i never had the urge to read the book.

Then I come across the trailer of this film and I immediately wanted to see the movie, Some people gave this movie very bad remarks. Those are the people that, in my opinion, completely misunderstand the true story of Frankenstein.

200 years after the book is written we haven't learned much. People still like to play god, the makers of the atom bomb for instance, and you can only hope that they have suffered in their lives like Victor Frankenstein did. "we never intended to use them". Why make them then??? Did you people really were that stupid that you don't understand that when you have something like an atom-bomb there will be somebody that would use it? (as they did).

There are also a lot of people in this world who think (like Frankenstein) they have the right to take lives of other human beings just because they are treated bad in their past. There are also a lot of people in this world (the lefties) who think you should understand a creature like Frankenstein, but don't understand that "people" like Frankenstein will kill them with a smile on their face when they feel like it. Therefore I'm glad that in the film is stated, "does a person who takes innocent lives deserve understanding?" on the other hand, do people have the right to misjudge people just because they are different?

These are very good questions and therefore i think this movie should be obligatory on Highschools all over the world and should be discussed afterwards so that also people who don't understand this movie can understand and hopefully are as much impressed with this movie as I was. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.

The Mummy (1932)

A masterpiece??? Nah

[5/10 · 18 January 2017]

Bearing in mind in which era this movie is made I can see that this movie has a cult status but masterpiece??? Nah!!! A masterpiece doesn't drag on and on and I literally fell asleep watching this movie. as I did want to see what this movie is about I re winded it but I still can't see what the fuss is about.

It has good points as Boris Karloff as the Mummy. The story line and filming is not bad but this movie is just not scary and therefore not a horror movie. A good Thriller then??? Nope, for that the story line is not strong enough.

Nosferatu, which is made 10 years before is a far better movie then this one, so it also has nothing to do with the era the movie is made. It just doesn't work for me.

Back to the Secret Garden (2000 TV Movie)

Not a bad movie but no great sequel either

[6/10 · 16 January 2017]

The secret garden is an amazing story at itself. So the idea of making a sequel is not a bad one.

This sequel has one big problem however; They first should have sad down an watch the original movie and than make a story line for this sequel.

"the secret garden" is a great story that leaves enough leads to follow and make a great sequel. So why the vanishing door and the key which is thrown in the lake but suddenly sticks in the door? Is it a sequel on the secret garden or is it a sequel on Harry Potter? This really ruined it for me Conclusion: the story line is not bad an the filming and atmosphere of the movie is excellent and if they would have followed the original movie it would have received much better critics from me. As it is: 6 out of 10.

The Premature Burial (1962)

Mystery suspense and Horror in one

[7/10 · 14 January 2017]

I saw this movie once way back in the 80's when i was just a teenager. What especially stayed with me all these years was the Irish song Molly Malone that is whistled by the gravediggers and used to drive the main role player crazy.

30 years later i like to re-watch a lot of films i watched when i was a teenager and a big fan of horror and suspense but this one was difficult to find because i couldn't remember the title.

I found it however and I still like the movie despite it's age because of the simple reason that we are all afraid of being buried alive. The fear of Guy is excellently played by Ray Milland so that you really feel his fear yourself. The settings of the movie in an old mansion with very foggy grounds completes the eery atmosphere that this movie needs.

The story however has some holes in it and is sometimes a bit far fetched, therefore 7 out of 10.

Lost (2004– )

"Lost" an overall comment

[8/10 · 5 November 2015]

Lost is a very gripping TV-show which will keep you at the edge of your seat when you like suspicion, Mythology, Science-fiction adventure en thriller, but most of all you must like that things are going to be very complex and that some intense watching is required and that you need to fit the puzzle pieces while you are watching.

Every little detail shown in every episode is significant, therefore you can't miss a single one of them, or fast forward because you can very easily skip over an answer. Lots of people who dislike the series are ranting about that they aren't getting any answers, but for this you have to "read between the lines". Lots of answers are given this way. They are also ranting about the "inventing the storyline as the show goes on" I'm disagreeing with that because for example "the Black Rock" (medieval sailing-boat) was already in the first series and it would just be downright silly to put it there just to get the dynamite while the ship does play its role trough the series.

But to say the series is a masterpiece is over exaggerating. Season 5 should have been scrapped because then the story became downright ridiculous with the whole time-traveling thing and it added nothing to the series then confusion. The others should have been significantly explained and they could have made a complete season around the Dharma-initiative explaining how it came to the island and what it's purpose was. This really is a forgotten aspect by the writers as far as it goes for me.

But over-all, the series were very entertaining and worth watching.

The Dead Girl (2006)

What a complete waste of time

[3/10 · 14 June 2015]

Why people are so excited about this movie leaves me at a complete loss.

When you are watching a movie you want it to go somewhere but it's just dragging on en on en on in 5 plots that go absolutely nowhere. This movie is just a complete waste of time.

Why am i giving it 3 out of 10 then? well the filming and the acting is indeed as others say very good, it is just the "story" that goes nowhere and really makes you think at the end: why the hell did I spend 1 1/2 hour watching this movie.

You want to indulge yourself in complete misery, unhappiness en despair? Go watch this movie then and you wont be disappointed, you want to be entertained by a movie to forget your own slumber in life, stay far, far away from it.

Hysteria (2011)

Let's talk about sex

[8/10 · 14 June 2015]

Maybe a strange headline, but it's actually what it's all about.

We're writing the Victorian age. a time that sex was a big taboo and generally not much more then a way to reproduce. You almost ask yourself how it was ever possible that the upper-class with their upper morality did reproduce, because the lower class had a lot less problems with it.

But then sex is a number one necessities of life, so you get grumpy women who are left out to one of life first necessities To give it a name it's called hysteria by the men's world, and women like that should be locked up, or at least be treated.

But no fear, there we have doctor Dalrymple who has a solution by "Massaging the Vulva" which gives a huge impact and spasm on woman that will be followed by deep relaxation and therefore takes the hysteria away. This has nothing to do with sex, oh no, after all, woman can only feel pleasure when they are penetrated by a man. The sheer ignorance of this line made me really laughing my ass of.

Because of the sheer ignorance about sex in this age and the great humorous way how this subject is brought made it a very enjoyable movie to watch. The movie went of with a great bang by a certain line, which i will not tell. You want to know it? Watch the movie, you won't be sorry.

The Boys of St. Vincent (1992 TV Movie)

a movie that should be a "must see"

[10/10 · 14 March 2012]

It is strange how these kind of movies come to my attention. Just by coincidence. First "last house on the left" which I saw uncensored and i found as disturbing as this one and now this one "The boys of St. Vincent".

I found it difficult to give this film a ten. Why? because you have to raid the movie for it's subject which isn't a very nice one. It shows how very despicable and dangerous religious institutions can be and therefore I take my hat off for the filmmakers and give them this well deserved ten out of ten.

It is a fact that this is happening in religious institutions all over the world and not just only in catholic one. But instead of doing something about it when there is clear evidence it is happening, all these institutions still putting all their energy in hushing it up. Also the denial from their followers is something I find very troublesome. Even this movie is influenced by it. Normally the intro of these kind of films always say "this film is based on real events" What is said here? "This is a fictional movie based on real events" Why? why is it necessary to say this by this particular movie?

This movie shows it all. That priest are also just human and that it's almost impossible to fight against your own hormones which do make sex one of the first necessities of life and that it's very unhealthy to repress it till it simply bursts out. Not every priest who has molested children has been molested in his own youth.

Therefore it is necessary to show this amount of child nudity. I almost threw up and wanted to jump at the TV at the abusive scene of Brother Lavin and Kevin. It makes you feel nauseated and this is exactly what you should feel and makes this movie so impressive. Children become products of the way they are raised and that is brilliantly shown in this movie.

For me this movie should be a must see for everybody. Feel the nauseousness, be absolutely disgusted by it. It is necessary to let it sink in that even religious institutions certainly aren't as holy as they are appearing to be

Showgirls (1995)

They can't believe this is happening

[8/10 · 21 October 2010]

Paul Verhoeven has always been someone who like to shock. And boy, did he by making this movie.

Everybody's drawing on about the bad script and acting which is actually over the top here and there but I said it in other commentary's, this is Hollywood.

Also mentioned, It's completely and utterly unrealistic. Uuuuhhhhmm.... NO IT'S NOT. This is how it actually works in places like Vegas, I've worked in Nightclubs and Dancings as a DJ myself and did music for Fasionshows and it's almost scary how realistic the backstage scenes are. The raping scene is also not that unrealistic. We don't want to see it but it's happening in real life too. Examples enough.

Elizabeth Burkley as Nomi isn't that bad at all. A lot of people thinks her anger-explosions are totally unrealistic but I've seen explosions like that in real live and the Low self esteem but trying to survive by acting like a Alpha-male. "Just playing Vegas life" Survive and go on!!! It maybe comes as a big shock to you, but places like Vegas aren't really the fairytale everyone believes it is. It's a sewer with a golden layer and nothing more than that and it is shown in a excellent way by Paul Verhoeven.

Titanic (1997)

Mixed emotion

[8/10 · 21 October 2010]

Titanic is without a doubt a great movie. A lot of the haters are breaking down the movie for the wrong reason. It's not about bad acting or bad special effect. The movie is an absolute masterpiece in that, no question about it.

What is it about then??? The script! And i'm totally agreeing on that. The film is based on one of the biggest shipwrecks in history an James Cameron is paying an utterly disrespect to make a romantic movie over a shipwreck that actually happened and it leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth. But this is Hollywood! a fictional world and we always have to keep this in mind.

yes, Titanic WAS the ship of dreams and had story's enough to tell on it's own accord. That James Cameron didn't use this is a real shame. But again, this is Hollywood, the fictional world!!! In my opinion it should have been the filming of Futility, the book that was written 14 years before Titanic sank and showed a striking resemblance to the events that really happened on Titanic. Then you don't have to worry if the events that really happened are filmed accurate but alas, it isn't. It's a romantic story and a good one. It is a story that could have happened on Titanic and you feel for all the characters and a film should't be utter rubbish just because the script isn't a replica of the real events.

Therefore I don't mind it became a blockbuster but it suits that it isn't in the top 250 of best movies in the world which somebody else complained about. When a movie can't pay respect to real events it shouldn't receive respect. And it doesn't.

Spetters (1980)

Excellent movie

[20 October 2010]

Yesterday I saw Spetters again after a long long time, and it still does it for me. It's even become a trip down memory-land back to the good old eighties when I was a teenager myself.

It's a story that could have happened in real life. It shows the conservativeness of the heavily reformed Christians in the Netherlands in an excellent way and it still goes like that nowadays. The Netherlands are well known for it's liberality, but be aware, there is a other side to the Netherlands to that isn't liberal at all and it's shows in this movie. The way Eef's father is raising him and the way Eef is resisting his father is something i've seen a lot in real life.

One slight downfall from the movie is the way Eef found out he was gay. As he didn't actually seem to have any problems with the ladies, it's hard to buy that he suddenly became gay after he was raped. There were not any signals before. As for the homophobic humor, well, we all like to think we have the biggest one and the way it was handled is typical dutch. We are liberal about sex and like to joke about it. You feel for the characters and it's got heart. And that's always a hell of a achievement.

Furthermore i was surprised to see so many high raids by people outside the Netherlands. It's a typical liberal dutch story, so i'm surprised to see that people outside the Netherlands seem to understand the movie better then the people that commented the movie from the Netherlands.

Candyman (1992)

A highly underrated movie???

[5/10 · 20 October 2010]

I've read a lot of commentary but i just can't understand why people are so excitingly going on about this "great and very scary movie".

Come on people, what's so scary about it??? With the story-line It could have been a good Thriller but a good Horror movie??? NO-WAY!!!! You watch a horror movie because you want to be frightened. But then you have the Candyman who looks like somebody else beautifully phrased "like a pimp from the movie Starsky and Hutch" and the body full of bees... come on!!!! Sorry, but a power to control bees to have them attack you at his will would scare me much more then this crap.

On the other hand. I Don't think the script is bad and it's not bad acted either. The movie has an eery feeling about it but it just isn't Scary!!! and for me there is no point of watching a Horror-movie that isn't scary.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

You call this Horror???

[1/10 · 18 October 2010]

What a waste of time to watch this movie.

I don't have to give any spoilers because the film is covered by the following:

1. Talk talk talk ----- talk talk talk ---- and talk some more then 2. Stab stab stab ---- stab stab stab ------ and stab some more

THE END

I really can't understand that so much people like this movie. Some people say it's frightening. Sorry, but what is so frightening about this movie? you see everything coming from a mile ahead and it draws on and on. I watched this because I really liked Last house on the left and Nightmare on Elmstreet but the point of this movie is completely beyond me, certainly with an ending like that!

The Last House on the Left (1972)

You have to view this film in a certain way

[8/10 · 18 October 2010]

I have seen a lot of comments on this movie so we wont have to tell the storyline anymore.

I watched this movie and the first half of the movie disgusted me enormously. It shows there were sick people back in the seventies too so maybe this is given hope for the future. From the part that the parents found there daughter, it became shockingly unrealistic and it helped to get over the shocking scenes you get to see in the violence and rape scenes. It satisfies your revenge feelings against the three violators but nothing more than that and I question myself what the film would have become if it went like the first half to the end with the bad guys winning, which is normal to see in horror-movies.

If I see the commentary here I don't think much people below thirty can understand why this film has become a cult classic. it was probably the first movie which showed twisted people, sex and violence so open and realistically so who cares about bad acting by some of the actors. You got something to see that was never shown before and I may only hope that it gave a lot of people an insight how sick some people can be. Now we are living in times that there is nothing new under the sun and it's almost impossible to impress people anymore because everything is pretty much done. I haven't seen the 2009 version yet, but seeing the trailer I think it's a better ENTERTAINMENT-movie to watch, with much better filming, acting and entertainment-music but it will never equal the realism shown in this movie because it looks like a home-made video.

For closure; I really can't believe that there are people saying that they found the rape and violence scenes to boring for words. I personally think that if you can see a girl get raped and murdered like that without any emotion at all there is something seriously wrong with you and you need to taste something more of the real life instead of the movie-world with buckets of bloods and guts flying all over the screen.

Giving this movie a vote is difficult because of the double message. You shouldn't like movies where people are raping and killing for fun, but as for the shock and gore way back in the seventies it gets 8 out of 10 from me

It (1990)

It doesn't do justice to the book

[5/10 · 14 October 2010]

I must say that I read the book after I saw the movie and the book is a hundred times better than the movie.

I can understand that it's impossible to film the book word for word, but I always hate the fact that filmmakers are always self-centered and pigheaded enough to go completely from the book and tell their own story. Skipping parts, OK, i can live with that, but completely change scenes of a book is a no go zone for me.

There are very important parts of the book left out, the way the kids friendship has grown an the first attempt of killing IT is just raffled down. In the book it's a much more gripping tale and to understand that (and the movie) you will just have to read the book.

The house in Neibolt street is completely left out, as the bird ROCK. The mummy of Stan came down a water tower and not down the stairs in a house, the history of Derry isn't told and why Henry Bowers acts as he do isn't explained in the movie at all. He just is as he is. You just can't understand what the fortune cookies in the film mean if you haven't read the book. Also the ending is completely raffled down in a very disrespect full way and is almost comical

On the other hand, most of the scenes in the movies were recognizable an the beginning of the movie was good and had almost the same suspense for me as the book and i think if they hadn't blatantly left parts of the book out, it could have been a much better movie. A missed chance for a great movie.

Therefor 5 out of 10

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

It was good until....

[6/10 · 14 October 2010]

Yesterday I saw the last movie of the series. Despite myself I have watched all the movies from the series but stick to my view. From the third film off Fred became Freddy. A parody on himself in a fairytale. Then there was "A new nightmare" and it brought back Fred.

So as I started to watch this movie and liked it. It had the same suspense as NOEM 1 and I liked the storyline. There was also Fred's humor but they did it well this time. There is no reason why a character like Fred doesn't have humor as long as it doesn't kill the suspense.

But Alas. The fighting between Jason and Fred began and the movie became instantly lame again. What a disappointment. What could have been a battle between two Horror hero's became lame fighting scenes for the Nintendo-generation again by adding ping pong sounds. Immediately i asked myself: WHY?????? What's the point of making such a movie with suspense and all and throw this all away by putting the ping pong sounds in. You are making a horror movie or you are making a parody. Make up your minds next time.

New Nightmare (1994)

It surely is watchable and It brought back the original Fred Krueger

[7/10 · 14 October 2010]

At first I had to get used to the movie because the film is going at a different angle. However in my humble opinion the movie went back to the original an brought back the original Fred Krueger of the first movie.

From the third movie out of the series, Fred Krueger became more and more an parody on himself and I really hated that. He wasn't scary at all anymore and sprung out at very VERY lame humor. But hey we probably shouldn't forget Wes Craven comes from a country were they also produce "America's funniest home video's" with the lamest humor there is to be found in the whole world. The sequels (from the third movie) are going the same way. The images are good, the story that is told is also good, but it all gets ruined by the very lame humor.

Not in this movie anymore, Fred (not Freddy) is back and gave back the eery suspense that was also found in the first movie.

(spoiler) On the other hand, the movie isn't very original. You get back the same effects and deaths as in the first movie and the storyline is about the same only at a different angle. But for me the film was entertaining enough to watch it till the end and I liked the idea of the angle the movie went. therefore 7/10

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

It's not an complete waste of time

[4/10 · 9 October 2010]

I saw this movie years ago and was very annoyed by it. Then I came at IMDb where I read the comments on NOES 2. A lot of people thought it was bad, but I actually thought it was OK. The main reason that most people didn't like the second movie was Jessie, who seems to have a sexuality problem. I didn't have a problem with it. What the movie did was extend Freddy's power which could be "logic" because Jessie was so very afraid of Freddie.

The power of Freddie in part one (and which made NOES 1 an instant Classic) was that he was "real", and that made him so scary. He brought you so deep in your nightmare that it became real and is that not exactly why we are scared of nightmares. That they seem so real??? The second movie went on on that same line but this time, as said Freddie used Jessie. But still AFTER dreams. He had Jessie in his grip and he wasn't strong enough to fight him. That's why I liked the second movie also.

But OK, a lot of people thought the third movie is THE sequel at the first so I gave it a try again and I still disagree. It goes way further down the line then the second. The story-line is OK. It goes further into the legend, I liked the plot of the Non and Nancy returned in the movie, Nothing wrong with that. But why is she suddenly so tame and hasn't she got the power to fight Freddie again. and when I saw Freddie appear as the snake again, I immediately remembered why I dislike this movie. What the hell is that??? Why does Freddie suddenly has to appear as a snake like were watching a fairytale. And then the Puppet Death! The scene was great till the end as Freddie appears as a giant and snaps the lines with a stupid grin on his face. That's where Freddie lost his strength for me an became a laughing joke.