Reviews

96 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A very important film that shouldn't be ignored
7 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Not many films make me feel sick to my stomach and not many make me feel such a profound sadness that I'm helpless to do anything but cry. An American Crime chronicles the startling and horrific events that led to the death of sixteen year old Sylvia Likens. The story we're told comes directly from the court transcripts in the case of Baniszewski vs. The State of Indiana. As the story unfolds we slowly spiral from a normal, small town world populated with youthful innocence to one of absolute and inexplicable horror.

The story of the events that led up to Likens' death is short and tragic, with many people to fault, including her own parents and sister. Her parents negligently entrusted her and her little sister's care to a woman they had only met once. This woman, Gertrude Baniszewski, was mother to a brood of children and accepted Sylvia and her sister into her home for the simple fact that she needed the money the Likens were offering. But Baniszewski wan't fit to care for the Likens' daughters and within a few months, Sylvia had become the victim of Gertrude's escalating abuse. Sylvia eventually became a prisoner in Baniszewski's basement for an excruciating 27 days, where she was abused and tortured by Baniszewski, her children and also a number of other neighborhood children. How could this have happened? How could so many people be involved in such a horrible crime? How could her own sister not have gone to the police before it was too late? After Sylvia died as a result of her beatings, Baniszewski's was found guilty of her crimes and sentenced to life in prison. Her children and the others involved were also found guilty and sentenced, each one eventually serving two years in prison. While Baniszewski's crimes are unforgivable, the thing I personally found most disturbing was how her example led to her children's and the other children's acts of cold, cruel, brutality.

The world we are introduced to in AAC is not sensational, on the contrary, it is simple, ordinary, common and comfortable. The production design and cinematography work in harmony, lulling the viewer into believing they are witness to a more innocent time and place and as the story builds the Norman Rockwell veneer slowly begins to chip away until it is displaced by a world of suffocating doom. The resulting effect is that AAC gets under our skin and disturbs us in a profound way since these crimes could have been committed in our neighborhood, by our neighbors and possibly by people we knew and trusted. Most disturbing of all is the realization these crimes could have involved us.

It would be easy to demonize Baniszewski and all the others involved in Likens death, but writer/director Tommy O'Haver chooses to humanize them instead. In doing so their horrible acts of abuse and torture linger and beg the recurring question: how could they have done this? When we see the faces of the children in court, we don't see the faces of psychopaths, we see innocent children with no explanation for their actions. Only Baniszewski herself comes across as a detached, delusional and remorseless criminal and Catherine Keener has to be applauded for somehow managing to add complexity and insight to someone guilty of such crimes. Keener's subtle performance aside, the standout in this movie is Ellen Page who breaks our heart when we watch her stripped of her innocence.

Before AAC, Page drew raves for her performances in Hard Candy and Juno. In both those films she played a precocious, smart assed hipster who had the world on the tip of her little finger. Here Page plays Likens as a sensitive, kind and considerate sixteen year old and when the world comes crashing down upon her, the suffering she endures is heartbreaking and convincingly rendered by Page. I'm sure few will agree with me, but Page's breakthrough performance isn't in Juno, it's in An American Crime.
77 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doomsday (I) (2008)
8/10
A mixed up bag...but a fun mixed up bag!
18 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Neil Marshall's follow-up to 2006's The Descent truly, honestly is one mixed-up bag. Doomsday is pure cinematic anarchy, but it's chaos that's under control and in the right hands. The film starts off as a deadly virus sweeps over Scotland leaving people and families in disarray. The government is able to contain the outbreak by putting up an impenetrable wall; sealing off the country from the rest of the world. Years later, the government has reason to believe that some may have actually survived the infection and begin wondering if there's a possible cure so they send in a top security force to investigate.

Leading the mission is the one-eyed Eden Sinclair, played with sexy machismo by Rhona Mitra, who is basically playing the female version of Snake Plisskin from John Carpenter's Escape from New York (one of the characters is even named "Carpenter"). In fact the almost the first 20 minutes of Doomsday feels like a straight cover version of Escape from New York; using the same opening title font and 80's synthesizer score provided by Tyler Bates. Once inside the infected zone their team is ambushed by a gang of psychotic cannibal punks, and one of Sinclair's squad is cooked up and served to the gang. Mmm… toasty! Some seem to be having a difficult time pinning down exactly what Neil Marshall's film is suppose to be. Is this a rip-off of past B-movies, or a loving homage, or is it something else entirely. Honestly, I'm not even sure what Doomsday is exactly. It feels has if Marshall has gone through a dozen 80's B-movies and taken his favorite elements and mixed them together in one explosively, combustible movie. I think there were a few clever ideas that if you look closely you might find funny (i.e. an emergency exit sign inside a castle?). Marshall stays so true to the essence of the genre that I'm positive he even included some of its flaws; like occasional continuity errors (yes, it's suppose to be funny that that Bentley is practically spotless at the end, after flying through that bus).

The film is like the equivalent to a greatest hits album; every 20 minutes the movie morphs into something different; from Escape from New York to The Warriors to Mad Max to Braveheart to Gladiator and ending with a car chase that seems ripped out of The Road Warrior. The film never stops moving and never stops evolving. Sounds incredibly uneven, right? Well it is, and yet strangely it almost doesn't seem to be a major flaw when I think about it. The strangeness of the film's structure is almost an interesting blessing in disguise. I don't think I could very easily defend this film in the traditional sense of "good/bad" cinema, but I'll be damned if I wasn't fully entertained for it's entire 105 minute running time, which felt like a quick 20 minutes. I was never bored, or even close to being bored. That's entertainment, and this film could have easily been another 30 or 40 minutes longer and I wouldn't have cared.

Doomsday is a film that is cut from the same table cloth as last year's Grindhouse. It may not be refined great cinema, but sometimes a nice sloppy joe can be just as satisfying as prime rib. Doomsday is about having fun, not about making much sense, or all the other things that tend to get in the way of entertainment value. Neil Marshall splatters virtually everything on screen; from cute, little bunnies to a leather-clad gimp, and does so by smashing the pedal to the metal and blazing across genres and cinematic styles and does it with such panache it makes it nearly impossible to not say that I enjoyed the ride, even if it was a familiar, bumpy one. It was a true experience; an exercise in visceral anarchy, both physically and narratively. This isn't the kind of movie you go see because of it's originality, but rather because of it's familiarity. If you love the movies that Marshall loves, then I'm sure you'll have a blast.

At a time when studios crank out pointless remakes and disappointing, over budgeted sequels, it's nice to see a movie where a director (with a much smaller budget) can throw just about anything and everything into a single movie and create one crazy-fun ride out of it. Logic put aside, originality temporarily shelved; Doomsday packs as much bang for your buck as anyone has any right to ask for. Shut up. Sit back. And relax. Take a load off and enjoy the ride. It's all that matters in the end—just have fun. Doomsday is pure formula, but it's a proved and tested formula that works. The movie is comprised of the best parts of genre films and compacted into one flick. I'd rather sit through a film like this than have to suffer through a serious-minded attempt by some hack film director to actually remake Escape from New York or The Road Warrior. If you went in expecting a horror movie or a science fiction movie or a movie that was to be taken seriously, then you went to the wrong movie.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hatchet (2006)
5/10
A fun B-grade movie that's missing something
1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
So, here's the thing. I'm a horror aficionado. I love most horror movies, from the truly bad to the truly sublime. When I heard about Hatchet, with its tagline of "Old School American Horror" I immediately put it in my sights. Add to this the fact that it has cameos from three 80s/early 90s horror icons in the form of Robert England (A Nightmare on Elm Street), Kane Hodder (Friday the 13th) and Tony Todd (Candyman) and I was on for hopefully a good, fun, bloody time.

Hatchet falls into the same category as the recent Feast and Slither; that is, a gross-out horror comedy genre that's seen many great and not so great films. Hatchet also definitely apes the stylings of those 80s slasher flicks like Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th where you have an unstoppable killer who died years before and had come back to take revenge on the world. The kind of killer who can't really be killed, no matter how many times they're shot, stabbed, set aflame, punctured or beaten.

In this case, the monster of the film is Victor Crowley who lived with his father when he was a boy out in the swamps outside of New Orleans because he was horribly disfigured. And of course, he ends up dying, getting a hatchet to the face and his father dies alone and wracked with guilt. So then we have this "Scare Boat" ride that our unlucky travelers take that goes into the swamps to see ghosts. The boat crashes, the survivors end up next to Crowley's house and the decapitations, arm-ripping-offs, heads-spun-around, bodies-torn-asunder begin.

The movie is over-the-top in its depictions of violence and its done in that kind of gross-out horror that can bring a smile to your face even as you realize that you're watching a person's head getting turned around. It's very low budget. In one particular dismemberment, you can actually see the dummy arm as it wobbles with each hack from the axe. This isn't the "I can't watch" gore of the Hostels and Saws. It's the "I can't believe what I'm watching" fake gore of Feast. And none of it is in anyway realistic. Victor Crowley himself looks more like a rated R version of the Power Rangers monsters.

The problem I have with Hatchet is that it bills itself as "Old School American Horror" (have the 80s become "old school?" If so, I feel old) but it's missing something. It's not scary enough, for one. Nor is it funny enough to sit among some of the greats. It's not enough of one or the other for it to truly be worthy of a higher score. Yes, there were moments where I barked an unexpected laugh or found myself smiling a bit, as in when Victor Crowley is first shown...but there are other entries in this genre that either have more scares, more laughter or more of both.

Hatchet is definitely worth watching. Especially if you have a few horror fans, it's a great film to grab some popcorn and have a great time. But it's not as great as I was expecting, or as some online sites like Ain't It Cool might be leading you to believe. It's enjoyable and fun, but, for my money, I'd rather watch Feast. Worth a rental, for sure.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween (2007)
8/10
I enjoyed it
16 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I liked it. I really did. I enjoyed it as a film. As an individual film, separate from the rest. Sure, it wasn't perfect. It felt a little uneven in the middle. In other words, it seemed like each half of the film were really just shortened individual films that were put together to make a whole new one. Because of that, the remake phase was a tiny bit fast-paced for me. However, overall, I enjoyed it a great deal. There is a reason why, however, that is deeper than the film itself.

What Rob presented was a great film, that had a story that wasn't perfect. Therein lies the genius of it. It felt real. It didn't feel like a movie. While many will find that to make it a cluttered mess, it didn't for me. An example would be the way he presented Michael's victims. We didn't get to know them that well before he killed them. But when some serial killer kills a group of people, and it is announced on the news, what do you think the chances are that you know those people? You don't. And yet, it is still horrifying. In other words, you don't have to know the victims to understand how terrifying the crime is.

In a movie, you follow these people around, the camera being your eye as you stalk them invisibly. You really get to know the people. Here, by not following them, it presents that realism quite well. You don't know who these people are, but whether you know them or not, Michael Myers is still presented as a terrifying being. Speaking of ol' Mikey...

I thought Tyler and Daeg's performances were amazing. I loved how even though you could sympathize with him in his early life, it didn't change how bizarre, and truly evil he was. Right in the opening scenes, we see him petting a rat, and then we see moments later cleaning a bloody scalpel or something. Then, he tells his mother that his rat died. You know what he did. It's not that hard to figure out. What's great about this is that it shows that even though he had this terrible life, he didn't just snap over night. He's been going crazy for some time. The scene with the bully in the woods was powerful, at least for me. His eventual escape was equally amazing. How he took out those guards truly showed his power, and menace. I especially liked when he killed Ismael Cruz, because that was the indicator that the young boy that went into Smiths Grove was not the monster that walked out. To quote the original Doctor Loomis, "That part of him died years ago." Michael Myers in this film, as a character, was just as scary as he was in the original. The best Myers since Castle IMO.

Which brings me to another point that I really liked. I think that of all the actors who could have played Loomis, Rob really picked the right one, which was surely a difficult task. Sure, many suggested Anthony Hopkins, but (and I hate to say this) having played similar characters several times, he may have had a spirited performance, but he would have taken you out of the real world, and remind you that it was only a movie. Rob could have cast an actor that wasn't that well known, but then the performance would have been lacking, and have the same effect. With someone like McDowell, he has that face that is just obscure enough that you can buy him as a real person, yet he is also a great enough actor that he can still pull an amazing performance.

The rest of the cast was great as well. I really liked Harris as Annie, and Laurie was cast pretty well in my opinion. She acted like a real teenage girl. I would know, there's one next door, and then there's my younger sister. As for greeting each other with "Hey, Bitches" I think that was actually rather spot on. Real girls aren't like cartoon girls, or 7th Heaven characters, who go wide-eyed the moment someone uses a curse word.

Like I said, the film isn't perfect, but it was definitely better than most, if not all of the sequels. As for how it measures up against the original, well, in terms of sheer quality, no, it wasn't better. But better isn't what they set out to do in the first place. I think this is the problem with most remakes. Many people who bash them believe that the initial concept is to make a better version. What Rob set out to do was make a Halloween that was just as good as the original, to make Michael Myers scary again, and at that he passed in flying colors. Sure, the original had good things that this film didn't have, but this film had good things that the original didn't have. They're different films, so you can't really judge them together. It's not a shot-for-shot remake, and it isn't a rehash either, so there's not much room to really compare everything. The only area where you can compare them is in the level of quality, and at that, they're at about the same level for me.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I expected more....
23 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
There is an interesting story to be told about Elizabeth Short aka "The Black Dahlia". The name alone elicits a lot of mystery and intrigue. Short's graphic murder is one of Los Angeles most famous crimes and it still remains unsolved till this day. In 1987 James Ellroy wrote a book called The Black Dahlia which centers around a group of fictional characters and uses the Short murder as its backdrop. The book became a huge bestseller and created an even larger following of those who were interested in The Black Dahlia's story.

L.A.P.D. detectives Bucky Bleichert (Josh Hartnett) and Lee Blanchard (Aaron Eckhart) are the department's stars because of their unparalleled record in bringing fugitives to justice. At the time of the infamous "Black Dahlia" murder, where the dismembered body of aspiring actress Elizabeth Short (Mia Kirshner) is discovered in an open field, Bucky and Lee are working another case, tracking a child rapist. However, Lee becomes obsessed with the Short killing and aggressively pursues a seven-day transfer for himself and Bucky to the taskforce. Bucky agrees only reluctantly, however, believing it's more important to get their original quarry off the streets. Investigating Short's past leads Bucky to femme fatale Madeline Linscott (Hilary Swank), with whom he begins a relationship. Meanwhile, sparks are flying between Bucky and Lee's girlfriend, Kay (Scarlett Johansson), but neither acts on them out of respect for Lee.

Like I said, I can see how this material could be captivating on the page. It really feels like it would be well suited for that medium. I think a part of the reason this failed is the fault of the marketing campaign for the film when it was released. The marketing department played up the based on a true story elements and made it seem like a crime thriller directly about Elizabeth Short. The truth is in the nearly 2 hour running time, The Black Dahlia herself gets about 10 minutes of screen time via some haunting screentests (more on that later) and the case itself makes up about 20-30 minutes of the plot. The rest is the not interesting partnership between Bucky and Lee, the girl in the middle subplot involving Kay, and Bucky's encounter with a femme fetale by the name of Madeline. All these stories combined do not achieve the same interest as Short's story. The fact the film constantly sways to bore us with their goings on, becomes a bit tiresome after awhile.

Then there is the ending which takes not 1 but 2 lengthy monologues to explain. To call it completely outrageous would be a compliment. For those of you who don't know about the real case, the explanation for the who and why involving Short's murder is purely fictional. The real killer was never caught and the story remains unsolved. Since this is partly a movie of fiction I expected them to tack on an ending "revealing her murderer" but did it have to be done in such a silly manner? I nearly laughed out loud when it was all revealed. The movie literally comes to an abrupt halt when all of this takes place.

Viusally the film is excellent. 1940's Los Angeles has never looked so good and it rightfully deserved its Best Cinematography nomination. Everyone looks great in their 1940's period garb and the film actually crackles with energy when time is taken to soak in all the atmosphere. Elizabeth Short's screentest's are also well done in the film. They're done in a simple old school black and white and they leave a rather haunting impression . I became enthralled by the film whenever one was started but unfortunately they don't dominate the film.

The acting is a bit of a mixed bag. Josh Hartnett has always been up and down as an actor to me and for the most part he's a little flat here. His voice is actually just right for the film noir style narration that goes on in the film, but during scenes that require deep emotion he can't seem to get it together. Scarlett Johansson is another weak link. This girl is incredibly overrated in my opinion and she keeps proving it with several lackluster performances. The only thing I've loved this girl in was Match Point but I guess that was a fluke. Actually Hartnett and Johansson appear to be a bit out of their league here. Almost like children playing dress up. Aaron Eckhart fares better out of the male leads. His character is a bit interesting but unfortunately Hartnett's character gets more exposure. Eckhart has proved himself to be a good performer, even in lackluster fare. The real surprises are Hilary Swank and Mia Kirshner. Swank is hard to take at first as the sultry femme fetale but as the film goes on she slips well into the role. It was interesting to see her finally be able to play sexy and maybe they should give her more opportunities to do so. Mia Kirshner is mesmerizing as Elizabeth Short. She only appears in the screentest footage but she is truly captivating. The fact that she acts circles around Johansson and Hartnett with only about 10 minutes of screen time is pretty amazing. I wanted more of her. I literally could not take my eyes off of her while she was on screen. She gives humanity to the role and allows us to identify with her in only a short amount of time.

I really wanted to like The Black Dahlia. I had high hopes but ultimately the film is suffering from a serious identity crisis. Like I said, there is an interesting story to be told about the mysteries murder of Elizabeth Short but unfortunately this is not it. If you want a good solid true crime film than go for "Zodiac".
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Reaping (2007)
5/10
Not as bad as everyone has made it out to be....
18 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Movies that are often long delayed tend to have a stigma attached to them that they will be god awful. When a studio pushes a movie around it usually means they don't have much confidence in the project and that maybe some more work is being done to the film behind the scenes. The Reaping is one of those long delayed films but the interesting thing is, Warner Bros is putting a lot of marketing muscle behind this film. I've seen trailers for this thing for months and the TV spots are running on a regular basis. Plus, this was screened for critics and usually when a studio lacks faith, they tend to avoid the advanced critic screenings.

The Reaping has received mostly negative reviews but I'm going to have to disagree with the masses. I thought The Reaping was an interesting film and it is adequately anchored by Hilary Swank's fine performance. For a film that languished in release schedule hell, this isn't too bad at all. In fact it's better than most of the recent horror films to hit the screen.

Katherine Winter (Hilary Swank) is a miracles debunker. A professor at LSU, she follows every lead she can find to disprove the existence of the supernatural on Earth. The reason for this has something to do with her past, as is gradually revealed through a series of cryptic flashbacks. Enter Doug (David Morrissey), a representative of the small bayou community of Haven. Apparently, their river has turned the color of blood and the residents are worried about Old Testament plagues. Accompanied by her faithful colleague Ben (Idris Elba), Katherine makes the trip to Haven, where strange things are happening. Frogs start falling from the skies. There are locusts and lice and cows that don't look too healthy. Then there's a little girl in a red dress (AnnaSophia Robb) who runs around trying not to be caught.

The Reaping is admittedly more style than substance, but the style is so strong it's hard not to recommend. Lousiana seems to be the perfect place to make movies like this because the bayou atmosphere also worked well for The Skeleton Key. There is something very quaint about the location but it oozes with a sense of mystery and intrigue. The Reaping utilizes this surrounding to the best of its abilities and never really lets down the audience from a visual stand point. The visuals truly kick into high gear during some of the plague sequences. Some do look "too CGI" but others work quite nicely. The locust scene is a true highlight and definitely got my skin crawling. I'm not a big fan of bugs so I knew this scene would get to me the most. The boils sequence is quite impressive from a make up angle and the thunderstorm towards the end has a few moments of decent effects. There are also some good uses of the foreground as the Lauren character is shown numerous times right outside of the shot to catch the audience by surprise.

I also found the subject matter interesting. Usually films about religion, God, and the Devil tend to not interest me, but this film actually went down an interesting road. The plagues and the story behind them is interesting and I loved how her character did provide legitimate scientific reasons to debunk some of these acts of God. There is a theme about the battle between God and the Devil and this explores what angles each takes in their quest to influence mankind (that is, if you believe in God and the Devil) The other actors in the film are adequate but this is Swank's show and i must say she was a wonderful host. There is something extremely likable about her and it made it easy for me to really root for her. She has this every day woman demeanor that translates well on screen. She also handles the emotion of her character's arc very well. There is a reason she's a two time Oscar winner, I just hope that Hollywood continues to utilize her talents. This is truly her project to carry and she does so with the greatest of ease.

The film does falter a bit in the end. Films like this tend to never end just right and this is another classic example. The ending does provide a "twist" but it feels tacked on and it has been done to some degree in other films. Perhaps, they thought they had to shock the audience one last time but it really hurts the outcome. The ending works within the context of the story but it doesn't provide that chill they were hoping for.

I find myself not being able to say much about The Reaping in the end. It's not the pinnacle of horror and other religious themed horror efforts have fared better, but this is a film that is much better than its history would indicate. It kept me interested throughout and it's a film I have no problem recommending, despite the universally negative reviews. I say check this one out, at least to see Hilary Swank do a good job of holding the film together
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
6/10
It's fast, fun, and full of action but that's about it....
4 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
At 2 hours and 20 minutes Spider-Man 3 is a bit long but even at this length, there isn't enough time to fully realize all the stories. The film is a bit bloated and it feels like 3 different films lumped into one. Some of the story elements work well while others fall absolutely flat. The one glaring mistake is how the character of Eddie Brock/Venom is handled. This is a villain worthy of his own film. For fans of the comic book, Venom is probably one of the greatest Spidey villains in the comic book's history. His popularity resulted in his own comic book and when the films began to come out, many fans longed for the addition of Venom. I'm going to assume most hardcore fans, and perhaps the casual moviegoer are going to be disappointed with how the character is represented. The main issue is a lack of screen time. Eddie Brock isn't given any time to form into a real character so when he is transformed, you feel very little sympathy. When he finally becomes Venom, he is rendered with wonderful special effects, but he isn't given enough to do. I won't even speak of his demise which is anti-climatic at best. This is a major misfire and the fact that such a major villain was lumped into a film that was already overloaded, is a shame.

The best story involves the one that has been establishing since the first film. The conflict between Peter/Harry/Mary Jane is actually handled very well and I think it works more than the other stories because we're actually connected to all of the primary players involved. They've spent three films developing the characters and we've grown to care about each of them. The biggest success of the first two films is how it handles the human stories of love and lost. This is a classic example of why the comic book and films have been so well received. They touch on something very real in all of us and even though its presented against a very unrealistic backdrop, the emotions are still very much real. James Franco is especially effective in this film and I believe he's mostly the reason why this aspect of the story works so well. His character goes through the best arc and he manages to make Harry conflicted and very interesting. Adding the personality altering aspect of Spider-Man's new "black personna" offers some great parallels between the two characters. Peter's thirst for revenge against Flint Marko mirrors Harry's thirst for revenge against Peter/Spider-Man. The change in personality also offers some interesting darker elements to the story. The scene in the jazz club with Peter, Mary Jane, and Gwen Stacey is equal parts funny and disturbing as it escalates to violence. This element of the story isn't given enough time to shine but when it does, the movie becomes much more interesting.

The action is very good, even though this another case of quick edits substituting for "true action". The first action sequence with Harry and Peter is effective and well handled and all the CGI scenes with Sandman are a wonder to behold. Sam Raimi is definitely utilizing every penny of the budget and you can tell it was money well spent. The action only takes a wrong turn during the final battle because everything sort of ends on a rather anti-climatic note. All the action sequences that come before it are more compelling.

The acting is top notch, even though the cheesiness of the script sometimes threatens a few effective performances. Tobey Maguire is at home in this role and he's quite good here. I didn't realize this until now but this guy can cry with the best of them. The break-up scene between he and Mary Jane on the bridge is heartbreaking mainly because his emotion feels so genuine and intense. He also handles the transition into more aggressive material quite well. At first I thought he wouldn't be able to play mean, but he does it very well. Kirsten Dunst is effective as well but the script cheats her the most. The script makes her character rather unlikable and it's a testament of Dunst's talent that she can make you feel sorry for her despite the way the character is written. She also handles her emotional scenes quite well and she has a very good chemistry with Maguire. Franco and Church were already mentioned for their good turns and newer additions like Topher Grace and Bryce Dallas Howard are good, but vastly underused. This is especially a shame for Grace because he's really good in his scenes but the movie doesn't develop him enough at all, even though he's being set up to be a big villain. Noward is suitably likable and sexy as Gwen Stacey and she offers a cute performance but in the end, she isn't given enough to do. I will say that whenever she was on screen I wished Peter would drop Mary Jane and focus on her.

I really think that people are going to come out of this film feeling the same way they did when they saw X3. That film was a fun popcorn movie but lacked the emotional depth of the first two films. It was also rather bloated and tried to add too much within the story. Spider-Man 3 is a decent way to start off the Summer movie season and it's still a worth companion piece to the other films but I do hope that the other major blockbusters to be released this summer just give us a little bit more than this film did.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Number 23 (2007)
5/10
Not as bad as the critics say but still flawed....
14 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Number 23 is a victim of the concept being much better than the execution. There is a decent plot here to create a very compelling thriller but the script cheats the film on many occasions. It's unfortunate because the film is drenched in a very hypnotic style and the performances are top notch. I suppose the script needed many more revisions before it went into production because what we have here is a fairly interesting, yet flawed movie going experience.

Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) is leading a seemingly normal life with a seemingly normal wife, Agatha (Virginia Madsen), and a seemingly normal son, Robin (Logan Lerman). Everything changes the day his wife purchases a copy of a book entitled The Number 23 at a used bookstore. The book is about the obsession of the main character, a detective named Fingerling, with the number 23 in its various permutations. Walter becomes obsessed with the book. He senses an eerie connection between himself and Fingerling and, like the protagonist, he believes there's something important about how often 23 appears in his life. A psychologist friend (Danny Huston) suggests that he sees 23 everywhere because he's looking for 23 everywhere, but Walter ignores this sensible advice and begins to imagine conspiracies and murders.

This film currently sits with an 8% at Rotten Tomatoes.com which probably makes it one of the first truly univerally panned films of 2007. I'm here to say that the film isn't nearly as bad as those reviews would indicate. In my opinion this isn't a great film or even a very good one, but it isn't a film that should be thrown away and forgotten. There are a few things to rave about. I'm going to take a moment to take up for Joel Schumacher. Many people called him a hack after he destroyed the Batman franchise with Batman & Robin. After this debacle many people seemed to forget that Schumacher is capable of making really good films. Before Batman & Robin he gave us The Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, and A Time To Kill. After Batman & Robin he gave us Tiger Land, Phone Booth, and Veronica Guerin. These are all good films in their own right. He applies this visual approach to The Number 23. For the scenes within the book he creates a very compelling neo-noir world that is actually quite engaging to watch. I almost wish the whole film took place within this setting. Schumacher surely knows how to create style and its one of the best things about this film. I refuse to blame him anymore for Batman & Robin because after watching the special features on that DVD, it's clear that the film fell victim to studio interference. I think everyone should take a look back and re-examine how they feel about Mr. Schumacher.

The acting also works well. I was a bit worried about Jim Carrey being in this film because I didn't think he could handle certain aspects of the role. I don't question his abilities as a dramatic actor since he was quite good in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Truman Show. My concern was whether or not he could play the paranoia associated with the role and thankfully he showed me he could. This is a very nice turn from Carrey and it will probably be forgotten because the film hasn't received many great notices. It's not the best performance of his career but it's definitely something different for

him. As the Fingerling character within the book, he is oddly engaging. He does things with his body language and his eyes that are very subtle and effective. Virginia Madsen is saddled with the supportive wife role but she makes the most of it and probably makes it more compelling than it was on the written page. I think Madsen is a very good actress and it's nice to see her getting more exposure since she was in Sideways. She is also a wonder to watch during the neo-noir scenes but she is in too few of them. Her and Carrey share a decent chemistry that works well for the film.

Too bad the script lets them down. The 23 Enigma is an interesting concept and sometimes the film uses it well but it ultimately plays second fiddle to a rather bland murder mystery plot. If you pay enough attention the conclusion is easy to figure out and once you do, you have to suffer through 15 minutes of an elaborate explanation. It's unnecessary and poorly done. The last act of this film is truly a mess. The script becomes a muddled mess and the film ends with a whimper rather than a bang. It cheats some of the decent ideas that came before it and makes the film end on a very sour note. The film also has way too many cheesy moments that had the audience laughing unintentionally. I could've done without the dog popping up everywhere (it makes sense if you've seen the film) and some of the dialogue between the characters is a little unnatural.

The Number 23 has an interesting concept but unfortunately the film doesn't do much with. I can only recommend this for some of the nice visual tricks and fine performances, but even with that, I don't think it will be enough to satisfy the audience. You want the numbers to add up but they never do in this valiant, yet flawed effort.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
God Awful! I mean BAD and I'm a lenient reviewer!
3 April 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film gets a special 2/10 grade from me because there is one redeeming factor in this film. The girls are very hot. There is no doubt about it that Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Lacey Chabert, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Crystal Lowe are incredibly gorgeous. Their looks keep you glued to the screen during this god awful remake to, one of my favorite horror films, Black Christmas. Too bad their beauty can't save the film from being by far the most awful film of 2006. Maybe I'm being bitter because I love the original so much but the filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for butchering the originals good name.

I'd like to point out that earlier this year director Glen Morgan talked very angrily about the When A Stranger Calls remake. He said that he had saw the film and that Black Christmas would not go down the same path as that film. He said that the film was sub-par and that Black Christmas would be much better. Well, Mr. Morgan I'm going to say that the mediocre mess known as When A Stranger Calls is hands down a much better film than your take on Black Christmas. I have to ask myself has this guy even seen the original film? Did he simply think it had a cool title and just wanted to make his own story and sell it as a remake? To fans of the original there are no similarities except that it takes place on Christmas, it involves someone named Billy, and there are sorority girls. Other than that this film is much different and definitely not in a better way.

The first major mistake is providing a backstory for "Billy". The original film allowed us to imagine what might have drove Billy to the point of murdering the sorority girls. The fact that we learned very little about him or even saw what he looked like, added to the overall mystery of the character. In the 2006 version, we get so much backstory that it truly makes him a rather neutered villain. They go down the typical he went crazy and killed his family route which resulted in him being locked up in a sanitarium. Of course on Christmas Eve he breaks out and decides to stalk the sorority house which turns out to be his former home. There is no mystery and no intrigue whatsoever. It also doesn't help that the flashback scenes of Billy's childhood are so sloppily handled that they actually slip into unintentional comedy. I literally laughed out loud due to some of the absurdity of these scenes. They don't mesh well with the already horrendously bad present day story.

Then there are the sorority girls. Not one of them is likable. Even the heroine is a bit annoying and she definitely doesn't have the same virtue as the Olivia Hussey character from the original film. It seems like, with the exception of Katie Cassidy and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, that everyone is running on auto bitch pilot. They are nasty, evil, and just plain superficial. If you were to ask me the difference between the Michelle Trachtenberg character and the Lacey Chabert character, I really couldn't tell you. For some reason the screenwriter wanted all the female characters to be exactly alike which gives the audience no one to root for. In fact, I couldn't wait for most of them to meet their demise.

The film is also excessively gory. Some might call this a blessing but in the case of this film, it is a major roadblock. The original film had little to no blood in it but of course in today's horror movie market you have to gross out the audience, so Black Christmas does just that. The problem is the violence isn't visceral, it appears to be purely comical. I didn't turn away once out of fright but I certainly laughed at how ridiculous the violence was. I shouldn't be laughing at a killer eating human eye balls but Black Christmas makes you do just that. The film leaves very little to the imagination and positively kills one of the best aspects of the original film.

The acting is a non-issue. No one here is any good. I've seen many of these actresses do very well in other projects but Black Christmas should be removed from their resumes if they hope to gain respect in the industry. They are all beautiful girls (I for one am surprised by how grown up Michelle Trachtenberg and Lacey Chabert look in the film) but beauty can only get you so far. They all scream well but the script and the film does nothing for them. They all leave the film looking a little embarrassed with themselves.

The only thing I hope this film does is allow audiences to discover the original film. I implore you people discover the 1974 classic and please ignore the 2006 remake. It is a disgrace and I hope it dies a quick death never to be heard from again. Do yourself a favor and avoid this trainwreck at all cost but feel free to buy the new special edition of the original film which is currently found in stores. This new version is definitely one to miss unless you need a good laugh.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hostel (2005)
2/10
1.5 STARS: "New Age" horror (if you can call it that)...a tale of torture, pain and suffering may be more accurate.
27 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
must admit that these "New Age" horror movies like "Hostel", "Cabin Fever" and the "Saw" movies really make me laugh. If Stanley Kubrick were alive, he would laugh too. These movies are not difficult to create, nor do they exhibit any real talent on the part of the director and certainly not the actors. Nevertheless, I found "Hostel" somewhat entertaining in more of a dark comedy kind of way than a horror flick. Let's face the fact that there is nothing scary or horrifying about this movie. It's gruesome and makes you want to recount your fingers and toes to make sure they are all there, but it's not a horror movie in the classic or traditional sense of the genre. The fear, scary if you will, and atmospheric elements are completely lacking.

What "Hostel" stands for is the new age of horror movies (if you can even call it that) that focuses more on torture, pain, suffering and gore more than anything else and is largely unimaginative invoking no sense of fear in the audience but a sense of dread more than anything else. "Hostel" is indicative of the fact that the horror genre is undergoing a kind of metamorphasis probably because of a lack of creativity and imagination on the part of the creators of such flicks. For the life of me, I don't see how anyone can call the "Saw" films, "Cabin Fever" or "Hostel" scary in the true sense of the word.

"Hostel" is primarily about a group of sex-crazed young men who decide to go to Amsterdam to pick up girls, (mostly prostitutes) and have a good time. Well, they end up at a place where inflicting suffering and pain is sold to those who would pay to indulge themselves. The problem is that our sex-crazed young men are some of the most prized torture-objects of these sadistic individuals' insatiable desire. What proceeds is simply "a tale of torture, pain and suffering" which is basically what "Hostel" is all about. If this appeals to you, "Hostel" is right up your alley...if you are looking for a scary movie or traditional horror movie, you need to stay clear of "Hostel". As I said, I found "Hostel" entertaining from a dark comedy standpoint and that's all. However, I think it's significant to the viewer that not only is the acting extremely poor in this movie, it is also worth noting that there really aren't any characters in this movie (of any significance) worth sympathizing with except for maybe the oriental girl, but she's not a main character.

I do not want to give "Hostel" any moral credit as that would insult the creators of this fine flick, but one could look at "Hostel" from a variety of different ways. Perhaps we should look at the irony in "Hostel" in that when you are on the hunt for something, you could also be the hunted as well, especially in lands that we know little about and where we are also not protected by the laws, liberties and rights that we have in the United States. A great example of a movie where this is true is "The Midnight Express" starring Brad Davis. While the parallels may be weak between the two, I think the reader can see where I'm coming from in this regard. All in all, I mildly enjoyed "Hostel" but not for the reasons that most people liked it. Truth be told, this movie does not deserve two (2) stars as a horror movie, but for its entertainment value, I'll give it 1.5 stars. After having seen Eli Roth's "Hostel" and "Cabin Fever", I think it's safe to say that Mr. Roth would not know a horror movie from a cheerio.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The critics don't understand the horror genre...the critics never will
22 October 2006
This review going to sound more like a rant so bear with me. I just got back from seeing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning and before I sat down to write my review I decided to read some of the reviews that were written by mainstream critics and those written by fans of the horror genre.

Many of the mainstream critics don't attack the quality of the film at all. Most of them don't say the film is shot poorly or is horribly executed. As I skimmed through several of their reviews a common thread came up: these critics just don't appreciate horror of this caliber. I'm not saying this film will go down as a classic but disliking a film because it's bleak, brutal, and depressing does not make it a very credible review. The last time I checked being tortured and watching your friends get killed right in front of your eyes was supposed to be bleak, brutal, and depressing. There is nothing happy or refreshing about it. There are many different types of horror films. Some of them scare you by building suspense and some just attack all your senses by being purely visceral and emotionally draining. This is what The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is. It's completely intense and it doesn't hold back. For fans of R rated horror, this is their dream come true.

I'm a big fan of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I consider it not only one of the scariest films ever made, but also a pretty good piece of cinematic art. For something called Texas Chainsaw Massacre there is very little blood in the film but it attacks all of your senses by presenting the "torture" as if more is going on then there actually is. It plays with your mind and its documentary style adds to the intensity. The 2003 remake is not on the same level as the original film but as recent horror films go, it's a very intense experience. I know some people are against remakes but i think the 2003 version improved upon some elements in the original film (namely character development) and presented a story that wasn't just a carbon copy of the original film. It's a completely adequate companion piece.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is an even better companion piece. Again, this film doesn't achieve the pure style of the original film but the brutality is on full display here. I think that recent horror films have certainly been a new breed. I felt the same way about the Hills Have Eyes remake which is also a brutal piece of horrific art. In many ways this prequel is much better than the 2003 remake is both style and execution. You can tell this is still a Hollywood production but I think the gritty style of the period is captured pretty well here. It almost reminds the viewer of the low budget style of classic horror films of this type.

This film takes place a few years before the events in the remake (1969 to be exact).On one last road trip before they're sent to serve in Vietnam, two brothers (Handley and Bomer) and their girlfriends (Baird and Brewster) get into an accident that calls their local sheriff (Ermey) to the scene. Thus begins a terrifying experience where the teens are taken to a secluded house of horrors, where a young, would-be killer is being nurtured.

I was surprised to see that this film is shorter than the 2003 film but it seems to move much slower. There is a fair amount of getting to know the characters before they're sent off to be tortured and this benefits the film. It makes several scene later in the film all the more hard to watch because we're connected to them on some kind of an emotion level. A scene involving Chrissie having to look on as her boyfriend is held captive, is actually one of its best because emotion balances out the horror that is taking place.

The film is compromised mostly of unknown actors, with Jordana Brewster leading the pack. Brewster has appeared in a few movies (The Faculty and The Fast and the Furious to name a few) but she has yet to break out. She holds her own here and while it took me longer to warm up to her than it did for me to warm up to Jessica Biel in the previous film, she actually gets much better as the film goes along. R Lee Ermy returns as Sheriff Hoytt and is given much more screen time. This is an example of dark humor actually being quite frightening. This guy is a force to be reckoned with and at times he's more terrifying than Leatherface himself. The rest of the cast play their roles well and I definitely bought the fear from all involved.

As for Leatherface, I think he's much scarier here than he was in the 2003 film. He's more brutal and much more intense and when used correctly, for instance during the chase scene towards the end, he's his very own force of nature.

Judging from the other reviews I read for this film (the ones done by fans of the horror genre) I think this will be a definite hit amongst its intended audience. The mainstream critical reviews prove that these types of films aren't for everyone. However, if you're looking for a entertaining and brutal experience then this will not disappoint. I just wish these professional critics out there would lighten up and try to appreciate films like these for what they are, instead of casting off because the intensity is just too real for them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prom Night (1980)
5/10
Ehhhh...it's OK
16 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Prom Night is ridiculous, convoluted, and probably one of the cheesiest slasher films I've ever seen. However, this doesn't mean it doesn't offer some entertainment value. If you're looking to laugh get a few scares here and there this Halloween season then Prom Night should definitely be on your list.

Prom Night came out a time when slasher films were all the rage in the 80's. After the success of Halloween there were a string of imitators with Friday the 13th becoming wildly popular. If anything, Friday the 13th showed filmmakers that slasher films didn't have to be smart. They could be merely entertaining throwaway flicks that make a quick buck but lack artistic integrity. So after Friday the 13th the slasher movie machine began pumping out flick after flick of slasher mediocrity and this is definitely one of them. The only thing truly significant is that they some how got Leslie Nielson to star in this and Jamie Lee Curtis would further solidify herself as the scream queen of the late 70's and early 80's.

The plot has classic slasher movie conventions written all over it. A girl plummets to her death while fleeing from the taunts of four vicious classmates. Years then pass and now it's prom night for the children that survived the incident. Soon someone begins taking vengeance against them for their childhood sin but whoever can it be?!? My biggest problem with Prom Night is that it has the potential to be something pretty good. The plot could be quite effective but you can tell the fillmmakers had no intention of making this at all memorable, at least not for the right reasons. The film has developed a bit of a cult following on video and DVD but not because it's scary or, even good. The following is based on how incredibly flawed the movie is and lets not forget the insanely funny disco soundtrack. If anything Prom Night represents a time in the 80's where slasher films portrayed all their characters as stupid cardboard cutouts who are just featured to be killed in horrific ways. I own the film and I know I'm panning but as a fan of the slasher genre it is a rather entertaining movie watch and make fun of with friends. Sometimes slasher films exist for that purpose alone.

None of the acting is worth mentioning. Not even Jamie Lee Curtis is good here and you can tell this was her trying to wide the success she had with Halloween. Of all the horror films she appeared in after Halloween, this is certainly her at her weakest. The rest of the cast consist of unknowns who haven't seemed to have gotten much work lately. I wonder why? Then there is the ski mask killer of the piece who is a rather weak and unimpressive presence in the film. The creepy phone call thing works the first few times then it just gets stale and while he is effective during a chase scene towards the end of the film, the scene isn't quite long enough to really register. He also takes a bit too long to make an appearance. The film is practically almost over before he makes his first full appearance.

If you want to have a cheesy horror movie night with friends for Halloween then Prom Night should be on your list. It's completely mediocre but at 94 minutes it could provide you with some big laughs and a few cheap scares. Plus there is a disco dance off in it, you at least need to witness THAT moment!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A great slasher film - Sadly underrated
5 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Horror films have a bad reputation for being completely senseless and lacking a sense of artistic integrity. I'm not going to lie, some of them do fall into that category. However, there are moments in cinema history when you get a film that defines the genre. Something that is so good that it transcends the usual trappings that hold films of its kind down. A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, The Exorcist, Alien, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are just a few of the horror gems that are well made and also very scary.

The story is quite simple. At a sorority house, the girls are getting ready to go home for Christmas but begin receiving phone calls from a strange caller who won't give his name. The next day, many girls leave, but one who should have met her father doesn't turn up, which causes great concern for her safety. When another girl goes missing, the police begin searching the area and find a body nearby. Meanwhile, with only three students left in the sorority house, the phone calls continue, getting more and more menacing each time, but unknown to the remaining members of the house, the caller, and perhaps the killer, is closer to them than their nightmares could ever imagine.

Keep in the mind that the killer calling his victims before he strikes them practically began here. Some might tell you it started with the original When A Stranger Calls, which was actually released a few years later, and it certainly took place before Scream, which was released in 1996. Black Christmas was the first to effectively use this technique and I must say this film uses it the best. While, menacing phone calls can get tiresome in some thrillers, the calls in this film generate fear and tension with each one that is made. They gradually become more violent and disturbing, to the point that they're almost unbearable. This isn't someone merely playing a game, this is someone with deep emotional and mental problems. The phone actually becomes a character itself because for most of the film it's our only link to the killer. We learn very little about him but what we do learn about him is through his acting out on the phone. I guess you can say the phone is an extension of his character.

I also liked that this film believe less is more. There is very little blood and most of the violence is implied. Sometimes a visceral approach to horror can work but I think horror is most effective when they leave a lot of it up to the imagination. Your mind certainly creates a more disturbing image then they might've even shown.

Speaking of the killer, he's probably one of the better ones to appear in a film of this nature. The most fascinating thing about him is you don't know anything about him throughout the film. The fact that he has randomly chosen to strike these girls makes him all the more frightening because it proves that sometimes crime is unexplained and completely unprovoked. You never really get a clear look at him, since he's merely a voice on the phone or cleverly shrouded in darkness but he's still a very powerful presence. The fact that he's seen rarely makes his few big "appearances" all the more terrifying. I'll provide two pictures of his most frightening exposures in the film and i guarantee when you see it, even after seeing these, those images will still stay with you long after the film is over.

Halloween is commonly known for its effective opening scene which a steadycam shot that is supposed to be the perspective of the killer coming upon the house. That technique was made popular in that film but it was used first here and it's actually used often to great effect. The camera is constantly giving you the sense that danger is approaching and it's a very simple but effective technique. A lot of the film is seen from his perspective so it becomes very interesting to view a film through the killer's eyes.

No good horror film can work without engaging leads and Black Christmas certainly has a pretty good cast. Olivia Hussy, who at this time was very popular due to her turn as Juliet in Romeo and Juliet, is a very likable heroine. She differs from most because she's definitely flawed and is nowhere near perfect but it also makes her all the more human. She's able to carry the film and while she's not the strongest actress around, she certainly handles the task at hand very well. The rest of the sorority girl cast consist of mostly unknowns but Margot Kidder, who would go on to play Lois Lane, is featured as one and quite funny as the booze hound of the house. John Saxon, of A Nightmare on Elm Street fame, appears here as a detective and is always a welcomed presence in anything he's in.

Black Christmas is pretty hard to find in stores. I had to get mine on amazon but if you can try to catch this film. It's simple, effective and very scary. It should be given more credit for its role in shaping the slasher genre and maybe with the release of the remake this year, the original will get its much deserved mainstream attention. Check out Black Christmas this Halloween season, you won't be disappointed.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Carrie (2002 TV Movie)
7/10
Lets pretend that this isn't a remake...
2 October 2006
..and take it on its own. It's inevitable to think of Brian DePalma's original scarefest with the Oscar nominated Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie; but if we take this made for TV movie on its own merits and try not to compare it, we may find it's a pretty good movie. Angela Bettis is mesmerizing as Carrie White, the daughter of a religious fanatic, who made it rain rocks when she was born and also when she got angry as a child. We obviously know this little girl is something out of the ordinary. But Stephen King's CARRIE really focuses on the loneliness of being different; of being mocked because you aren't like everyone else; the joy of being accepted at a prom with the handsome hunk Tommy; and ultimately, the irony of revenge on everyone whether they deserved it or not. The production values for a TV movie are very good, even if some of the CGI effects look a little forced, but director David Carson gives us the portrait of a lonely girl who just wants to fit in, and whose retaliation on a sad bunch of spoiled brats is carried to the extreme. Patricia Clarkson's understated performance as Margaret White is just as chilling as the over the top fanaticism of Piper Laurie; Tobias Mehler is a likable and hunky Tommy; Rena Sofer brings a lot of punch to her role as the gym teacher; Katherine Isabelle (Ginger Snaps) is a bitchy Tina, and the young lady who plays Chris (didn't catch her name, but she's currently on the hit series LOST) is also effectively sinister. Kandyce McClure seems slightly out of place as Sue Snell, and I'm not sure the addition of the police investigation (led by the sturdy David Keith) is necessary. I also felt the ending paled in comparison to the original (Mama being impaled by knives in a mock effigy of the horrible crucifix she had). Seems like the writer wanted to shy away from doing the same ending, but didn't come up with one as memorable. All in all, though, Bettis is magnificent as Carrie, and Sissy Spacek should be proud of her.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Funhouse (1981)
7/10
Underrated Early 1980's Slasher
1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Tobe Hooper, who recently did the unsettling Dance of the Dead episode for Masters of Horror on Showtime, as well as the family classic, Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), presents a not so pretty picture of carnival life, and a somewhat pathetic-albeit homicidal-monster with a decidedly unhandsome visage, and penchant for mayhem.

The opening of the film is a nod to Halloween and Psycho, two other masterworks of the genre, and from there builds into a creepy story revolving around teen lust, sleazy carnival characters, and a 'man-made' monster that has needs like everyone else, but simply cannot satisfy them in more socially acceptable ways. A fascinating subtext running through the story is that it is a variation on the tragedy of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster. In Tobe Hooper's tale, the monster is one born of genetic mutation, cleverly foreshadowed by the Freak Animals Alive tent exhibit, where the fetal brother of the monster floats in a jar as an abominable attraction for the hoi polloi.

Indeed, in the film's opening sequence, the Frankenstein monster is carefully shown, first as a poster showing the Glenn Strange characterization (my favorite!), and then as a Mego doll-oh sorry, action figure-carried by the young boy, Joey, whose sister soon curses him because of his bizarre prank that scares the wits out of her. Joey's actions are also another subtext running through the film: he dons a mask to become a monster that frightens his sister, and the actual monster wears a Frankenstein mask to become less of a monster, and therefore less frightening to others.

It is interesting to note that, unlike the current spate of horror films that feature eye (popping)-candy and little else, in this film, the characters are presented with choices, yet consistently make the wrong ones. And as we all know, in a horror film, when you make the wrong choices, someone, or more likely today everyone, winds up dead. Amy, Buzz, Liz, Ritchie, and Joey consistently make the wrong choices, and suffer the dire consequences. In the tale of Dr. Frankenstein and his monstrous creation, wrong choices also led to death and disaster, but at least here we have the Funhouse! The funhouse is surrounded by the carnival, a seedy, grimy affair filled with seedy and grimy denizens. There is a bag lady that looks very much like Grandmama from the Addams Family spouting "god is watching you!" a homeless man that wonders around like a zombie, a few bums, the past her prime fortune teller and palm reader (well played by Sylvia Miles), the not so magnificent Marco the Magician, and the barkers (three of them superbly played by Kevin Conway as if he were a natural). Properly toned by John Beal's score and Andrew Lazlo's cinematography, the loud and brightly lit carnival facade hides a darker, more primitive underbelly of murderous anarchy, and its nexus is the funhouse, established by Mr. Hooper's use of two tracking crane shots, one at the beginning and one at the ending of the mayhem, that emanate from the funhouse to encompass its surroundings.

Our hapless group of monster fodder soon regrets their decision to stay the night in the funhouse, and Joey soon regrets sneaking out from his bedroom-down the trusty-trellis-by-the-window-to visit the carnival. We also learn that the father of the monster has regrets about letting it live, in a scene that contains a wealth of hinted at backstory, but must share responsibility for its actions because of choices he has made. Dean Koontz, in his novelization of the film, includes this back story.

The climactic confrontation in the mechanical belly of the funhouse is suitably horrific, yet uses little gore, and, unlike the requisite sequelization antics of many fright films today, provides a definitive and satisfying closure. Unlike the mindless snuff horror approach to today's films, The Funhouse explores themes and provides a story depth that is worth viewing, along with the thrills and chills.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It (1990)
2/10
IT has become S&IT!
1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
To start things off honestly: "It" is probably one of the poorest book adaptions I've seen in quite some time. After reading the book and finding an extraordinary piece of writing, an amazing work of art, I was thrilled to see the movie. I knew it couldn't be all that the book was, but I hope for some semblance...

And some semblance is what I got... and that's all. The deep, thoughtful construction that helped build the novel, where both the stories, the side of 1958 and the side of 1985 (the years are changed in the movie, but there's nothing wrong with that) are shown alternatingly, starting with 1958, moving ahead to 1985, and back again, creating a heartfelt atmosphere. The movie instead plays the older part in the first segment, as one full flashback that tries to cram way too many events into one bit, whereas they should have simply tried to organize their own way of telling, and the more recent events in the second half. It seems like every event in the children's section is segmented into 15 minute episodes, just trying to pile notable events in from the book, and it doesn't work. It might have worked better if they kept the construction that King originally established, but even then it would have hardly stood, as they took the events for no reason.

And even with this chronological sorting, they seemed to actually forget scenes and had to tack them on later as additional flashbacks that had little to do with the scene, but desperately needed introduction earlier.

Gone is the unifying theme of the group: They each escaped It. That's there, in a way, but it's moreover just tossed in for scares, and horribly stupid ones at that. Gone is the leper with the three-foot tongue that chased Eddie down the traintracks. Gone is any fear or tension when Bill rides off on his bike with Stan (it was Richie in the book, but that's not important...It's supposed to be a moment of escape, but they just simply ride away, ruining all reason for Silver to matter until the end, when the makers suddenly remembered that they needed it.

And then, the worst two bastardizations. It's OK if Richie encountered a werewolf instead of a giant statue. It's OK if the scene with Georgie at the start was during the day, stealing what could have been a truly horrific scene (maybe cause it was made for TV, that lightened it.) It's OK if the whole point of Henry's return is gone (maybe not... but I'd have let it slide.) And it's OK that they cut out the kids being lost after first believing they killed It (definitely because of the made for TV movie... hell, even a theatrical movie... I don't see that scene, even in suggestion, ever reaching film if this movie were to be remade and I'm not going to reveal it, you'll just have to read the book.) And gone is the origin of It. No, those things are forgivable... let's get to what isn't.

Personal Bastardization: I felt jipped when they finally confronted It and the whole deadlights business was dumbed down. It wasn't supposed to be hypnotic, it was a staring contest, that would eventually lead into the Ritual of Chud. This point is missed. And then the Turtle (don't ask, read) is also gone, losing the relation to the universe that Stephen King set up in the novel. It's no wonder that the scene of Patrick Hockstetter and his demented fridge (aside from it being made for TV and that scene would never be allowed), as the dealings of the Other weren't explored or even mentioned. I wanted to see how they portrayed the whole scene and they didn't even have it, which ruined the entire final confrontation at the end.

Universal Bastardization: The vow to return. In this, they easily walk out of the sewer and look outward, where Bill has them promise to return. In the novel, they crawl from there, exhausted and bewildered. Instead, there is no forced promise; they do it themselves, cutting their palms with a glass Coke bottle and making a blood pact that they would return if It was still alive. And the meaning disappeared as well, but I won't get into why, for fear of telling too much of the book, which I truly hope the readers of this review will read.

OK, I suppose I should get onto why I let this have two stars instead of one if I hated what it had done to the book, right? There are some beautifully horrifying scenes, such as when Beverly exits her childhood home and sees a balloon bouncing down the road, laughing. The sharkteeth in Pennywise's mouth aren't used well, but they look scary. And there was the great scene when they were children, where they hold hands in a circle and Stan suddenly finds himself holding hands with the clown. The acting is decent for a TV Movie and there are a few notable celebrities.

These few things aren't enough to make the movie good, and it really would only be scary for young children, who probably shouldn't be watching it anyway.

With the same budget and time space, a decent movie of "It" could have been made. Instead, there's this trash. I can only hope that someday, there will be another version of this created, one that captures the emotion, atmosphere, and incredible imagination that formed Stephen King's masterpiece of a novel, "It."
21 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Clownhouse (1989)
8/10
A tainted 80's gem
1 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The film begins by introducing us to three brothers Casey (Nathan Forrest Winters), Goeffrey (Brian McHugh, and Randy (Rockwell). It seems Casey, the youngest, suffers from a deep-seated fear of clowns, apparently due to a previous visit to the circus a year ago. This fear manifests itself in the form of reoccurring nightmares. We soon learn the boys are going to be alone on this particular night as their father is away on business and their mother will be visiting a distant relative. The boys plan on going to the circus, with a reluctant Casey in tow. We also learn three homicidal inmates from a local insane asylum have escaped. Will the inmates find their way to the circus and assume the roles of clowns, follow the boys and terrorize them in their big, dark, empty house? You betcha...on hearing about some of the elements of the film, it would seem this to be your very run-of-the-mill type 80's horror film, but once you settle in, it becomes much more than that. Salva quickly displays his talent for creating suspense and tension on screen, while avoiding the more visceral elements so prevalent in the genre during that time period. The use of light, shadows, and creepy music really combine well to create an atmospheric chiller that almost leaves you breathless at times. Sure, there's the occasional 'pop out' scare, a scene where something jumps out of the dark to frighten and shock the audience, quite a cheap effect in my opinion, especially when overused, but Salva doesn't rely on this technique throughout. I felt he more or less used it sparingly, priming the fear pump to bring on better, more intricate scares developed by turning things the experienced viewer would expect to see in a film like this around and presenting them in a different way. And this was done in a very subtle manner, as not to really call attention to the subversion of the normal techniques, allowing the audience to experience a squirming sensation as the film progresses.

The pacing seems quite slow through the beginning and well into the middle, and I think there's a good twenty minutes between when the clowns enter the dark and creepy house until their presence is actually known by the boys. This seems very deliberate on the director's part, allowing for him to let the pot simmer, letting the viewer get unnerved with the knowledge of the intruders well before the boys know it. The clowns seem intent on playing a game of cat and mouse for whatever reason, but given that they're psychotics recently escaped from a mental hospital, who knows what their methods or motives are? I thought the three actors playing the brothers did quite well, presenting a fairly realistic portrayal of typical siblings, including all the meaningless fighting and rivalries many would be familiar with within their own relationships with their brothers and/or sisters. The house itself was quite odd and maze-like, being so very large yet it felt like so little of the seemingly huge interior was actually utilized within the film. I did feel a few scenes the actions of the characters or dialog didn't seem to fit as well as it should have, but these were minor gripes on my part, and didn't really lessen the overall effect of the film, which was to scare. There is an underlying plot thread throughout the film, one that focuses on the dealing with of one's own fears (actually, it's more of the core of the movie), but it didn't get in the way of this film providing some generally excellent scares.

Okay, as some may know or not, there is a much darker side to this film than what's presented on this disc. It's hard to provide a review and not mention it, so here it goes. The director, Salva, got into trouble after some very inappropriate actions with one of the young stars of the film. I'm not going to go into details, but he was convicted of his crimes, and served his time (you can look up the details on the web easily enough if you wish). Do I support what he did? Certainly not...there is a taint on this film, and those who are familiar with the history behind may decide to avoid this based on the actions of the director, and I wouldn't blame them, but I cannot change what happened. Hopefully all parties involved got the help they needed as it's hard to ignore the talent involved. I can't help but think it was this situation that caused me such difficulty in finding an affordable copy of the film.

The film is presented in a wide screen format here, and it looks pretty good. Some scenes were a bit dark, and the audio seemed a bit soft at times, but if you are looking for a seriously creepy horror film from the 80's that avoids many of the clichés of the time, then this one is a real gem.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Omen (2006)
8/10
Good remake
30 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I'm not much of a fan of the original, which is slow and turgid and often teeters on the edge of boredom. There's not enough wrong with it for me to dislike it, but there's not enough good about it to make me like it either. It stands in no-man's land. The remake is much more fun, though it suffers from some of the same concerns, such as uneven pacing and a basic plot that just isn't that hot. How, you might rightly ask, does the remake manage to be much more entertaining than the original despite following it incredibly closely? Well... it's tough to say. The budget plays a big part in it, honestly. Watching people sit around, or wander around to different locales is a lot more appealing when you can make it look really good in the process. It's also helped, somewhat, by the performances. Mia Farrow is fun and over the top as the creepy nanny. The colder performance in the original was fine in and of itself, but this goofier turn adds a bit of life to the film. Furthermore, the central character of Robert Thorn is much better this time around. This isn't to say Schreiber gives a great performance; he's merely okay, a little dull, frankly. But his turn worked much better than Peck's original did, as Peck made Thorn into a pompous buffoon whom I actively disliked. (Peck also managed to overact without actually conveying any emotion. That's quite a feat.) I don't feel an overwhelming amount of sympathy for this Thorn, but not hating him does help the film, as he is the protagonist and all. (And, as the film goes along and things get worse and worse I did start to sympathize with him a bit.) Some Seamus kid plays Damien, and he's been much criticized, and not without some reason. One of the relative strengths of the original was that it didn't try and make Damien be all scary and evil, what with that being a pretty tall order for a little kid. Here Seamus mostly just glowers, umm, evilly, and he is something less than terrifying. It coulda been worse, though, and he doesn't get too much screen time. Julia Stiles takes over the role of Kate Thorn, and she has an extraordinarily round and squishy looking face. I didn't notice too much else about her. (I must say, however, that her performance was not conspicuously bad, as I anticipated it might be.) Also of note is Pete Postelthwaite as one of the various crazy priests, Father Brennan. It's the standard Postelthwaite role, twitchy and creepy and overdone, but I've always liked it before, and he continues to entertain me now. Lastly, though he doesn't do much, I couldn't help but mention the appearance of Italian horror veteran Giovanni Lombardo Radice as another priest. I hate to be the guy who gets interested when some smalltime actor from obscure, forgotten film randomly shows up in something big unexpectedly, but his appearance did amuse me. This time around Radice gets his face melted, though we don't actually see it happen on screen...

Again, this is a big-budget affair, particularly for a horror film, coming in with a budget 30 times greater than that of the original. It's all up their on the screen, and the film looks great. Sorry folks, but the money does help a lot. Take, for example, the graveyard scene. The scene is pretty much the same in both versions in terms of content, but the new one is still multitudes better because it actually looks good, as they had the time and money to find an appropriately ominous setting. This could be said of most of the film, as a matter of fact. It's an odd combination really, the somewhat silly plot and often wacky performances combine with an ultra-sharp look, making this film classy and hokey at the same time. Also reducing the hokiness factor somewhat is the absence of the lame Gothic sounding music of the original. What they replaced it with is undistinguished, but at least it doesn't hurt the film.

The various death scenes, like most of the rest of the film, are largely the same, aside from the sharper visual style. This isn't uniformly true however, as their is a bit of not so great CGI work, but there ain't much of it overall. Most notably, the decapitation scene has been reworked to some degree. Nowadays a decap isn't liable to impress anyone too much, but it is pretty well done, anyway. The impalation was the best death the first time around, I thought, and it's pretty cool here too. Probably the best one. It does have a bit of the aforementioned unfortunate CGI, but it makes up for it in other ways.

All that said, I'm not really sure who the audience for this film is. Horror aficionados will, for the most part, dislike it for the modern aspects, and hate it for being a remake. And I dunno if it'll appeal to stupid teenagers too much either, probably finding it too slow (as I did, frankly) and moody. (It does make some concessions to the newer style of horror, but I don't think enough to win most of them over.) Nevertheless, I thought it was fun, if far from remarkable. So I guess you gotta be like me, having a taste for both modern and 70's style horror (the golden age of horror films, if ever there was one), and a sufficient affection for the genre to take the good aspects of the film while not being especially bothered by the bad parts. If you can do that, you'll probably have a good time.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's not that bad
27 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The original movie was imaginative and creative, but the sequel seems to fall into B-movie land without a look back. Worse, the legend of Pumpkinhead was rewritten, though it need not have been.

This movie stays solidly in horror movie clich land from beginning to end. A group of teens torment a deformed little boy, eventually dropping the lad into a well. Years later another group of teens awaken the lad, only now he has turned into the evil Pumpkinhead. Murder and mayhem ensue.

The two big problems with this movie are that the basic plot shows little imagination and the acting is awful. Other than that, the movie is pretty good. Of course, the acting and the plot are the majority of a movie, and the special effects are nothing to write home about. However, this movie is somewhat redeemed by a "boo" factor. Pumpkinhead appears (or throws bodies about) in a periodically scary way. Nothing like a monster jumping out from behind a building to give you a jump.

"Pumpkinhead 2" is not an awful movie. The movie does provide a few minor chills. However, the choice of the movie name is unfortunate. Other than the general appearance of the creature, reinventing the mythology is confusing for those of us that liked the first movie. Perhaps they should have called it "Pumpkinhead: Resurrection," and explained that Pumpkinhead creatures came from certain circumstances that are now repeating for the second time. Oh well. The movie is in the can and you have to either take it, warts and all, or pass it by. It's worth at least one watch if you are a die-hard horror movie fan.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pumpkinhead (1988)
8/10
Sadly overlooked!
27 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Pumpkinhead, also known as Vengeance of the Demon, is based upon characters from American folklore and classic allegory, adding to its potent-unyielding terror. It is one of those rare horror films that does more than merely provide an assortment of sadistic death sequences for shock value, as so many others do in this genre, but being all that they're good for. It not only features tremendous special effects by Oscar-winner Stan Winston that center upon the most ideal monster, and performances that are beyond exceptional (most notably by our leading man, Lance Henriksen, who I think, despite of his appearance in much more highly budgeted theatrical films, delivered his finest performance in this one); in addition, it has an extraordinary intellectual and well-written, riveting plot line that make this one of the most beloved horror films of all time, with a growing fan cult following despite it being released over ten years ago.

This grim, highly evocative and compelling picture, which was critically-praised as being "stylish and atmospheric," will have you frozen with fear until the very last moment! As you watch this impassive and vicious creature with ghastly appearance that can't possibly get anymore authentic than they already are, in pursue of its victims in whom it could once again take pleasure of dragging its massive claws all throughout as it previously has following several other resurrections, there is no doubt that your jaws wouldn't have dropped and eyes wouldn't have practically hung out of their sockets; it really is likely that blinking is something you may forget to do here. And it's even the littlest things that make this film so momentous, such as, prior to the demon's awakening, the part of the film where Ed Harley, emotionally-driven, attempts to journey up to the mountains where an actual witch is believed to live yet feared by all, who do not dare to enter her grounds, for they are aware of the evil force that lies within her and her abilities to turn lives of the innocence upside-down. Having ended his journey after a little help from a curious local boy who, however, did not come along for the entire ride as surroundings began to modify into a menacing gloom, Harley steps inside an old, roach-infested cottage holding his lifeless son, and ultimately comes face-to-face with evil itself. While the witch performed upon her rituals in aim of fulfilling this man's desires, she actually makes it feel real. She truly makes you forget that you're even watching a movie. Never before have I been so affected. The acting and the direction was outstanding! If you're a horror fanatic as myself am, I would urge you to see this one.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Serendipity (2001)
8/10
"Destiny"
13 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Do you believe in fate? How about destiny or the fact that everything happens for a reason, and there are no coincidences in life? In the romantic comedy Serendipity, it is a story of two New Yorkers, Jonathan Trager (John Cusack) and Sara Thomas (Kate Beckinsale) who meet by fate in a Bloomingdale's department store over a pair of black cashmere gloves, and spend an odd yet nice night together, then leave it all to chance as they write their phone numbers on a five dollar bill and a used book. If the bill or book is found then they know that they were meant to be and that fate has brought them together. Years later, after neither have found each others phone numbers, the two are close to getting married to different people, basically on the same date. While both are having second thoughts about their current situation and can't get the other off their minds, try one more time to find each other. This hopeful romantic film is a great date movie and highly recommended. If you don't believe in fate now, you will once you have watched this movie.

Serendipity means a fortunate accident. I personally think that everything happens for a reason and that there are no accidents or coincidences in life. So this movie was right up my ally. A little frustrating at first though to see a couple hit it off so well and then leave everything to chance, but if it was meant to be then it will happen, right? The two go through some pretty suspenseful twists and your left thinking if they're going to end up finding each other. The lengths that they both endure are so sweet you just want them to find each other and fall madly in love again.

John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale have amazing on- screen chemistry, and when put together they make the perfect pair. John Cusack is a very witty guy in this film and is always there for a good laugh. His character, Jonathan Trager is your typical hopeless romantic that you end up rooting for in the end to find the girl and sweep her off her feet. He is a very talented actor and is nothing short of in this flick. His character is also paired with best friend Dean Kansky (Jeremy Piven), an obituary writer for the New York Times. Together these two are the dynamic duo. Jeremy Piven with his one-liners and comedic timing is a perfect side kick for the uneasy and confused Jonathan Trager. Both are in the race to find the girl of Jonathan's dream, running all around New York, pulled in a million directions, and fighting over obstacles in order to have one last chance with "the one" that got away, two days before his wedding. Opposite John Cusack, Kate Beckinsale is also an amazing actress to watch. She sparkles on screen with her beauty and grace, playing the perfect girl for Jonathan to chase. She too is linked with a best friend, Eve (Molly Shannon) who is by her side the whole time tearing through New York to try and find Jonathan. Molly Shannon's character owns a new-age store in San Francisco, and has just the quirky style and comedic support to balance out Kate Beckinsale. They are the perfect best bud match and are fun to watch interact with each other. With the wonderful setting of the beautiful New York and these four talented actors this movie was sure to attract all those hopeless romantics out there.

Serendipity overall is a fantastic movie, with an interesting storyline, talented and well known actors all to a backdrop of the beautiful New York skyline. This is a great romantic comedy that will keep you in a pleasant suspense until the very end, and left wondering if there is a certain person out there that you are meant to spend the rest of your life with. Will you meet by fate, by chance; is it your long time best friend, or the person sitting next to you on the subway? This movie leaves you questioning your every move, and second guessing your life choices. Give fate and destiny a chance; you never know what they will bring to you.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
From the ashes of 70s horror, a new era emerges...
10 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If you want to get technical about it and are a true horror fan like I, you would know that "Friday the 13th" is actually a knock-off of "Halloween" (1978), which in itself is a knock-off of "Black Christmas" made 4 years prior to that. But if you dig deeper into the birth of slasher movies, you can go a bit earlier to 1971 with the foreign film by Mario Bava called "Bay of Blood" aka "Twitch of the Death Nerve". But, it was "Friday the 13th" that was the pied piper that would lead an endless list of great (and not so great) slasher films in the early '80s. It basically blasted the sub-genre of slasher horror from it's cabin door hinges! So, enough about the origins of the slasher era, we'll get to the classic that is Friday THE 13th! The film is next to perfect in it's execution (haha, no pun intended?). A decent cast for what you're gonna get in a low budget picture like this. They really lucked out with Kevin Bacon. And Betsy Palmer really stole the show as the worst mother in movie history since Faye Dunaway's role as Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest"! The atmosphere is great, and the location where it was filmed is the best out of any Friday the 13th movie (the worst location being part 3...was THAT mudhole even a lake?). The good thing about this movie (as opposed to the many artless imitations out there) is that the tension builds gradually until it hits a grand apex. This, however, is one of the things some people find annoying about this movie, but unless you have ADHD then you will follow the story as it gains momentum. I won't get into a detailed description of the plot itself in this review(everyone should know the plot by now),I just wanted to take the time to point out the greatness of this film in the horror universe. Further, the ending is the still one of the most frightening and heart stopping moments in horror history! No one can deny that.

There are a few things that taint this otherwise flawless piece of work, and that is the highly edited death scenes. I know that it was the MPAA that did it and not the director or anyone involved in the film, but I think they should have tried to get away with a lot more. There are simply too many off-screen murders! Out of 10 deaths, 5 of them are off screen which is mainly because they couldn't get away with showing the scene because it was "too violent" and also because the effects didn't work out the way they were intended. I have read that Brenda's death scene was originally her being impaled by a few arrows while standing in the rain at the archery, but it was cut by the MPAA. Marcie's face axing scene was intended to be shown without any film cuts which means you would have seen the ax hit her face, but they couldn't get the effects just right to do it that way so they had to cut away to the ax, then show her fall to the floor with the ax in her face (still turned out very well). The quick cuts of the death scenes is another annoyance (once again you can thank the MPAA), you get no more than a full second of screen time on any given end result of a gore killing. The one standout gore scene in the whole movie goes to the death of Kevin Bacon's character Jack who gets an arrow through the neck from the killer hiding under the bed (a scenario that creeped me out as a kid!) They show everything, and the fact that they didn't have computer graphics back then really showed the filmmaker's creativity in doing these death scenes from scratch. BUT don't even try to watch this on network TV, because you may not even notice you're watching a horror film. It's overly (and needlessly) edited of all gore.

Although some of it's sequels may surpass this film's body count, visual effects, and coolness factor, they will never match the sheer shock value that this movie possesses. And that is simply why this is the best one in the series.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Lots Of Nostalgia, And Then Some.
10 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Certainly John Carpenter had no idea what sort of an impact he would be making when he created his masterpiece, "Halloween" in 1978. Not only did the movie go on to be the most successful independent feature of it's time, but it spawned seven sequels, which in turn gave birth to a large and loyal fanbase. "Halloween: 25 Years Of Terror," a two-disc DVD set, centered around an in-depth documentary, celebrates that. Captured at a 2003 convention to mark the 25th anniversary (hence the title), this set beautifully covers nearly every angle of all eight "Halloween" films, their effect on the industry, their successes, their failures, and so on and so forth.

The documentary itself, clocking it at the length of the average "Halloween" film, traces the history of the franchise, from the baby stages of the original film, to the ridiculous nature of the most recent installment, "Halloween: Resurrection." Nothing is really held back here. The producers, directors and castmembers are not shy about revealing certain problems encountered during production (especially on parts 2 and 6) but also don't treat the films as complete failures, or as cinematic scum, as some critics might label it. If you own access to the internet and have done enough research on the films, this information may not be any news to you, but it's nice to have all the wrinkles ironed out and to hear it straight from the source. We get interviews from the legends, such as Jamie Lee Curtis, John Carpenter and Danielle Harris, to the lesser-knowns like Sasha Jenson, Marianne Hagan and Pamela Susan Shoop, and are even treated to input from everyone from internet critic John Fallon (Arrow In The Head) to future "Halloween" director/reinventor himself, Rob Zombie. I was intrigued by the documentary, and was only disappointed when it ended.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Must be seen with your mind's eye
9 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
To all of those folks out there that walked out of the theater wanting their money back because they didn't see a witch or blood or people being torn limb from limb, WAKE UP! In order for this movie to terrify you, you have to have an alert and productive mind. Remember Psycho? Did you actually see the lady in shower get stabbed? Did you see buckets of blood? Of course not but it scared you just the same.

The Blair Witch Project used the same tactics. Three people wander off to get film on a legend that they've heard. The town of Burketsville had an unusually high death rate of young children for a time. After interviwing some of the locals, the film crew decides to venture into the woods to find the shack that the so-called Blair Witch was using. The crew gets lost and has to spend the night in the woods where something appears to be following them. Trying to descibe this film any further than that just wouldn't be helpful to you at this time. It is a story that reveals itself in the visual, not just auditorially.

What could be scarier than being lost in the woods at night? The scariest things you can imagine are in your own mind. That's why kids are afraid of the dark. Their minds are young, fertile and active. They don't even know what they're afraid of, they just are. This film uses that same principle.

Our minds have become lazy from having everything being presented to it on a silver platter. No time to think, just keep feeding it images so it doesn't have to do any work on it's own! I don't think I've ever seen a more frightening movie and I've seen them all. I love horror and I'm always fascinated by the many different ways that Hollywood comes up with to scare us. Granted at this point, most horror these days is just is some madman running around slashing teenagers or weirdo cults worshipping Satan. No imagination. Get with it gang.

The scariest things are the things you can't see!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poseidon (2006)
8/10
Well I enjoyed it...
9 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Over the last several years many of the fans (myself included) have thought that, in the right hands, "The Poseidon Adventure" would benefit from a remake.

And in Mr. Petersen the producers found the perfect filmmaker. How could Warner Bros go wrong with the brilliant, visionary director of the claustrophobic classic "Das Boot" and the brilliant "The Perfect Storm?" Combine the best elements of those two films with the classic tour-de-force survival story originally told by Paul Gallico in his 1969 novel and a new movie could become a critical and box office success.

So with much anticipation I headed to see "Poseidon" this past weekend. The long awaited remake is a tremendous spectacle that will keep you on the edge of your seat for almost the entire length of the movie.

The story is well known to just about everybody. During New Years Eve celebrations aboard the S.S. Poseidon, a monster rogue wave comes out of nowhere, slams into the luxury liner, capsizing her and leaving a few survivors, led by Josh Lucas and Kurt Russell, to try and find an escape from the upside down water trap.

Petersen begins the film with one of the most stunning opening shots in the history of film: A 3-minute wrap-around of the grand luxury liner as she sails the Atlantic. What makes this scene so amazing is the fact that the ship doesn't really exist. The Poseidon is completely computer generated, yet when you see her up on that screen you can only be in awe. She is majestic and stately - and puts a certain James Cameron luxury liner to shame.

We are then introduced to the main characters at a quick clip. Mark Protosevich's screenplay doesn't draw them very well, if at all. We learn very little about our travelers, and that misguided calculation bothers me. But, I'll speak to that in a moment. Because just as I was starting to let the lack of characterization bother me, the mighty Greek God of the Sea lashes out at our New Years revelers and spins their world upside down in a heart-pounding capsize sequence that bests the original's by a mile.

From there it's non-stop, edge-of-your-seat, hair-raising action as our rag tag group of survivors fight their way up the dying ship to find an escape, battling water and obstacles and more water along the way. Petersen's brilliant direction (assisted by Klaus Badelt's nerve-racking score) on three scenes in particular will have you climbing the walls.

The first involves a scene in which Richard Dreyfuss' character is faced with one of the most gut-wrenching decisions a human being would ever have to make. I could feel the audience collectively asking themselves "God! What would I do?" The second involves the group's ascent through an air vent. The claustrophobia in this scene is so intense if you're not climbing the walls then you need to have your head examined. The third involves a mother (played by Jacinda Barrett) and her son (Jimmy Bennett) and the rising waters. Mothers will be ready to pull their hair out during this segment.

All of the action sequences are well done, but those three, spaced through out the movie, will leave you feeling exhausted...in a good way...as if it the cost of the ticket was money well spent.

As with most well done disaster movies it's the action sequences and special effects that save "Poseidon." I recommend the movie highly and think that on my list of "popcorn flicks" this will join the original near the top. That is thanks in large part to Petersen, his computer and design crews, and a cast that did the best they could with the script they got.

And it is that script where I find my sole disappointment. Why Warner Bros moved ahead with such a lackluster screenplay puzzles me. This had the chance to be a classic sea tale. Don't get me wrong. I wasn't expecting "Moby Dick," but Paul Gallico's "The Poseidon Adventure" is the consummate story of survival at sea. It is deep in character study; human nature complete with all of its flaws. It is dark and psychological and leaves the reader breathless.

Unfortunately none of that transferred over in the 1972 film. When I read that Wolfgang Petersen would be at the helm of this new version I had high hopes that the dramatic human stories told in the Gallico novel would finally be told on the big screen. But it doesn't happen.

Roger Ebert opined that he felt Petersen's heart wasn't in this film. I don't think that was it. To me it almost seems like Warner Bros wanted "Poseidon" in the can sooner rather than later and were willing to sacrifice a strong story in order to get the film on screens by May 12. As a result the film is awkwardly edited at times - as if there had been a script there, but that it was jettisoned and then a half-assed editing job done to plug the holes. It makes me wonder whether they purposefully threw away a potentially triumphant story for yet another piece of popcorn fluff.

At this point it doesn't really matter, because the film is popcorn fluff. Mind you, it is well done, exciting, and thrilling popcorn fluff and I highly suggest you head to the theatre and give it a look. But, I just can't help but wonder "what if?" I'm afraid we'll never know, because it is highly doubtful that this story will be told again.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed