mtess-1 Reviews

Halloween II (2009)

This Movie Is Garbage and I Loved the Originals

[1/10 · 8 April 2010]

Okay, I was into the whole Rob Zombie thing years ago when it was fresh, new and angry. I am referring of course to his music. I even managed to sit through the first half of Zombie's original Halloween remake and somewhat enjoyed the better, second half. I waited eagerly and with higher hopes for Zombie's Halloween 2,expecting it to be far better than the first for some reason. Well, within just thirty minutes this movie began to stink.

The lead actress made me want to turn off the television: Scout Taylor-Compton was an over-the-top travesty of plastic emotions who spent most of the film screaming. I "muted" the volume for most of her later exhibitions of teenage lunacy. Zombie has taken a classic and used its name and character make another torture-porn piece of junk. I don't believe he even truly understands the story, tension or magic of the original series/character. Sure there is a ton of violence here, but without the mystery or sense of dread present in the originals. Zombie's Michael Myers is a buffoon tromping about destroyed things, and is without any aura of supernatural wonder. Worst of all, Dr. Loomis has been completely transformed into, well, an arsehole. The character if Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is a CLASSIC of cinema and Zombie really crossed a line messing with this character. It was very hard to find anything good in this film when I realized this had been done. You can't mess with the Loomis!

It saddens me that kids today want more of this rehashed filth. It's all about flash and glam and blood and repeat. No story, tension, intelligent dialogue or mood-enhancing cinematography was present in this movie whatsoever. And no, the "dream" sequences do not count - I think someone was high or drunk and decided to throw these in to make it feel more sincere. His target audience is shamefully obvious: angry teenagers who can not see past blatant grabs at their cash and impressionable minds: What purpose was the naked chick serving as she was running around screaming? Oh yeah, she was naked and most of your ticket sales are to 14 year old guys. Next, you'd have us believe a girl who had been through everything Laurie Strode had been through would be sleeping beneath posters of Manson and Alice Cooper and acting like a snotty outcast of Evanescence? Are you forgetting that the hormonally imbalanced teens who act out like this are the ones who have never had anything truly bad happen to them? A girl like Laurie Strode would not be immersing herself in the world of Rob Zombie any more than a war veteran would be immersing himself in everything combat related.

Next time let someone ELSE take care of writing the story and stick to the camera-work.

I LOVED the original Halloween films. I collect everything Michael Myers. Yet it STILL took me three sittings on different days to finish watching this movie because it was just that hard to watch someone rape a classic for his own financial gain. This is NOT a Halloween movie in anything but name.

Skinwalkers (2006)

In Opposition to Hollywood's Obsession with CGI, I Like This Movie!

[7/10 · 14 November 2009]

I am commenting ONLY to make one point: THANK GOD the makers of this movie chose to use REAL actors with makeup effects. I have often lamented the use of CGI in films ranging from Deep Blue Sea to, well, name it. Remember when Spielberg used Bruce to create the illusion of Jaws? That movie still scares people and it does so for one reason only: we know it isn't a real shark, but we are able (if we choose) to suspend our disbelief because the creature (i.e. robotic shark) is actually on camera with the actors and they interact with it. Well, the same happens in Skinwalkers. I thought the acting was very good, and it was shot perfectly (e.g. lighting). When the Skinwalkers finally change form I was hesitant, waiting for the CGI, but none (that I noticed) appeared - this was good old fashioned WORK - apply make up (thanks Stan Winston) and acting. WATCH this movie for this reason if for none other - it reminds one what a movie with fantastic (i.e. fantasy) characters SHOULD be: as real as it can possible be. We will never believe that computer generated effects are real, and they totally stop the story for anyone over the age of twelve. Thank you to those responsible for this choice. And as for those film producers who still insist on clinging to CGI - revisit the classics, whether Winston or Savini - these are the masters of the genre to whom you owe your career. Stop insulting their legacy and start honouring it with some actual effort. I think this was a good story and an entertaining flick!

You Don't Mess with the Zohan (2008)

Um, This Was Total Garbage.

[1/10 · 13 April 2009]

In the past, I didn't mind sitting down to an Adam S. flick, and so ordered this one expecting the usual ho-hum, mildly entertaining fair. I made it exactly thirty minutes and HAD to turn it off. This was complete crap - from the bland attempt at "humour" right down to the cheesy attempt to replicate the fun adventure of an Austin Powers movie. Sandler should by no means be considered either an actor OR a comedian. This is by far the sorriest example of current Hollywood vomit that keeps flowing our way. AVOID this movie even if you usually like the genre and the actor. On that note, what was John Turturo thinking in being part of this? I used to have respect for him as an actor! Ug! Seriously - I can't believe I gave thirty minutes of my life to this mess. 1 out of 10 stars only because it won't let me rate a ZERO.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

A Brilliant, brooding tribute to the bleakness of imbalanced priorities

[9/10 · 9 April 2009]

My wife made me watch this. I said no way - I don't like Daniel Day Lewis. Now, I am not so sure why I said that. This was an incredible film and would not have been possible without his skills as an artist. From the opening scenes that reveal his dedication to success (i.e. crawling overland with a broken leg to have his ore sample analyzed) to the final, tragic culmination of his inner rage, this movie did not let me go. It hooks you from the beginning and keeps you firmly snared as it unfolds. I disagree with the comments about how the main character was "lonely". The entire point of the film is that this man was ENTIRELY the success-driven machine (monster?) which Lewis portrayed. A definite classic - highly recommended!

Miracle at St. Anna (2008)

Falls FLAT because it overreaches itself. Avoid.

[3/10 · 27 March 2009]

Wow - I still can't figure out why this movie just plain did not work. There was some quality acting, cinematography and a fairly good soundtrack - but it became a painful exercise in sitting no more than a hour of the way in (and this is a long movie, folks). At every turn in the tale I hoped it would regain some momentum, some realization of the promise it seemed to hold, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. Was this a war movie? A film with a message? A love story? A mystical tale of faith? ALL OF THEM AT ONCE? Ug...please spare us. This movie isn't worthy as a quality war movie, drama or anything more than one director's exploration of his own perceived talent. Hope he enjoyed it, because I'm not sure anyone else will or even can. I sure didn't.

Quarantine (2008)

EXCELLENT tribute to horror fans and the zombie genre!

[9/10 · 1 March 2009]

WOW! That was NOT what I was expecting! I had assumed it may be average (i.e. Diary of the Dead) or even terrible, but Quarantine definitely surprised me. The level of realism and violence was completely unexpected, as was the quality of storytelling and level of tension. This was definitely a thrilling zombie flick. usually I like to comment on specific scenes but this time I'll just say if you like horror flicks, zombies and fresh new (yes - really) ways of telling a "classic" tale of "small group trapped by menacing source", you'll love this movie.

9/10 because I felt the time spent building up to the actual "event" could have been slightly shorter. Well done!

The Last Winter (2006)

A Well Done Thriller With A Great Story!

[8/10 · 2 February 2009]

When I read that this movie was reminiscent of The Thing, I was hesitant, as The Thing is one of my favourite movies. As it turns out, however, I was very pleasantly surprised! The Last Winter reminded me of the more well-considered and well-paced movies of days past when the story took center stage over dazzling special effects and pop stars prancing about as if they could actually act. The story takes its time, and evolves at its own speed without pandering to what might be the lack of attention span in a modern audience. The acting was fantastic and the lighting/camera work came together to create a truly lonely, haunting atmosphere.

For those who say there is no "answer" at the end of the film, consider this: it is hinted that the "dark force" is some mysterious product of oil (which is itself, as explained in the movie, a product of age-old creatures and people). This is tied into the idea of humanity destroying the world and the world reacting as any living thing might to a virus or infection (i.e. humankind). One of the characters mentions that he "hopes this isn't happening everywhere else". Well, by the end we know that it indeed was! 8/10 because it was a great tale with a good production quality. Loved the Doomsday idea of the final scene. I would have liked better effects in the last "attack" on the male lead (thought the "flying" home concept was great). Also, a better explanation of the capped-off well (if the tundra is melting and "unleashing" these dark forces, of what significance was the drill site specifically?). Lastly, I would have liked some more explosive, frightening moments as in Carpenter's The Thing. Definitely worth seeing!

The Bothersome Man (2006)

Brilliant - Will Haunt You Long After It Ends

[9/10 · 25 January 2009]

The Bothersome Man is one of the best foreign films I have ever seen. All the technical aspects are, in my opinion, perfect (lighting, acting, directing, pacing, etc). The STORY is breathtaking.

Seemingly beyond death, our main character finds himself inhabiting a world without beauty, passion or anything remotely pleasing to the human senses. His work is cold and uninteresting; his relationships are numb and uninspiring, and when it all becomes too much, he seeks to end it in front of a train. But it doesn't end - he can not leave this strange world by suicide! Working his way back to a man who seemed to be feeling he same isolation and loneliness, our main character joins him in excavating a stone wall in hopes of revealing the source of a strange and wonderful smell and music. Just as they break through - and I will not reveal THAT much, it all comes to an end and the movie ends as oddly as it began.

Suffice it to say you will either love this movie or hate it. I feel that it is like a magical poem - open to many different interpretations and all of them as valid as the next. If you enjoy new experiences in film and want to be taken away from Hollywood's crap-feast, try this movie!

9/10 (and I don't rate easily!) because in spite of its darkness, this movie left me with a sense of something greater...something mysterious and beyond ourselves. Well done!

Mirrors (I) (2008)

A Story With A Lot of Potential (but still feels like a rough draft)

[6/10 · 18 January 2009]

Mirrors, like so many horror movies today, has a great premise: the world beyond reflections is, in fact, another world (seemingly inhabited by the spirits of the dead). Cool. Throw in a possessed child (who ends up being a possessed nun)scampering around a dark and dingy department store basement, and you would think that all the ingredients for a great horror tale are there - and they are! However, the story seems like a rehearsal, or a rough draft story that needs polishing. It was enjoyable and I recommend it to horror fans, but what is most frustrating is thinking that it could have been TRULY great. Three suggestions: Keep the story in the dark of the abandoned department store and its underworld. Focus on the tale of the possessed child/nun and let her inhabit the building in a Changeling/Exorcist manner. Lose the "my family is in danger" aspect and keep it simple: lone security guard in peril in the building (perhaps even keep the tale to one night). Okay who cares what I think, I know, but I just had to rant a bit. Now for the faults: why are they painting out the mirrors with green paint as if afterward they can clean them off? Anyone in real life would have taken them down and put them in the basement or something. Obviously a necessary gimmick to allow the entity to return later, only further revealing the rough draft quality of story-telling here. Further, we are never fully aware of why the "entity" in the mirrors so desperately wanted the little girl (nun) back. Also, the "kills" seem a bit gratuitous and simple - as if to keep the teens watching. Skip them - or give them more basis than "I am an angry demon". And FINALLY, I felt there was a lot of potential for atmospheric CREEP factor that was lost: skip the bloody introduction which reveals all; unveil the tale with patience...nothing is more frightening than the unseen or only alluded-to. I sat wishing that the beginning of the movie had been Sutherland's initial entrance in the creepy store...then spent the rest of the movie thinking how much better it could have been in general. Loved the final scene, however! It was a shocker.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Well, it's "okay", I guess, but a "masterpiece"? No.

[6/10 · 10 January 2009]

I just HAD to comment on the Dark Knight after reading all these hyped ratings and reviews. Watched it last night; generally like superheroes and comic books; really enjoyed Batman Begins.

Now, to make this brief, here are my beefs: 1. So what if there are multiple big names in this movie? Some of the best movies ever made starred next to nobodies. I do not assume a movie will be great because the budget could afford "big names". These performances were good, granted, but not the stellar masterpiece some would have you believe.

2. The story was awesome - every fan loves a back-story. But come on, the effects for Two-Face were disappointing at best (i.e. flesh burned off his face and the left eye still perfectly fine and moving around as if it didn't need a good blink every now and then? Also, in the opening scene, why would the bank manager lay there without removing a supposed explosive from his mouth? ALSO, the cliché struggle of the female lead, "torn' between two men...come on....been there in Spiderman and I personally thought she was a tramp for bouncing back and forth between them.

I think I'll stop there: I wrote this review only out of utter astonishment that it is currently rating a 9 out of 10 with over 300, 000 votes. I guess you could argue that makes me the exception and therefore wrong, but come on folks, this is not MUCH more than more Hollywood garbage and we keep sitting down at the table to shovel in more. UG! I think the movie is good - 6/10. Heath Ledger's performance is the best part of the movie - the only reason I give it a 6/10. But the day a movie like this rates higher than the "classics" (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Blade Runner, The Thing, etc) in actual quality has not yet arrived in my opinion.

Rent it, yes, but don't be fooled the adolescent, feverish enthusiasm of comic book "aficionados" that has made people think this is one of the best films ever made. This is another superhero movie...plain and (very) simple.

The Messengers (2007)

Well written, acted and genuinely CREEPY - a great supernatural thriller

[8/10 · 9 May 2008]

If you're checking reviews wondering if The Messengers is worth your time, then you are in the same position I was in last evening. Well, I gambled and it paid off big-time! The Messengers is a genuinely creepy supernatural horror flick with just the right balance between foreboding atmosphere and outright shocking scares. The sinister "entities" seem in the film are done perfectly - this movie scared the heck out of my wife and we are seasoned horror fans - it takes a lot to not leave us disappointed. This is not one of the run-of-the-mill bombs hitting video shelves in the past few years.

The acting was sincere and the tale was dealt with seriously - good stuff to sit in the dark and experience!

Pathfinder (2007)

Could have been magnificent, but still a dark and fascinating movie worth watching

[8/10 · 15 February 2008]

I wasn't expecting much when I started watching this, but that quickly changed thanks to the brilliantly lit scenes and grainy, pensive mood of filming. The acting, as well as the violence was well above average in quality and brutality respectively, and the story was refreshingly original.

I believe three things could have elevated this movie to brilliance: 1. A more sweeping, bold orchestral soundtrack. 2. More sweeping, cinematic shots to give us short escapes from what, at times, became a claustrophobic atmosphere. 3. Authentic native language with subtitles, as was given the Vikings. I realize the choice not to do so (point #3) was probably based on perceived audience appeal, or perhaps even on the psychological identification with the "good guys", but it would still have added an element of greatness.

Overall I give Pathfinder 8 out of 10 stars for originality, brooding (amazingly refreshing) filming, and an authentic truthfulness in telling what was a simple but bloody tale of revenge. I also appreciated the fact that the film took itself seriously, and did not toss in a heap of "humorous" moments that so many current action movies seem to rely on. This movie was relentless in its pursuit of telling a dark and bloody tale and, for the most part, succeeded in providing an excellent couple hours of escape.

Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006)

Really bad directing, pacing and acting --- like drama class in slow motion

[2/10 · 4 February 2008]

I'll give it a two out of ten just because I like the opening moments (pan back from black and white screen to usher us into the "modern" world). Beyond that, however, this movie descended into a slow paced, poorly acted travesty that brought to mind the terrible experience of watching Day of the Dead 2. The scene where the old zombie guy gets lit on fire in his chair was PAINFUL to watch - it was like an awkward and bumbling outtake from a high school drama class! How about directing the guy to react - do anything while his father is burning! And this is only one of the grueling scenes I forced myself to endure in order to get to the end of this movie.

It would seem that the living dead have been dealt yet another insulting hand in the tradition of Day of the Dead 2. The original 1968 version is still your best bet, along with the 1990 remake (which I thought was awesome).

Avoid.

Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007 Video)

Hollow Candy With A Sour Shell

[2/10 · 18 November 2007]

This movie follows in the footsteps of the original Vincent Price and its remake a few years back. While the remake was nothing special, it was at least fun and made an effort to set up its premise with a back story. Return to House on Haunted Hill simply rides its back and tosses a motley cast of morons inside the forbidding walls of the crumbling asylum so that they may meet their ends for our supposed pleasure. How they go is sometimes gruesome, and always the same old contrived crap intended to make teenage girls "shriek" as if they were actually frightened.

First off, a band of mercenary-type guys (and one annoying chick who tries - unsuccessfully - way too hard to be deviantly sexy ) working for a former grad student - (uh, yeah, anyway...) as well as a pretty female lead seeming in love with the photographer she only met that same day (and acts as if she's loved him for years) walk on to the set and start acting like a cross between the cast of Aliens and Beverly Hills 90210. The haunting is given only minimal explanation, and poor Jeffrey Combs simply pops in and out of his scenes (as if we are still scared by this special effect alone)looking very much like he wishes he were making another Re-Animator movie instead.

Yet AGAIN, a perfect example of great lighting, filming, and all of the above - BUT - without ANY story whatsoever, and therefore no audience concern for anything that's going on or any of the characters it's happening to. This was a series of scenes conceived and filmed seemingly apart from one another with the expectation that the story from the previous movie would tie them together. It fails miserably. I truly wanted to turn this off after a half an hour but, as with most current and recent horror flicks, I hoped it would somehow redeem itself but it never did. If shambling nurses and old asylums are going to be scary, it is not going to happen without setting the background and adhering to at least the semblance of a storyline. The sheer ridiculousness is spotlighted by the fact that these characters seem strut around trying to look sexy and tough in the face of certain death, hoisting weapons of every sort as if bullets will save them from what they, themselves refer to as a haunted house.

Now I know why this one slipped by so quickly that I had almost forgotten it existed. Now I will endeavor to do just that. Garbage - avoid, even fans of the genre will be sorely disappointed by this "Return". In fact, fans of the genre will see right through this blatant attempt at cash right away.

2 out of ten stars only because, as stated before, they might have had something here if only they'd paid attention to some - ANY - storyline beyond the cartoonish idea of an Indiana Jones-like professor (who comes off more like Ned Flanders) chasing some demonic statue. Good lord, even remembering it is making me cringe.

Dead Silence (2007)

Eerie, Atmospheric and Worth the Time

[8/10 · 17 November 2007]

Dead Silence is a quality movie from its opening credits. The pacing is well considered and keeps you watching with the same eerie sense of dread that the lighting conveys throughout the film. The story is engaging and haunting, and the actors take their situation seriously enough to heighten what is already a very creepy flick. What's scarier than an old woman floating around in a tattered black dress, I ask you? If you are checking reviews and wondering if Dead Silence is worth your time, and if you enjoy all of the factors mentioned above, then watch it - the movie creeps up on you and reveals itself in a truly disturbing climax that makes the ride worth while. 8 out of ten because I would have liked a little more clarification about "Mary's" possession of the dolls and the step mother.

Some posts have compared this movie to Saw simply for the fact that it is made by the same guys. Well, in my opinion (and I love all eras of horror movies) the Saw films do not hold a candle to this one. Anyone can film someone getting brutally killed, but Dead Silence is a brooding, disturbing movie with a deeply menacing atmosphere. If you are hoping to see a bunch of idiots killed off in bizarre ways, rent Saw again, because this story is intelligently realized instead of splattered all over the screen.

All in all a truly well made horror movie, especially in the midst of a lot of Hollywood garbage being produced nowadays. If you enjoyed Darkness Falls, and if you enjoy a thinking person's horror movie, you will enjoy Dead Silence.

Feast (2005)

A Fantastic Monster Movie

[8/10 · 31 July 2007]

"Feast" was a wonderful treat in light of the current, absolute flood of garbage in the horror genre. Playing on the claustrophobic elements of being trapped in a single location (think Night of the Living Dead or Dawn of the Dead) and the elements of an unknown, lurking horror (think Tremors or Alien), Feast serves up a delicious main course of excitement. If you enjoyed Slither, you'll love this too!

The script was very well written - I was truly impressed by the quality of wit and tongue-in-cheek humour that made such films as Tremors and Critters work. Further, the cast was very capable and delivered exactly what their characters required of them. But I have to say that the single most effective piece of creative film-making here, was the fact that the "don't reveal the creature" rule was fully applied. Let me explain: in many potentially excellent horror movies, especially creature flicks, there is traditionally a point where the creature/monster is fully revealed, but (as Stephen King points out in Danse Macabre), this is a mistake in the long run. The audience might gasp upon such a revelation, even scream, but then the horror passes and what one is generally left with is a man in a suit or a poorly executed bit of CGI trundling around the set really having served its purpose and leaving the audience disappointed. In Feast, there are only glimpses of what are truly disturbing, well-crafted beasties that because of their mysteriousness only become more frightening than if they had been fully illuminated and crashed in upon the actors bellowing and waving their arms. There is also a wonderful amount of necessary violence of gore! All in all I have to say that any fan of the genre will likely appreciate this movie. It doesn't try to be something it is not - and the quality of acting (thankfully, and for a change, not a bunch of teenage pop "icons" pretending they understand the severity of their dilemma, or the art of acting, for that matter) carries an excellent story even further.

This could have been a mess in the hands of many who think they're making horror movies today but are only spewing out contrived crap. This movie had just the right balance between humour and violence and good 'ol monster-movie-magic to make it fly high.

8/10 because although I liked them at the beginning, I am not sure the freeze-frame character descriptions are necessary. As well, one or two lines that should have been rewritten (e.g. "beer me" a woman says, after seeing her husband's decapitated body). Slightly less humour - more foreboding atmosphere would have equaled 10/10.

Well done to all those involved and thanks for taking the time, and putting in the effort to make a really great creature feature! From director to actors, the fact that you had fun and put your heart into it at the same time shows.

Wicked Little Things (2006)

Zombie-Ghost Children in Bad Makeup

[3/10 · 19 July 2007]

Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.

This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.

Pulse (I) (2006)

Excellent Story - Inspired and Taken Seriously

[8/10 · 14 January 2007]

For the first fifteen minutes we put up with Wes Craven's usual setup of teenage (in this case, college level) characters acting their age, and so I was hesitant about Pulse. A few months ago I also saw the original version with subtitles, and although the story was amazing I found its pace too slow to stick with. In this version, however, there is the same dark and brooding atmosphere, but with a pace that kept me watching past the introduction of the characters. From there the plot thickened almost immediately, and I will say no more lest I spoil it for those of you who are checking here to see if it is worth watching. Pulse takes its subjects seriously (think all the good things about White Noise meets the Boogeyman meets They) and does not cross over into the ridiculousness that many of today's horror movies do (as in over the top CGI or silly events that completely ruin one's suspension of disbelief). Although I would change a few things (why does it have to be twenty-somethings who stumble on the Pulse secret? Not that I have a problem with that, only that so many movies use this age group in order to attract a younger audience and in so doing often are taken less seriously by older viewers). Example: if they were to remake John Carpenter's The Thing (one of my favourites) today, they would NEVER use the age of men that they did in the original. In my opinion, seeing the cast of Friends in Outpost 31 fighting aliens would just not have the same impact as the adult men used in the original. Anyway, Pulse speeds forward into what was for me a totally unexpected plot direction (doom and gloom and end o the world) and I thought it was an excellent ride. As I have said in so many of my other reviews, today's horror movies, for the most part, are garbage and are only vehicles for potential pop stars and advertisers. Every now and then a movie like Pulse comes along and, mostly, does a good job of telling a good story. WATCH it, and see if you ever look at your computer the same again!

Hostel (2005)

Well-made and worth the time

[7/10 · 9 December 2006]

I had read a good deal about this movie before I watched it - that it was a poorly scripted bit of soft-porn trash and such. However, I found Hostel to be a well acted movie with a good atmosphere of foreboding and dread. Given, the first forty-five minutes or so were required to set the stage for what was to follow, but I still believe this portion of the movie could have been shortened a bit. If you watch closely, however, much of what happens in the beginning is very relevant to the latter part of the movie. The violence was nothing close to what I expected based on other reviews, and what scenes were shown seemed necessary to telling the story.

My main complaint is what the hell did he have to cut off the girl's eyeball for when he rescued her? She was screaming as if to imply that her dangling eyeball was paining her. Uh, yes, I'll bet it was, but how about wrapping her face in a cloth or something? This seemed a bit much and simply an excuse to show some pus squirting out of someone's face.

Overall I found Hostel to be an entertaining movie. Yes, it is a gruesome flick, but that should come as no surprise to anyone who knows anything about the genre. I also feel there was a worthwhile message here: all is never as it seems so watch out! Definitely worth the dollars and the time. After watching the glut of teen crap that Hollywood is spewing out these days I appreciated something that at least pretended to take itself seriously.

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

Dear Hollywood: Please, No More Crappy Remakes.

[1/10 · 18 November 2006]

I've said it for years, all that's made in Hollywood are generic, brainless remakes that only insult the originals they strive to impersonate (or blatantly exploit for cash). I thought the original When A Stranger Calls was okay until the police discovered the bodies and I suddenly realized there was a lot of time left in the movie. Yes, it was boring, but at least there was a story. This version has even removed the SINGLE thing that made the original even remotely disturbing: the fact that the killer murdered the children and they had been dead the entire time! Yes, this time the oh-so-clever teenager not only rescues them, but seems to think with all the on-the-spot decisiveness of a military super-soldier. I suspect the makers were trying to create a Michael Meyers or Jason Voorhees-type mythology here, but there was NO foundation, and their "killer" comes off more like a peeping Tom (oh yes, I guess he DID stuff the maid under the water in the pond - uh, sure, very terrifying and nothing we don't see each night on television). As he is being driven away in a police car we hear the radio announcer telling of his murderous past, but how scary is that? A note to storytellers: You must create the basis/motivation.history of your character in advance, to some degree, in order for your viewers to feel enticed to invest themselves in watching with any interest.

Dear God,this film truly reveals how truly EMPTY Hollywood's reserves of good scripts are. I could care less of this film was made or not, but what makes me really angry is that again a "new" movie has stolen a couple hours of my life away. I keep watching the crap spewed out for me and coming back for more like dog who loves a good kick. I swear the script for this was written in less than a few hours and whoever did it was chuckling at the stupidity of the public each and every minute. I used to defend the horror genre, now I just recommend older, more wisely-crafted movies.

One star out of ten because I can't rate lower.

Crap made for teenage date-nights. Plain and simple. Avoid.

Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005)

What Do We Expect From A Zombie Movie?

[5/10 · 13 November 2006]

I still consider the original Return of the Living Dead to be a horror/comedy masterpiece. Return of the Living Dead Part 2, on the other hand, I will not speak of (trash!). Part 3 was strange, but nothing memorable for me, and so when I heard that Parts 4 and 5 were due out I shouted for joy! So many turds have come along in the world of horror movies lately, I hoped that this time would be different. Another mistake, but this time the sorrow was lessened because of all the reviews I read here. It was, in a single sentence, not as bad as all that - take for example, the waste of life that was Day of the Dead 2: Contagium.

Sure, the acting could have used some improvement in places, and the script could have used a LOT of reworking (implausible, full of holes and silly things), but I am just glad that people are still filming stories like this. I am 35 years old now, and if I had seen this at seventeen (around the time I saw the first Return of the Living Dead) I would have LOVED it. Perhaps one should not approach something titled "Return of the Living Dead 4: Necropolis", without appreciating it for the idea that it represents; for the sheer value of it's far-out intentions. No one expected to win an academy award when setting out to make this, and although I have MANY problems with this film (which I won't bother getting into here), I can safely say that if you suspend your "adult" sensibilities and disbelief, accept you are watching a zombie movie and lighten up, then you just might walk away from this picture with at least a little grin on your face. It beats a kicks in the crotch any day.

I am giving this movie a five because in my opinion it met the basic requirements of entertaining zombie-fare, and nothing more. There is certainly nothing new or innovative here. It is a definite throw-back to tongue-in-cheek horror films of the mid to late eighties, though perhaps without the required wit or insight to do so competently. I'd sooner watch this than ninety percent of the crap Hollywood is spewing out in the horror genre these days (insert nearly title of nearly ANY recent horror film here).

So, overall, not bad, NOT great, and nothing to watch a second time.

Megalodon (2002 Video)

What did you expect? But not too bad!

[5/10 · 1 August 2006]

From the DVD cover itself, I wasn't expecting much, but I rented this movie anyway because I love the general subject matter (monsters, sharfks, etc). The first thing I was impressed with was the CGI of the drilling platform and helicopter, and from there the acting. Considering some of the crap I have rented in my life I found this acting was not poor because of the actor's talent, rather because of what was (in places) a poorly written script. And on that note, wasn't htis the same plot as Deep Star Six (a superior, similar film)? What about Leviathan too? ANyway, this point aside, the acting and the CGI were acceptable (suprisingly). The pacing was good until about an hour in, when I relaized the shark hadn't yet made an appearance! When it did, I closed my eyes, expecting Deep Blue Sea-type crap cgi, but the shark was done pretty well. From there, however, things went downhill. The characters did not act as I might imagine people would act trapped in an elevator beneath the ocean with a giant shark amongst them; the method by which the shark was destroyed made no sense (was not explained); the scene on the ice flow when the shark attacks the minisub was poor cgi. Backtracking a moment -- what happened when the shark was destroyed? The minisub vanished! I laughed out loud at that point.

ANyway, all in all for four bucks and expecting crap I was mildly surprised by the entertainment value of this movie. I love that there are still producers etc., making these types of movies and story lines. My humble, final constructive criticism: TAKE YOUR TIME and watch the final version before shovelling it out the door. A FEW touch-ups to the CGI, a few inserted scene to clarify things, and this would have been a pretty good Saturday afternoon monster movie. How about some personality for the shark, too -- Jaws had personality.

See it, but only for the fun of the storyline. Some better, similar flicks include, Deep Star Six and Leviathan.

Day of the Dead 2: Contagium (2005 Video)

Why Do The Classics Keep Getting Ruined By Idiots?

[1/10 · 9 November 2005]

What should have been an opportunity to delve deeper into the myth of Romero's Living dead series of films has been thrown, literally, to the zombies. Let's sum this one up as follows: extremely poor acting (trapped by zombies and possibly about to die, the actors look like their waiting in line for coffee); flat and uninspiring lighting which completely detracted from any atmosphere of dread whatsoever; a script that rambled and dashed from suggestions of an extraterrestrial source for the contagium that caused the dead to walk; poor special effects (these at least could have been covered over by better lighting and camera work); and last but certainly not least, an obvious attempt to make a quick buck using the 'Day of the Dead" title. I consider myself a HUGE fan of Romero's work and the genre as a whole, but this is utter trash and yet ANOTHER example of what producers are shoveling our way. How many conversations have I had attempting to defend the horror genre? Hundreds! And then another floating turd like this comes along and makes me wonder why I ever bother.

1 star out of 10 only because it's the lowest possible rating.

Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005)

Waited MONTHS and waited for NOTHING

[2/10 · 29 October 2005]

As a great number of these reviews seem to go on forever, I will make this one as short and to the point as possible, mostly out of a sense of frustration having just finished watching Dominion. First, let me say that I was one of the few who actually quite enjoyed Exorcist: the Beginning, and my reasons are posted in a review of that film. Watching Dominion, I had hoped for the more subtle, intelligent film I had been hearing of on the Internet for months, and even bought the darn thing instead of renting it, certain it would be a keeper. Well, the CGI was some of the very worst I have ever seen -- and I once thought the hyena scene in Beginning was bad -- the scenes in this film make that one look like A+ work. The female lead seemed hand-picked from a high school drama class, and climax -- WHAT CLIMAX? Okay, I can understand the need to go against the flow and present a possession completely other than what might be expected, but this was ridiculously bland and totally unfrightening. I sat in total shock when the movie ended, and now have a much greater appreciation for Exorcist: the Beginning. Overall, I would have to admit I am frustrated by both on some levels, because what is a fantastic story has not been fully realized in either movie. Exorcist: the Beginning, however, took much greater control of the story, where Dominion seemed to languish in obscure dialog and silliness. Not to ignore the quality of production, I will say that I had hope for the first hour or so -- it's just that the movie ultimately ends up flat on its face. I turned of the TV feeling like an episode of The X-Files might have treated the storyline better than this version.

2 stars out of ten only because it began with promise. Unfortunately, it fell flat on its face.

Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)

Mature, Well-Crafted, Brilliantly Acted

[8/10 · 21 August 2004]

I have just seen this movie and spent some time surfing online reviews. Most of them seem to compare it, understandably enough, to the original and find it lacking on a variety of levels. I just don't agree. Exorcist: The Beginning grasped my interest from the opening scenes to the final frame. The lead actor, Stelan Skarsgard, so vividly and competently captured the character of Father Merrin (played originally by Sydow) that I was blown away -- it was like watching a young Sydow in every respect down to his voice. The story was a brilliant, masterful one that took the necessary time to create a rich, interwoven tapestry of characters and history, and kept me guessing at every turn. For outright horror, the movie requires a patient, adult attention span and ultimately pays off with one of the most disturbing, eye-covering climaxes deep beneath the African ground that I have ever seen. Congratulations to everyone behind this film, whereas you have not seemed to please the attention-deficient crowds that can not stand an intellectual tale or a horror film with literary substance, you have certainly done justice to those true fans of what made the original Exorcist such a classic.