Change Your Image
Seamus-25
Reviews
2:13 (2009)
a bit above average
I am also a bit of a sucker for these types of movies, but I am also aware that many of these are fairly derivative and unimaginative (or in some cases a little too convoluted).
This was a slightly better than average entry into the genre, although not ground-breaking or anything. The relationship between Amanda Richardson and Russell Spivey (Teri Polo and Mark Thompson) was fairly tedious and underused. It seemed that the writers thought their relationship would be interesting, started writing it but then ran out of ideas for them.
The Amanda Richardson character was fairly underused throughout the movie to be honest.
Russell Spivey the alcoholic profiler / detective is also a bit of a cliché which I could do without seeing again - it is a bit of lazy story telling. Writers: "Lets make our detective interesting by giving him guilt about some past perceived failing that drives him to alcoholism", Actors: "But hasn't that been done a 1000 times before?", Writers : "Lets make it 1001" But apart from these criticisms of some of the more generic aspects of the writing and the slightly underused Teri Polo the film was relatively enjoyable. The acting was reasonably strong and the direction performed it's function. The "twist" in the story was OK, I had got the "twist" about 1/2 way through, but I had got the responsible party themselves wrong so it was a half-surprise.
Anyway - if you are fan of this genre - don't expect something as good or original as Seven or Silence Of The Lambs, but there are many worse entries than 2:13
Tormented (2009)
very amateurish
This is a so called "slasher for the skins generation". I am only assuming then that this means the "skins generation" has low expectations.
The story is fairly laughable. A fat, wheezy school boy is teased by all the cool kids in school, commits suicide and then comes back from the dead to exact gruesome revenge. This is the sort of thing you got in the mid 80's towards the end of the first slasher movie trend, and to be honest they did it better (although still not good).
The script was generally fairly appalling with little or no original thought gone into it.
The acting ranged from bad to average. Some of the cast can obviously act but are given nothing but rubbish to say others have rubbish to say and are rubbish at saying it.
The "killer" is particularly bad and I just laughed whenever he appeared in any so called scary scene. He wasn't in the least bit scary - fairly bad makeup and extremely bad direction failed to emit even a modicum of fear.
The ending was hammered home to you a good 30 or 40 minutes before it actually happened so you would have to be Mr MaGoo not to realise what was going on (and this is from somebody who did not see the ending of Sixth Sense coming).
The worst thing though was the directing. The camera focused on all the wrong things at all the wrong times totally destroying any attempt at tension that could feasibly have been wrought out of a scene.
The whole thing from script, acting and directing looked and played out like it was a 14 year old drama students first attempt at making a film with all his/her mates playing the roles. You get the odd OK actor but the rest of em are just terrible.
The Outbreak (2008)
Not a bad attempt at an interactive mini-movie
A reasonably good attempt at an interactive movie. Obviously very short as it is free and just a demonstration really.
Acting was OK - a little strained in parts by the female "lead" i thought.
As far as how it is structured for interactivity the choices are a little frustrating as you have are given no real clues as to which choice would be good or bad, but hey, you get to choose a different path at any point so it is not a real problem. Also the wrong choice invariably leads you to death so there are very few routes through the movie.
The direction was reasonably good, perfectly good enough for this.
Special Effects / Makeup effects were of a reasonable to high standard - it is obviously not just some guys "hey lets make a movie - i have some rubber glue and dirt we can dress up as zombies" - they have got a professional in to make the zombies look good.
Suggestions for a future attempt of this kind Make it longer Make the choices you have to make based on some knowledge of what has preceded so they are not blind guesses. Keep the number of choices about the same - but in a longer movie (give yourself 5 mins or so before a choice). Make it so not all the choices are "good" or "bad" - make it so that some just create a different set of survivors or some other none-death route.
Anyway - not bad at all - was fun watching it and trying the different paths
Ultraviolet (2006)
A thoroughly wasted opportunity
Oh well - never mind. This movie has an interesting premise, a manufactured virus infects a percentage of the population with a disease which gives vampire like properties such as quick healing, fast moving, ultra hearing, super strength and pointy teeth. Unfortunately the disease also gives you sun short life (10 years or so) span and sunlight harms you. The virus is extremely contagious, just a drop of bodily fluid on the skin is enough, so the (fascist) government is wiping all the "vampires" out. A war between the vampires and the government is therefore in place with Violet as some sort of warrior character in the same mold as Seline from Underworld.
There the good bits end. Just the plot outline - I imagine this was the pitch that sold the movie to the execs cos after this the actual production of the movie fell apart. I think the studio execs decided to give the film a reasonable budget in the hope that the good premise would turn out a good movie but actually a smaller budget would probably have done this movie more favours. As it is the film is filled with outrageous fight scenes 20 vamps vs Violet (not a scratch on her), 100's of humans vs Violet (not a scratch on her). The fight scenes need more of a mention as the film is virtually entirely made up of them - there is little or no plot or character development and some wild inconsistencies in the bits they do reveal (why does nose guy where all the protective gear given his situation?).
Heavy (and i do mean heavy) use of CGI ruins the movie giving it no basis in reality. So you get portable gravity packs that allow a motor bike to ride along the side of buildings or up them (but not the ability to fly???). Worst of all - "Concealed Weapons" - in this reality it appears you can pluck weapons (and many weapons) from thin air, these range from samurai swords, machine guns, machine pistols, infinite bullets. This is not explained. In The Matrix - this is explained - The Matrix is not reality and therefore the rules of reality can be broken if you can override your own minds interpretation. Ultra Violet is supposed to be set in reality, albeit a future one, and so there is no excuse for this non-sensical plot devices, simply used so that the fight scenes can be bigger and sillier. If any basis of reality was present Violet would have to keep going back home every 3 minutes to tool up.
With a smaller budget the use of CGI would have been restricted and therefore they would have had to base some "Universe Rules" in reality and the film would have been better.
Acting - fairly wooden and 2 dimensional, and this is being generous. Milla sort of reads her lines out in a flat monotone - virtually no emotional content. Bad guy - again fairly stereotypical, no anger or emotional content to his character either, he just didn't really try. The wee boy - doesn't say much throughout the film and does indeed appear to be mute for a good portion. The Vampire baddie - fairly stereotypical but he ain't in it much so he don't have many lines to say. Vampire love interest, really just the one or 2 lines to indicate this, Violet: "Why did you bring me back?", Vampire Love Interest: "Haven't you guessed?"- paraphrasing but that is essentially it, he ain't in it much so he don't have many lines to say.
The film is essentially - Milla + Bad Guy + Fighting + CGI. Milla not good, bad guy not scary, Fighting too stupid, CGI too over the top. Therefore the movie just gets tedious.
Groove (2000)
what was the point?
Saw this movie last night - admittedly i was tired but to my understanding this movie really did not offer much.
Drama: 1 / 10 - none to speak of - some minor issues with a couple announcing engagement after only 5 months of knowing each other. A gay couple who were always arguing about stuff. A guy who was a rave "virgin" and was worried about taking drugs.
Comedy: 2 / 10 - a little bit of comedy with the gay couple arguing with each other - but nothing much - a bit stereotypical - reminded me of the British family comedies of the 1970's about husbands and wives living together but sort of hating each other - nothing to write home about.
Character Development: very little - cannot really remember any of the characters - one of the characters (Leyla or Lyla or something) explained how she had been around Europe but only saw the inside of clubs and never really saw daylight - that struck me as just a tad sad - but hey ho - not really my scene anyway (this revelation was the only thing that stuck in my mind about her - and therefore the only character i half remember).
I cannot see who this movie is for? The rave scenes seemed to small and compact to give a proper representation of club life (the atmosphere of 1000's of people all dancing in a warehouse with nice n loud music pumping constantly). There quite a bit of music played but you generally don't have this music to sit and listen too (or watch on your TV in a movie) - this music is for dancing to - it loses a vast quantity of it's appeal if you are sat in a sober quiet environment like your home. For non-party goers this movie does not really add much either - it does not really seem to offer any form of insight into the dance scene of the day and as i said earlier there is certainly no dramatical content to keep you occupied. Maybe people are watching this movie with the sound turned off while a real party is going off? Who knows.
Acting - this seemed fairly good to me - each character was played reasonably well by the actors concerned - it certainly seemed more than just a bunch of ravers stuck in front of a camera. This is what raised the rating to a 4 for me.
Anyway - if you like this culture then you may get something out of this (although i am not sure what though). If you don't it won't endear you to it or inspire you to hate it either - it will just leave you a tad bored.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
Darker, slightly rushed - but still great fun
Start off by saying this was my favourite book of the 5 released so far. The first two are a little bit childish (as is their intention - no problem with that) the last two are a little bit padded. Prisoner of Azkaban the book had the perfect blend of active story and back story (for me). So I was really looking forward to the film but was a little bit dubious about the running time, fearing that essential elements of the book would be cut. My fears were realised when seeing the film. Several important elements of the book were removed or shortened to fit into the film's running time which I feel detracted from the film a little bit, including the origin of the Marauders Map, the relationship between all the parties involved etc. The pace of the film was very fast as it tried to cram in as much as possible leaving no time to pause and reflect on the characters. The character of Sirius, although played well by Gary Oldman, was not on screen enough and the fear of his impending presence was not put across well enough (in the books he is so feared that even the "muggle" police have heard of him).
The three main characters did a reasonable job again - especially Rupert Grint and Emma Watson who I feel are getting better each film.
Alan Rickman as Professor Snape was a little under used as he was important character in the book and was terrific in the first 2 films.
Good things. special effects were, as expected, excellent. Buck Beak looked awesome. The Dementors looked pretty good as well. The Dementor "Effect" was well realised and did a pretty good job of visualising the slightly difficult concept of having your happiness sucked out of you.
For all the minor niggles i raised earlier i still loved this film - great fun, a little scary in parts for younger children (the werewolf scenes were excellent).
8/10
Dawn of the Dead (2004)
Great fun
This is not a scary movie - it is a Zombie movie and it does it well. The cast performed their roles well - nothing oscar worthy of course but perfect performances for the film.
There are several comedy moments (intentional) and these make a welcome break in the tension of the film.
Everything kicks off fairly quickly - no pointless hour long examination of how origin of the Zombies (I imagine this is covered in the previous incarnation - although it is a while since i have seen the remake of The Night Of The Living Dead). I am a fan of the original trilogy and I still enjoyed this sequel - the gore is more believable as you would expect in an update (blood is slightly less fluorescent than in the original) the shocks are there, the updated Zombies are excellent - they are fast and dangerous - a big problem i had with the original was that the "Shuffling Zombies" required you to be very very very careless to be caught by them - not these new ones, they will chase you down and tear you apart given half the chance.
More could have been made of them being holed up in the Shopping Mall, like in the original, you never felt they were in any serious threat inside the Mall from the Zombies - although this was adequately replaced by a fear of each other.
Stay all the way to the end credits as more action occurs during these - I liked this way of ending - it would have been a "Too many endings" syndrome if they had tried to put this in as a traditional end of the film but making it interspersed during the credits was a nice touch.
See this film if you are not upset by gore, not expecting a frame-by-frame remake of the original (why would anybody bother to do this - Take Note producers of the Psycho remake), or expecting a reworking of a literary classic - this movie does not try to be any of these things and lets you enjoy it for it's own merits
8/10
Gothika (2003)
Not original but still good
I really like this movie (7/10). It was a bit cliched what with dark and stormy nights surrounding a gothic looking insane asylum for what is a ghost story - but hey - the classics are sometimes the best. What ghost story do you know that would work as well on a bright and breezy summers afternoon?
There are also some flaws - I won't go into details but Halle Berry being placed where she was - unlikely (conflict of interests etc) Halle Berry at then end - errr no - definitely not - things happened and in the real world things are accountable by logical means in law "Logic is overrated" aint gonna cut it.
But ignoring these points for the sake of entertainment and you will enjoy this film.
Halle Berry is very good in her role as a tormented psychiatrist trying to understand what has happened and what is happening to her. Charles S Dutton is in it all too briefly to comment, as is Bernard Hill - both of whom are fine actors and could have been used more. In fact screentime is mainly Halle and she does lap it up.
Direction is reasonable - with some interesting camera spins / zooms - especially in one scene where Halle is being visited. Music is just about right - not too overbearing - helping deliver the shocks that the director requires along with the camerawork.
The ghost is fairly scary - although i do think they borrow from The Ring (Japanese) for some ideas in this front. BTW all of you ghost fans should see The Ring - Japanese one - The remake was good but the original still has the scarier ghost
So overall worth seeing - see it in a darkened room, suspend your disbelief for some of the less likely scenarios and just enjoy it.
The Linda McCartney Story (2000)
a bit light weight
I know this is a tv movie but this seemed to cover so little ground in Lynda McCartney's life. The movie is split into 2 halves, early life and meeting/marrying Paul and the last few years and the fight against cancer. The movie switched between the two periods intermittently, I believe the only reason this was done was to avoid having to document the middle 20 years (post marriage - pre cancer). The portrayal of McCartney in his early time with Lynda (i.e. during the last years of the Beatles) grated on me a bit as the portrayal of John Lennon (although he is no saint) was universally negative and I don't think this was the case (and was not necessary for the telling of the Lynda McCartney story. The latter half, portraying the cancer battle was reasonably done adding a little depth to a fairly light weight movie. Hardly any mention was made of the Wings years or Lynda's battles for Animal Rights and Vegetarianism - surely a large part of her life (covered in about 5 mins total in the film) - more time talking about vegitarianism and animal rights was covered in the Simpsons episode they both guest voiced in.
The acting was ok from the 2 leads, especially the Lynda McCartney character herself. The other actors did their job and nothing more.
An opportunity wasted I feel.
5 / 10
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
not as bad as I thought it would be
I've seen this movie twice now - once on my own when I was a little bit drunk (and therefore not paying too much attention) and once with a friend when relatively sober. The first time I hated it - thought it was a cheap rip off - stealing scenes and lines from the original two movies. The second time I saw it I was starting to warm towards it and took the scene and line stealing as what I am sure it was intended, a homage to the first movies.
The action scenes were fairly good - Arnie could still cut it reasonably well as the terminator despite his age. The new terminator resembled the characteristics (the mannerisms not the physicality) of the T-1000 (Robert Patric) from T2 and this sorts of fits with the whole improved terminator line, i.e. less robotic more human. There were some glaring holes which although I tried hard I could not ignore
Spoiler possibility (I will keep as vague as possible) The secret base was stunningly unguarded, in fact most of the military establishments appear to have an open door policy for strangers :-)
I won't go into anymore but there are some
One of the things I did not like at all was the development of the John Connor character. This I feel betrayed the first 2 movies. In the first movie, Sarah Connor starts off weak and becomes strong. In the second movie, John Connor starts off strong and gets stronger. In the third movie John Connor appears to have had a personality change. He seems like a frightened and confused child - not at all like the strong willed resourceful character from the second film. This grated on me a bit as he seemed very whiny and weak in this movie.
The ending was reasonably good - covering the "The future is not fixed" sort of scenario and therefore allowing the rules to be broken from one movie to the next in a reasonably sensible way (As sensible as you can get with time travel movies).
Summary Direction - nice and fast paced - all you would expect from a T2 movie. Acting - mmmm, ok - but then again you are not expecting Shakespeare here Script - Some corny lines but generally sufficient Story - Reasonably good
6/10
Scorcher (2002)
Straight to video rubbish
Well, This film is lucky (for now) that the voting section is out of action otherwises I would be giving out a 3/10 for this utter nonsense.
The film's basic premise is sound enough. Underground Nuke testing has caused a disturbance in the movements of the continental plates thereby triggering a natural disaster. The Americans (fair enough, there are some major plate boundaries in the states) have to halt this movement before the world burns up with lava flowing from the earth's inner layers.
But the whole thing is so poorly thought out. The acting from the principles is so rubbish (some notable exceptions in the higher quality cast members who are just working on what they have been given). Wooden delivery of corny lines.
Also there seemed to be pointless plot additions to raise the "action" part including an utterly pointless and under-developed love/hate relationship between a father and daughter scientist team. Also - Hollywood - there is absolutely no need to include a romantic attachment between a male and female lead if the whole film is meant to only take place over a couple of days. It is stupid and unnecessary.
There seemed to be some other (again underdeveloped) subplot where another goverment agent (CIA ?? - can't remember - bored by then) hated the hero character - and hated him sooooo much that he was willing to try and kill him and prevent the entire mission from succeeding. Utter tripe. Another pointless plotline with the hero's daughter being lsot in the city and needing rescuing (virtually the only person lost in the city happened to be the hero's daughter). No element of the film left the audience in suspense (the pointless trip near the beginning into the underground system to "check out" a deep ventilation hole, was surprise surprise was needed to save the day in the end.
Also - another thing (starting to rant now). Why on a mission of such importance were only a handful of people sent in to carry (a seemingly very light - he was running with it in a bag under one arm at one point) nuclear weapon into the hot zone, with NO backup, allowing the team to be effectively mugged by some local gang.
Do not see this on video - do not stay up late to watch this on tv. Just avoid - sleeping is a better use of your time.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Can an animated character win best Actor ?
First I would like to say that I read the book a long time ago but I am not a rabid fan. The odd changes to the story I can live with as books and films are not the same (that is to you fanboys and fangirls).
This was an awesome film in every way which got even better the second time I watched it. From the initial sequence right through the climatic scenes this seemed so much more than the first film and I loved that.
The thing that struck me the most was Smeagol / Gollum. Not just the CGI that is used to create him (although that is as good as we were led to believe and makes that silly House Elf from the boy wizard film look like Mickey Mouse). It was Andy Serkis - the emotion and torment he filled the character with made me feel for him in much bigger way than I ever did when reading the book. The way the character kept swaying between Gollum and Smeagol kept me hooked to the screen more than any other part of the movie.
I was pleasantly surprised by the look of the ents as I had been worried that these would just look stupid. This gives me hope for the final film and some of the more outlandish characters in that.
My only fault, although this is more with the book than the film, is that Frodo and Sam's relationship is a bit too much sometimes - I'm not sure what it is - I can see why their were rumours on the net that the two were homosexual as the book although not saying this gave them a friendship that I cannot imagine outside of a loving intimate one (maybe that is my jaded view of the world though). I have no problems with homosexual relationships on film but this sort of is nearly but not quite there.
See this film and then see it again but don't drink lots of soft drink before going in (like I did the first time - doh!) as it's a long film that only bladder will clue you in on.
Gummo (1997)
no redeeming features
I'm afraid this film has no redeeming features. There is no plot - at all. The film appears to be trying to show a snapshot of American life in a rundown town, but I don't believe it - has anybody been to a town like this, don't think so?
There was no acting to speak of as pretty much everybody just emotionlessly reads lines or possibly just made stuff up - who knows - nobody says anything important or relevant so you cannot tell.
The film could have started at any point and ended at any point and not detracted from it's contents (if it had finished 2 minutes after it started I would have been happier). I believe this is just a fairly sad attempt at trying to be "arty". Don't get me wrong I enjoy a good film be it typical blockbuster or small independent, the money put into a film doesn't really matter - story does. You have to ask yourself why was this film made? What purpose does it serve? It provoked no reaction from me except a kind of listless boredom. No real anger, sadness or disappointment. I just didn't care about anything or anybody in the film. I do feel slightly agrieved at having 2 hours (or however long this thing is) taken away from my life when I could have been organising my string collection - but that is all.
Why can't you give 0/10 - *sigh* 1/10 will have to do
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
A big improvement over Phantom Menace
Silly title notwithstanding I did enjoy this film. It seemed back to the old school of Star Wars film making. A nice story reasonably well told and entertaining to a mixture of age groups.
Acting: I thought some of the acting was a little odd - I don't think Ewan can quite pull off the upper crust accent very well - it always sounds a little strained. This rigid attempt to stick to a voice style causes his delivery to sound stilted and monotone. Haydn is passable as Anakin Skywalker but he did not project the emotional torment his character was occasionally suffering - but he handled the action sequences reasonably well. Christopher Lee was excellent as Count Dooku adding that air of menace that was missing, ironically, from the Phantom Menace. Natalie Portman gives another fine performance. And Yoda .... Yoda's scenes were interesting - unable to reveal more - well worth seeing Yoda in the film :-)
Directing: During action sequences I thought the directing was great - the was pace kept nice giving the watcher an exilerating experience in the Cinema. Also reasonably good during the - less emotionally charged scenes such as meetings between council members and the like but during emotional scenes I feel George Lucas does not help his actors. Some of the scenes lacked emotional depth for me and not for a need of actors capable of delivering these performances. It seemed that some of the dialogue that seemed to need emotional and charged execution was delivered fairly flat. A different director may have tried to put the cast's talents to better use.
Story: A great story - a good old fashioned yarn in the spirit of Episode 4 to 6. The story is not too childish to appeal to the older audience and still I can imagine it entertaining children.
SFX: As would be expected the SFX look quite astounding - from the busy metropolis of Coroscent (sp?) to the inevitable light sabre battles. All look fantastic and don't overwhelm the picture.
Overall: well worth watching (in the cinema) I would rate it under Episode 4 and 5 but above Episode 6 - Return of the Jedi as I did not spot a single Ewok and Binks was hardly in it. 7/10
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
A good discussion movie
While I was watching Mulholland Drive I wasn't sure what to make of it - the film seemed to delight in trying to confuse the viewer, but maybe that was the intention. I went to see it with about 4 other people and spent over an hour arguing and chatting about the film - Can't see me doing that with your average film. The more we discussed it the more it seemed to make at least semi-sense. My advice definitely go with a group.
The acting was reasonbly good and there were some very funny comedy moments - especially Justin Theroux as the movie director. I felt for him in his confusion. Although the hitman was amusing as well.
I don't think it would have taken a great deal of alteration to make this movie appeal to a more mainstream audience - but then he wouldn't be David Lynch.
Camera focus seemed to drift in and out occasionally and this may have been many things - the projectionist - bad camera work - or intentional to confuse the watcher, I haven't made up my mind which one yet.
Summary If you do go and see this - don't judge it straight away, give it a chance to become clearer in your mind. 7/10
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
A bit of a laugh
I didn't expect much when I started watching this at 2am one morning but I was a little surprised to find it's not so bad. The acting is way over the top from all fronts (with the exception of Caroline Williams who plays Stretch). The story is very silly but quite funny at times. Dennis Hopper although supposedly in a leading role is not really in it much - his action mainly off screen (you hear him going buck mad with a chainsaw) - no the best actor for me was the guy who plays the brother with the metal plate in his head (I can't remember his name)- he seemed to relish the over the top style and played it with gusto. The set design was quite incredible in the final scenes with lots of interconnected rooms and pipes making Leatherface's house look like a adventure park under the ground. The film is a comedy with added gore as opposed to a horror movie with added comedy - if you see it with this frame of mind you may enjoy it more.
I gave this a 5 - Interesting film - not great but not terrible (unless you hate gore)
Strategic Command (1997)
Good look finding more work for all involved in this turkey.
This film is pretty damn bad. As has already been mentioned the film steals the plots of Executive Decision and borrows a bit of the Rock for good measure.
What I did not understand was why would the kidnappers hijack the Vice Presidents plane ?? Surely with all that potential chemical death on board any plane would have done. In fact why use a plane at all just use a bomb in a warehouse with the chemical. Oh well who knows the minds of master criminals in terrible films ?
The plot is stolen from executive decistion. The aerial shots are borrowed from stock footage. This really only leaves the acting to save it - sadly it doesn't. Stereotypical bad guys and Stereotypical good guys (the leader of the special forces team sent in to rescue the Vice President is a gung ho idiot so that the main film hero can take over - oh my god).
Good look finding more work for all involved in this turkey.
Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy (2000)
Oh Dear
Oh dear, what were they thinking when they wrote this - about something else is my guess, the shopping, what they had for breakfast that morning - pretty much anything except "lets make a good movie".
The acting is atrocious, with stilted dialogue, especially by the guy who plays Morris, you can see him listening for his cues.
The budget was obviously spent entirely on the creature itself but don't let it fool you into thinking this is worth watching - the creature looks like some shambling fat man who has been hit by the ugly stick a few times. The creature fails to be scary as it rarely gets above the pace of an athritic snail.
As I said the creature was where the majority of the budget went, it did not seem to stretch to location or extras. This film is meant to be set upon a school campus and I think you see a total of 9 people, including the creature throughout. Also the "Dorms" look distinctly like a normal house, probably the directors. I even began to suspect that the constant cliche of walking around darkened rooms was probably an effort to save on the lighting bills.
There is no character build up - so little in fact that I can only remember the Morris guys name (because he was so awful) and I have only just watched the damn movie. You do not care about a single one of them.
On my box the film is called "Bram Stoker's The Mummy 2". What the hell as this film got to do with Bram Stoker?
Do not ever ever ever ever ever watch this movie - do not be fooled into thinking "oh, it may be so bad it's funny" - it isn't it's just plain bad.
Hannibal (2001)
Very entertaining but don't expect Silence Of The Lambs 2
Hannibal is a very different film to Silence Of The Lambs and for that reason alone many people won't like it (how many people hated Alien 3 just because it wasn't Aliens part 2). Whereas SOTL was a traditional serial killer flick albeit excellently written and acted - Hannibal is more a black comedy. Hannibal is occasionally very funny with the odd "bite to eat" kind of line. It is very gory in parts but this only added to the characterisation - reminding us that although Hannibal is extremely charming - he also has an utter contempt for human life - well rude human life anyway. Clarice Starling's character is not the main focal point of the film and for that reason some people may be a bit disappointed. When she is on screen she seems a little moribund. I am not sure if this is intentional due to the rough ride she is getting in the FBI or because Julianne Moore knew she was facing an impossible task in following in Jodie Foster's footsteps. I believe it is the former.
Chasing Amy (1997)
Cracking film - One of the best I've seen
As is usual I have seen the Kevin Smith movies out of sequence. Mallrats (which I quite liked), Clerks (fantastic), Dogma (Extremely funny) and now Chasing Amy. Chasing Amy may now be my personal favourite, a very touching love story with comic overtones. The three main characters Alyssa, Holden and Banky play off each other brilliantly and you can feel the love between each of them (who loves who is revealed in the film). The ending may not be for everybody but I thought it was good, a more traditional ending would not have worked as well for me, this one felt more real. Kevin we need more films like this - keep making them please.
Manhunter (1986)
A brave attempt hampered by a terrible soundtrack
This is the film of the excellent book "Red Dragon" by Thomas Harris. It is by no means a bad film but not as brilliant as "Silence of the Lambs". The film although exciting in many parts is let down by long periods of inactivity and a truly awful soundtrack. The acting is reasonably good especially by Tom Noonan who plays Francis Dolarhyde, his character was very similar to how I had imagined him in the book. The emotional torment of Will Graham does not make for exciting viewing and perhaps more time could have been spent examining the life of the Killer.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Average suspense movie with an interesting ending
I went to see The Sixth Sense last night with no expectations one way or another, and I was not impressed in either a good or a bad way. The acting was OK, nothing special the plot was fairly run of the mill. The only bit that I didn't see coming was the ending - which raised it from a "4" to a 5. The scary parts relied on the tried and tested "loud noise makes you jump" formula used time and time again. Overall: By all means see this one and see it all the way to the finish as the ending is the best part.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Truly the scariest film I have ever seen
This, is the scariest film I have ever seen. The basic story deals with 3 students investigating an old legend. When something strange begins to happend we witness a slow disintegration of the characters as they try to deal with what is happening to them. I felt I would behave in exactly the same way as the characters in the film and this allowed me to be drawn into the story. This film does not have any soundtrack or traditional camera trickery used in typical movies. If you go in expecting The Exorcist you will be disappointed, but if you are prepared to forget that the story is not true and allow yourself to be drawn in then you begin to experience the terror I felt while watching this film.
I don't think it will stand up to too many repeated viewings as the film relies on suspense, more so than most films, and an element of that is always lost when you know what is going to happen.