Change Your Image
davidhutch007
Reviews
Basic Instinct (1992)
Hitchcock meets Sharon Stone..
i have to say Alfred would be proud of this achievement. it really blends some of his best qualities with a hell of a sexy nineties twist. what makes this stand out from the crowd of so called erotic thrillers? its actually an erotic thriller, it pushes limits, embraces them and pushes them further.
Sharon Stone is the stand out of the film as the devious Catherine Tremmel an author whose murders depicted within her novels are becoming reality, but could she be behind the whole thing. From the get go, you know Sharon is behind the whole thing, but director Paul Verhoven twists an intricate web that really makes you doubt the obvious. His erotic nature, his crude eye for the sexual really works and puts a stamp on this film like no other has ever been able to do since.
Michael Douglas is great but is no eye candy (you'll understand when you see his turkey ass a wibble wobble) but he works as a gritty cop with a previous history that takes the interest of Miss Tremmel.
if you want a good thriller for your Saturday night thrills, shot perfectly by Mr. Jan De Bont and a good cast then check out Basic Instinct
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)
Dare you go near the Field of Screams? Well you should
Went to the premiere of this film in Sheffield UK in a quaint little cinema filled with two dozen people and director Tim Sullivan.
The film starts with a real coy comic book sequence/opening titles that almost takes you back to Romero's Creepshow and Sullivan brilliantly continues this homage further in the film with over the top laughs, over the top gore and over the top acting to give one hell a throwback to those beautifully laden horrors of years gone by.
Many questioned whether or not the film could be as good with Englund being replaced by the very talented Bill Mosely. The answer is yes. Bill brings a different Buckman to the table, and this kind of sets the tone for the entire film, it really is Tim Sullivan's film, how complete vision unleashed and one kind of hopes that he will be able to go back to 2001 Maniacs and re-cut it in the way he wanted it.
This filmmaker has proved over three films he is capable at directing and writing something crafty and genius and not merely copying every other filmmaker in remaking every god damned horror film, but taking a forgotten classic and then making it his own.
If the first film delighted you with gore and nudity, then this film will certainly please you with OTT on gore and nudity for the men and the ladies alike.
Tim Sullivan is a filmmaker you want to be watching. Believe me there's more great stuff to come.
Driftwood (2006)
Visit Driftwood for a real movie!
First let me compliment Tim Sullivan for making one of my favorite horror films, 2001 Maniacs, the film was funny and well Robert Englund, need we say anymore really? So after seeing Maniacs my next question was how would Tim follow the film up, the answer is Driftwood.
I'm not going to go into the story, thats what the plot outlines for, however what i will say is this is a really nice original horror film that stands out and brings a real smile to my face. Tim has crafted a film which is really about teen angst, how teens deal with that and how they're pressured by the people they are asked to respect, adults.
Ricky Ulman is brilliant, make no mistake he plays his role to the bitter end and never lets his grip on the material go. He brings a real gritty attitude that plays so well it almost feels like your watching real life, he really is that good.
Diamod Dallas Page also deserves a mention for playing the bad guy to the baddest of bad. He comes across as nice at first glance and then once he's crossed, he's total bad ass! Tim Sullivan has once again done it for me, he has written and directed a beautiful film that in my opinion should be seen by as many people as possible. The film plays out with such nice pace, a real good set of characters and a great amount of suspense created by our brilliant director! All i can say Tim is well done and make sure to keep making one of these types of film every so often because they really work! Overall there was nothing i really had a problem with, the acting, the writing, the directing, all of them were on par and certainly had an appeal where i couldn't be drawn away from the screen.
Please whatever you do, go and watch this film, its such a fantastic effort i couldn't help but in some way feel better for seeing it, it brought a real smile to my face and it takes some doing believe me.
So all i'll say is if your a lover of film, independent film then go and watch this, because the passion and the talent are all in abundance in this film. That is for sure!
Mission: Impossible III (2006)
Finally a Mission that Doesn't fall flat!
After the very awful Mission Impossible in 1996 and then the sub standard Mission Impossible 2002 i believed that there would be forever a string of bad James Bond and Bourne Identity wannabe's starring Tom Cruise and the name Mission Impossible.
Yet somehow Mission Impossible 3 has quickly proved that there is some life, a new and exciting one at that in this world of IMF (Impossible Mission Force) The film written by Robert Orci, Alex Kurtzman and J.J. Abrams who also directed bring a new flare to Etahn Hunt that we have not seen before.
When we begin the film we see Hunt now much more of a family man and ready to commit to marriage, and yet the job quickly comes before it all when Billy Crudup's character asks Ethan to go and find and retrieve an IMF agent who has been captured by Owen Davian (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) Hunt accepts and with his old friend Luther (Ving Rhames) and two new recruits Maggie Q and Jonathon Rhys Meyers they set off to find the hostage.
Que big explosions, guns fights and that certain look on Tom Cruises face and we have a big action piece, including a helicopter chase through a large field of wind turbines which results in the bad guys chopper quickly being brought down. However the hostage dies and now Hunt wants revenge, he wants Davian.
The film moves with quite some pace and yet somehow still feels like a long film indeed, its quite amazing to think that this film is as long and how it moves so fast. The direction by J.J. Abrams is brilliant and gives something to what was already a tiered series after two films, he brings a certain something which ups just about everything in the film.
Now the stand out performance in this film certainly has to be Hoffman who delivers a very evil performance, the best villain by far in this series and i wouldn't be surprised if the Bond guys look to him in the future! He is evil and so charming in the short amount of time he has on screen, he is truly brilliant! Cruise is also on top form giving his best performance as Hunt, he delivers something more this time around a much more caring Ethan Hunt something that was missing before. While Cruise delivers a wholly better performance its still somehow very difficult to watch him act, in places he seems to fall flat while in others he wins hands down, its a mixed bag with him.
Action i hear you say? Well this film has plenty, the film is filled with big guns, big action and just everything big. There are a few big set pieces that literally make this film go with a bang. The entire Vatican sequence was simply amazing and really credible, the explosion on the bridge was fantastic and didn't seem to drag, and the building to building jump was jaw dropping. All the sequences have a certain something, they were certainly the most credible stuff the franchise has done and certainly make this film worth the watch to ask how in the hell did they do that? Abrams is a true master of what he does here, if this film is anything to go by then we have no fear about his future as a director. He shows a great vision as a director and a true artist and gives a visual flare missing from the previous missions.
Overall this is a great film featuring some of the best stunts of the series, the best villain of the series, in fact best everything of the series. If you were somehow and god knows how impressed by any of the two previous installments then this film should flash Oscar in your eyes. Descent performances all around mean for a great popcorn film not seen in the cinemas or on screen for quite some time.
This review will self destruct in five seconds....
******* out of **********
The Faculty (1998)
Through the back door Fun!
Towards the end of the film one of the characters comments that the aliens are "walking in through the back door" and let me tell you this film crept up upon me in the same way! What i was expecting from the pen of Kevin Williamson (Scream, Scream 2) was perhaps self induced teen horror with no sense at all. I knew with his previous two credits he could crack the horror genre but could he crack the sci-fi? The answer is a clear and distinctive YES.
What you also might be surprised about when watching this film is that it is a Robert Rodriguez film, it's a film where he was tied down by the studio but never the less he makes a great effort all the way through and his direction is clear and crisp and brings the teen spirit of the nineties quite comfortably to the screen.
There are some great actors in this movie, Jordana Brewster, Robert Patrick, Josh Hartnett and Jon Stewart to name a select few. Each brings a unique quality to their role and never really takes themselves seriously, rather portraying the overblown, over the top qualities we might expect. However Elijah Wood must be given special credit for his portrayal in the film. If anyone is believable in this film it's him playing his role with good direction via Rodriguez. I felt strongly and was rooting for this character right the way through the film.
The film is well paced and Rodriguez shows his talent as director/editor with his ability to pace the film. The fun build takes us to an hour in while the final fifty minutes are pure action/sci-fi glory.
I believe that this film is a great effort and a true effort at bringing a bored and out of tune genre back into fashion, while the film does share those characteristics of its Scream predecessors, such as the characters referencing every sci-fi film possible (even using Invasion of the Body Snatchers to help win the day!) it is a great film to sit down with on a Saturday night and settle back into the couch and forget about life.
It's time to remember the days when you thought old Mrs. Neckingbottom was an evil alien from mars or Mr. Sideward is the king alien from Zuton, either way its a great memory filler and a great great ride and much better than a lot of trash being released this summer! Overall a great film, special effects dating but never the less the great characters make for a cool and positive experience! ******* out of **********
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
The Buzz Is Back.......
There are sequels and then there are prequels and personally i thought after the 2003 remake we were destined for a sequel however when it was announced that the film was indeed to be a prequel to the remake i was much more excited. Unfortunately i was unable to see the film in a theater but i recently obtained the DVD and i was not disappointed! The films begins in the same grainy format as we were introduced to in the 2003 remake, we meet Leatherfaces mother who works in the meat factory where she gives birth to him then and there and then dying herself. Leatherface is then dumped in the trash and found by Luda Mae Hewitt who takes our soon to be killer into her family. The rest of Leatherfaces growing up is quickly bypassed during the credits sequence so before we know it we have cut to 1969 and we meet our new set of teens.
Chrissie her boyfriend Eric, his brother Dean and his girlfriend Bailey are traveling through Texas so that the young men can enlist in the army to go to Vietnam. However the younger brother Dean is unbeknownst to his brother not going. After being harassed by a female biker, the teens jeep crashes but before long Sheriff Hoyt turns up at the scene and takes Dean, Eric and Bailey to his home not realizing that Chrissie has been thrown from the jeep and his making her way after the sheriff to help her friends. It's playtime for Leatherface! The film really has the feel of 1969 and really feels like the prequel to the remake and seems to have been shot in the exact same way. The films really has the grainy and yet gritty quality that makes the film stand out from the other horrors although could be compared to Saw or Saw 2 with respect to its look, feel and tone.
The idea was to try and explain the origin of fear himself Mr. Leatherface but in fact all we get to see in about eight minutes is him being conceived in a meat factory, dumped, found and then through the credits shown his up bringing in photos and quick flashes but that is not good enough when they claim this will show how he became the serial killer we pay money to see.
However much i hate the fact we didn't see more i must say the films is brilliant, there is a slow twenty minute build for our four main characters who look great and play the characters to a suitable standard for what we expect in horror films. The stand out is again like the remake R. Lee Ermey who plays the ever fun Sheriff Oyt and in this film we get to see how he became the terrifying sheriff.
Leatherfac/ Thomas Hewitt is again played by Andrew Bryniarski who again gives his all in trying to create a character being subdued in to killing his victims. He is never going to win best actor or anything like that but he does deserve a compliment for his good work here as he again makes Leatherface a scary character and the mask they use here is much better than the very obvious rubber one in the remake.
A film like this really does need the kills and they need to be different that what we have seen before. hen watching this film i really felt this was something different. The kills are gory and in moments could perhaps be described as being cringe worthy but if you've seen previous installments you won't be surprised. In parts you really feel for the characters especially in one scene where we see his face being carved off for Leatherfaces new mask, as Sheriff Hoyt puts it "I like your new face" The writing is strong in places, especially when it comes to the final twenty minutes of the film while some of the other stuff seems a little sloppy but if you just love your horror then you really won't give a damn. Director Jonathon Liebsman has really done his work here by showing he does have a good eye and a keen sense of what the audience want to see. His lackluster Darkness Falls is outclassed in every way by this good standard of direction on show here. There are places where you feel he perhaps went a little too far and even slowed the pace too far down but again by the second act of the film you just won't care.
Overall this film is a very good prequel and deserves praise for it's outstanding effort in not trying to just rehash the remake. Characters were strong and the overall feel to the film will i think keep you watching to the bitter if not surprising ending! Don't be put off by nay sayers and give this a shot i'm certainly glad i did! ****** out of **********
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Freddy back for more.........
Nightmare on Elm Street 4 was one i was looking forward to because of Brian Helgeland's writing and Renny Harlins directing and guess what i wasn't too disappointed.
Kristen, Joey and Kincaid from NOES3 return in this film, they seem to be getting back to normal now that Freddy is finally gone and out of there lives but Kristen feels that Freddy looms right round the corner. Joey and Kincaid on the other hand don;t believe her but they are soon about to. Kincaid has a dream where his dog comes with him and digs up Freddy's bones from the junkyard and after that Freddy return to reap the nightmares of the teens on Elm street once again. We also meet a new character called Alice who day dreams and once Freddy returns to the nightmares she begins to help him kill the others, the problem is she doesn't know until its too late and only she can stop him from taking any more lives.
The film is certainly the sequel to number three by brining back the characters of Joey and Kincaid as well as Kristen (played by Tuesday Knight) and this was a very nice touch even if the characters only make the first thirty mins or less of the film, never the less i liked the return of the characters all of whom were played brilliantly by the actors portraying them.
Alice played by new comer Lisa Wilcox plays a typical shy teenager who somehow finds herself being drawn into the nightmares of everyone and quickly becomes the films protagonist. I liked her performance and liked what she did to the character but i couldn't help feel that there was something misfitting about her character, but never the less a good performance by the newcomer.
Of course it wouldn't be right to comment on the brilliant Robert Englund who again up the tempo with his performance as Freddy. You can be assured that every time he graces the screen he will deliver and you can be constantly assured of this. This film was what i believe the first film in the franchise to really give Freddy the one liners such as "Hows this for a wet dream" which you can't help but laugh at and its just pure brilliance from Englund.
The story i feel is one of the stronger of the films, certainly up there with NOES 1 and NOES 3 and the writing does feel that thought went in to it rather than a rushed bit of writing and a lot should be credited to Brian Helgeland and the other writing partners on the film who have done a good job in doing something a little different which makes for all the more fun.
Renny Harlin our director on this Nightmare certainly adds a music video quality that definitely wasn't there in the previous installments and gives the teen horror feel that the other three installments didn't have either. His direction is good and gives a new and fresh approach to the franchise with his interesting camera choreography and the way the scenes look and feel. This is one of Mr. Halins better efforts! There are of course downsides to the film in that sometimes it's a little confusing as to what is going on and often you feel the director has jumped ten steps in front of you and while trying to play catch up you loose sense of the plot. Some characters feel pointless and i think should never have been put in at all. The films is also full of music from the eighties, rock music that was putting the film because it would grace the films soundtrack and after the fourth time of listening to yet another song its becomes tedious and annoying, even some of the bad horror films do not go out of there way to promote music like this film does.
Overall i was impressed with this entry of the series and is in the top three of the series as it delivers a solid story with interesting characters and a new fresh approach to a tiring Freddy franchise.
Over all ****** out of **********
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
Proves sequels are always two steps behind the original....
Today i received my Nightmare on Elm Street collection and having seen part one it was straight on with number two "Freddy's Revenge" which i found way, way off the mark from the original.
The story is set five years after the events of part one and now the Walsh family have moved into the house from part one and the son of the family Jesse begins to have the nightmares that Nancy from the previous installment was having. Its only too long before Freddy begins yet another reign of terror.
The film gets off to a quick start with a nightmare which really takes you by surprise and is set up nicely and all i'll say is it goes down faster than the Titanic. Throughout the film you feel that it is just a mixture of plot lines just thrown together in the editing room without a thought to a normal narrative such as the first film.
The film is hard to follow and strays heavily from the first film which is not the way a sequel should go but then again we are talking about the horror genre here. Freddy gets little to no screen time in the film which is really a bad thing considering most people watch these film for Freddy so i couldn't understand the logic in this but never the less they did it! The acting is poor and you really feel that Mark Patton was badly miscast in some way or another and i really never bought his whole descent in to Freddy's clutches which i did in the first film. Of course Robert Englund is superb (when he gets chance) as Freddy Kruger and really shows an evil side towards the end. The other actors really aren't worth a mention because of the total lack of respect for their characters shown by the director and writer of the film.
Speaking of which Jack Sholder should be appalled by his work here, there is no real direction and when there is it really is all over the place and very bad and shows in no way the brilliance of what Wes Craven brought to the original. The writing too is just mind boggling in terms of how the guy even managed to get his trash on the screen in the first place, the dialogue is cheap and cheesy which is what we expect in the horror genre but just not to this bad extent.
All in all this film will certainly go down as one of the worst horror sequels ever as far as i'm concerned but i did give this a four out of ten so there must be something worth watching.... well yes there is and i think its the fact that this is a nightmare on elm street film and for that reason you want to like it a lot but it just wasn't worth the bother and should be ignored from the franchise to be totally fair.
As far as horror sequels go this is one of the worst i have witnessed in a long time and is in great distance from the original and that is a shame! **** out of **********
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Is Halloween The Curse Of Michale Myers A Real Thorn In The Series Side?
Well to be fair this film has everything to go for after the lackluster Halloween 5 disappointed most Halloween fans.
The films sees Michael returning to Haddonfield to find Jamie Lloyd's young child that is now in Tommy Doyle's (Paul Rudd) possession. But Michael is coming home to a surprise as now the Strodes are living in his house and he isn't best pleased to find them there.
The plot of this film is one which has continued to cause controversy since the very release of the film yet all the plot tries to do is give Michael reasoning, reasoning to who he is, what he is and why he is which in this reviewers opinion wasn't a bad idea but came a little too late in the franchise for any real Halloween fan to accept. While the narrative is driven with good characters such as the Tommy Doyle character and of course Dr. Loomis the films seems to suffer in other areas.
Of course as most Halloween fans know the theatrical cut is not the only cut out there. A producers cut can be highly sought after and is often talked of as being better than the theatrical version and this may very well be a factor in the poor editing and at many times shoddy directing.
The film suffers from poor editing as it tries top cover up and bridge scenes obviously taken out from the final theatrical cut of the film, this in effect takes you right out of the film and at times makes you think how in the hell could they release this to theaters? The direction suffers in places but doesn't exclude Joe Chappelle from leaving his mark on the franchise with his music video approach to the film.
OK now your wondering why i have given this six out of ten and only gone on about bad points, well there are a few but it does have some great things going for it. The film's narrative is clever and Daniel Farrands should be praised for a different approach to the film from what could have been the simple hack and slash that we'd expect of Myers by now. This film however refuses to fall into that trap to some extent and deliver a clever story.
The acting should also be commended for this entry in the series, Donald Pleasance is as good as ever but fails to gain the amount of screen time he deserves for being with the series as long as he did. Paul Rudd plays the total opposite of what we would expect today playing a character who knows he must stop Michael but also has the demons within. These two performances alone made the film gain the extra mark to give it a six out of ten for me, had these performances not been there then this probably would be a lackluster five out of ten.
Of course it wouldn't be right for me not to talk about George P. Wilbur who of course plays Michael Myers for his second time and is still the only person to do so. Michael in this film feels a little different to what he has been in previous incarnation yet it is still the Michael we know and love. Wilbur does however give a good turn as Michael as he did with Halloween 4 and i believe is one of the stronger performers of Michael even if he did look as though he had a beer gut in the film.
Overall the film was everything i expected from a 90's horror cliché film yet i wanted more than the total runtime would allow. The ending feels altogether rushed and rather OTT and you are left feeling there was no resolution and of course we do not find out what happened to certain characters which is a real downer. I feel a great warmth to the character of Dr. Loomis and yet i think the director felt that his character was none too important well to you sir i say you do not know this franchise! The films worth seeing just to see the idea being played out which continues to cause controversy amongst fans today. Although considered one of the weakest films in the franchise i'd say give it a shot, i was very unwilling but upon watching i saw something different to the masses and you might do too. All i'll say is it's better than H5 and certainly on par with H4!
So is the film really a thron in the series side? in my opinion certainly not. ****** out of **********
Casino Royale (2006)
Bond Is Back With A Whole New Bang
On the announcement of Daniel Craig on a rainy October day in 2005 i found myself thinking that Bond had surely just been flushed down the pan.
Yet once the film began to roll in the theater today i sat there in amazement at how wrong the critics can be including myself. The stunning opening to the film in black and white will totally take you by surprise, with no gun barrel right after the company logos to assure us this is Bond you might believe you've walked into the wrong film, perhaps maybe a new Jason Bourne film but if you think that you'd be wrong. Oh by the way the gun barrel does appear and when it does you'll either love it or hate it.
Then the main titles kick in with a super sounding Bond song by Chris Cornell which really hits home that this is a new Bond for a new generation and it makes no reservations about people in the audience taking this with them. The main titles themselves are stunning, not using the conventional topless women shaking their bodies in the shadows, but using a different configuration than us Bond fans are used to.
So here we go we're into the film and we open in Madagascar where we get a fantastic and stunning sequence to which Bond chases a bomber round a construction yard, not just a round it but in it and on top of it and running and jumping about on cranes. I must say that this is a great sequence and don't be surprised if you can't take your eyes from the screen because it really is that good.
So far so good but what about the new Bond i hear you cry, well this is certainly a Bond much more close to the novels and short stories that Fleming wrote and i certainly would say that Daniel Craig makes Bond a hard character again to compare him to any of the other Bonds you'd really have to put him next to Timothy Dalton who to this day i still believe gave such a great performance as Bond.
A villain is so important and in this film he is extremely important as he is very central to the plot, but this isn't a villain out for world domination, this is a guy who's in trouble, you see he has lost a lot of money not belonging to him and needs to get it back and so sets up a poker game at Casino Royale. Mads Mikkelsen plays this villain with a certain quality you've never seen a villain with before, they even gave the guy asthma a villain with asthma? Crazy you might say but this is a villain that feels real eve with the eye that cries blood. I loved watching the character but i don't think he gets the total amount of screen time he deserves.
Eva Green plays the Bond girl but not the one your used to. Here is a Bond girl with a little bit more sparkle a little more of everything than really any of the other Bond girls have ever had, she plays the character with much more depth and plays it to the maximum and gives a strong performance So on the whole this film is excellent and if not one of the great.
Bonds and with this as a template i think further Bond films can be exciting and as big a spectacle as ever without the use of the typical Hollywood CGI and this is why in this reviewers opinion that Bond has lasted so long and done so well with every film so no more CGI just a good story and a good old piece of action! Speaking of story this is one of the best Bond scripts thats probably going to get a shot for the screen. Paul Haggis of "Crash" fame brings his talented writing skills to those of ever fading Bond writer Neal Purvis and Robert Wade who wrote 2002's Die Another Day which is probably one of the worst Bond films to date. Here Haggis makes sure that this Bond film does not fall to the same fate offering snappy lines and the often quip we expect from Bond.
Now on many peoples minds who have read the book or know of the famous torture scene then you will not be disappointed with it in this film. Daniel Craig plays the scene with so much force and even manages to give a little joke at the same time. Mad Mikkelesen is also brilliant in this scene as the desperate man doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, in this case money. It is just the stand out scene of the film!
So what are the bad points of this film if any? Well the real problem which sounds really silly because its the main theme of the film but there are just too many minutes of film dedicated to the poker being played. As said this does sound like a really stupid complaint with the film but when watching the film or after viewing you may feel the same way.
Now with Bond himself, i really have always thought that Daniel Craig was a poor choice for Bond and there were better candidates but i'm not going to just say Craig is a poor choice by going on a rant about how his hair is blonde and he has stand out blue eyes because those are just silly little things that many people are going to pick at so if you read that as a complaint to why Craig isn't Bond scrap the review straight away.
This is a Bond film on the tops of its game
Roll on Bond 22!
******** out of **********
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
A Pretty Decent Massacre
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, one of the most iconic horror movies ever and they dare to remake it? Yes of course they do this is Hollywood and make no mistake if there's a way to get cash in its back pocket it will do and here was the way of doing it.
The story is about a group of people traveling who find themselves getting into a situation when they pick up a hitchhiker, after the hitchhiker kills them self the group from that point on find themselves in a situation where they are sliced, diced and chased with a chainsaw.
All sounds good and believe it or not it is, the film for the most part has everything going for it, of course we have the attractive cast and we have the killer as good as he could ever be and we have the beautiful cinematography which gives the film the unique chance of being as good as its original.
Although as you go through the film you may find yourself saying this is in no way as good as the original, but the film does come close in terms of how the film looks and the way it acts, for example the end scenes in the meat factory are just shot in such a raw way you find yourself really thinking that this indeed could be based on a true story (which of course it isn't) The direction is strong in places and lacking in others but you can really see where the strong direction is as it comes out in so obvious doses.
The acting in this film is probably no different to what you've seen before in your typical hack and slash film and so don't be surprised if you find yourself thinking at points i remember a character like this is that horror film. The downside of the acting is that you never really care for them because there is no real for you to do so. The best piece of acting comes from R Lee Emery who plays Sheriff Hoyt, this character at times feels more like the main villain of the piece and he is just so interesting to watch that the whole film could just be about him because he pulls the character off with so much style and so much interest definitely the best acting in the film without question! Of course we cant forget the real reason why anyone wants to watch this film and that is of course to see Leatherface who in this film feels in my opinion much more of a character much more realistic and i think this more humanized character is much more interesting to watch and observe on screen rather than just a monster. The direction towards Leatherface is really strong and is one of the obvious strong direction points of the film.
The film does have weaknesses, the main being that the film will always be compared to the original TCM movie and more often than not people will agree and say the original was better but i think this film deserves credit for it's unique look and gritty style which is what a film of this horror caliber needed and because of that i think this film deserves some credit, this is certainly a remake that should definitely have failed on every count considering the original but this is certainly isn't a remake that should be ignored, rather it should be embraced! Not by any means as good as the original but certainly a great effort all round roll on Texas Chainsaw Massacre The Beginning.
****** out of **********
Miami Vice (2006)
Stylish But Nothing Else going For It
I watched this film with great anticipation after witnessing Collateral which from that Michael Mann proved he was still the best at what he does,so going to see this i was going in expecting something good, unfortunately i was let down.
The films story i am still bewildered by because even while watching the film i felt very confused by it and could never really understand what was going on mainly on part of two reasons: the first being that the sound was terrible in major parts of the film especially when foreign actors with foreign accents were speaking, at times it was so difficult to hear what they were saying i felt like the film was meant for lip readers and i cant lip read. The second reason is that the story is just generally confusing, there is (in my opinion) no clear way to get the story without reading IMDb which after viewing the film and viewing the trailer i actually got the story.
The film is shot exactly the same as Collateral which is on digital film which gives great results, especially with night time scenes but with day shots i don't think it is as good and let the film down in those places, you feel like you're watching a documentary which is not what this film is about.
The acting is good but not perfect, while Colin and Jamie both give performances they have little to add to the characters we know and love from the show and Michael Mann gives no more depth and no more to add to their characters which is a shame as both these actors could have doe really special things with their given characters. Gong Li who plays Isabella the love interest of Colin Farrel adds again nothing new to the femme fatal role that we have seen in countless other films of this nature and really has a throwaway character.
So what can be said of out Director/Writer Michael Mann? Well first off this is no where near his best piece of work and should never even be considered so, i as a fan of his work (Heat especially) was looking for the gritty realism which i got but the rest i had not bargained for, here Mann shows a lack in writing quality by giving us the same old story of Colombians dealing drugs and going undercover which we've seen and so we don't need to see again.
The action is the biggest reason for seeing the film, although few and far between is there and is good, with it being shot with the digital film cameras the gun battles look as real as they could ever want to be and at these moments you do feel you are right there with these guys shooting it out which is always good.
So should you go and see this film in the cinema? My opinion is no i think is is definitely a wait for DVD title because it is nothing more than a Saturday night booze up with the lads than anything else and so don't waste money on the cinema ticket wait for good old DVD!
**** out of **********
The Swarm (1978)
The Swarm- A Bee Movie Without A Sting In Its Tail
I watched this film for the first time today and being a really nut for disaster films, favorites being Twister, Dantes Peak, The Towering Inferno, The Day After Tomorrow and of course the great Poseidon Adventure.
This is probably one of a few disaster films i have never seen and after looking at the rating and the criticisms from many people i wasn't sure i wanted to watch it but i did it anyway.
Michael Caine is a doctor on the hunt, on the hunt for a swarm of killer bees that have killed all but a few at a military base. The army then get involved in trying to help Michael Cains character trying to destroy them. There are plenty of killings and such by the bees.
This film directed by one of the great disaster film directors Irwin Allen who in this case really lets the side down with poor direction and just a poor movie. Compare this film with the Poseidon Adventure and there really is no comparison at all.
Michael Cain lends his Cockney British charm to the proceedings but fails to help the film rise above anything more than just a very very poor film, although he has his moments there just aren't enough of them.
If nay actor from this film deserves any credit it has to be Henry Fonda because even in this train wreck of a film he delivers a performance and its probably the most noteworthy of the film! The script is terrible, the dialog is poor and some of the characters are not worth the screen time given even if it is three minutes or less.
The special effects....... well it is the 70's when this film was made so i don't think i need to say anymore apart from bees become nothing more than black spots in the screen.
The film does have good moments but they are few and far between and even though this is a disaster film it should not live up to its name literally and this film does.
Overall the film is just campy fun but that wasn't the point of the film and Michael Caine benefited the film in no way. This is the bee film without the sting in its tail!!!
Planet of the Apes (2001)
A Good Solid Reworking Of A Classic
This was one of summer 2001's big event pictures, it had lots of hype and lots of people talking but everyone in a fashion knew that this reworking would never top the original even with a solid director and good cast. They were right! Leo Davidson (Mark Whalberg)who works on a large space station goes out in a spacecraft to save his chimp that has gone into a mysterious cloud formulating in space, he too is sucked in and lands in a planet ruled by apes where humans are the prey and are tortured and are pets to the apes.
Davidson must get back to his main ship and along the way finds friendship in a female ape called Ari (Helena Bohnam Carter) who helps him and he helps her. But General Thade (Tim Roth) is intent on destroying all humans and Davidson and his band of rebels are top of his list.
The film as a whole is very good and i was much surprised at how much i enjoyed it, i was very skeptical with it being that i really didn't get the original film but this film i got.
I really got Burtons vision and really saw this as a good attempt at a reworking from the man i like to call a hero of mine, i did think in places his usual directing skills lacked in some places but for the most part he did an ace job.
Mark Whalberg put in a very good performance as the hero of the picture, in places i found him to be slightly annoying but like with Burtons direction for the most part he put in a very good performance as did Tim Roth who comes across very evil in his portrayal as a bitter and twisted ape which i don't think would be an easy feet for any actor.
The dialog i have to say in parts is poor as is some of the character interpretation. One of the best and great things about this picture is the production design and once you watch the film you really see where the money for this film went and it really is a well deserved effort of the production designers part. Job well done! For the most part this film has spectacle and awe and this is needed for a summer event picture and i wasn't unhappy with the final product at all. Burton gave his usual unique vision to a classic film that many regard as the ultimate Sci-fi film and in comparison many may feel that this film is no where near as good as the original, but if were honest when are they ever! Overall ******* out of **********
Ghost Ship (2002)
A Haunting, Without The House
This was one of the films i missed out on when the film was released in cinemas on Halloween on 2002, in fact if I'm honest i missed quite a few films from that year, but anyway back to the film.
Ghost Ship as the title says is the haunting without the house, a ship filled with ghosts might not sound too great but in fact the film does work really well.
The Antoni Graza was the cream of the crop of ships in its hey day, but after the passengers and crew are murdered the ship is lost to the sea.
A salvage crew headed by Gabriel Byrne set out to salvage the cruise ship which has been spotted by a pilot, Jack Ferriman (Desmond Harrington) So the crew set out to find it and they smack right into it, the ship that simply disappeared reemerges. Once they get on board the strange activities begin to take place causing murder and mayhem amongst the salvage crew.
The film is pretty good but like all horror films does have its downfalls and this usually comes with the film being targeted at teens but not this film and that boosts the film in my eyes as it means there can be more of a gore fest and much more horror which is alway a good thing.
The real downfall is that the film refuses to take advantage of that and really does have very watered down horror (pun intended) which is never a good thing. I think i jumped once through the entire film and i like to be scared more than that! The acting at times is wooden but in other parts quite good, Gabriel Byrne is very good at what he does and even in a horror film still gives such a good performance, and even if you don't take this film seriously he certainly does. The rest of the cast really fail to follow suit which is a shame.
Now by this point you are probably thinking that all i've done is give bad points about the film, and also thinking, well you've given the film six out of ten so what's good about it? well i will reveal all.
The film opens very misleadingly. We have very fancy pink title credits and lost of images of everybody having a good time on board this great cruise liner, but this is to show us how good the cruising experience was but now the horror comes in. As the passengers and the captain dance on the main deck, they are all decapitated by steel cabling, this has to be the most gruesome opening i've seen yet it set the tone of the movie, a tone i'm quite happy with.
After the opening the film really kicks into gear getting off to a very fast start and if i'm being honest never lets up, from that point the action is ratcheted up constantly which is great because you are always waiting for the next big scene, right on the edge of your seat! I loved the whole production design, that was amazing how we are show the great grandness of it all and then many years later how it has simply rotted and become a sailing hell hole and its just fantastic, you really have to see it for yourselves to see how good it is.
The look of the film is how you'd expect it to be, dark and very brooding which of course is necessary to produce the ultimate effect which is to scare the hell out of you.
The direction is okay but not brilliant but it really is very rare to see a horror film with good direction, i don't think we've seen it since Carpenters Halloween or the Scream films by Wes Craven.
The story is great and there are things going on all over the place as the salvager's search the ship to find out its deadly past, and the ending is a little too quick for my liking but still a good twist but just a little rushed. The dialog is very cheesy at times but when Gabriel Byrne delivers a line you really believe the guy because he really puts effort into his performance and it is nice to see that from a great actor!
Overall the film must be said to be better than many other horror films as it has a good story going on and it does keep you guessing to the end and thats always great. The acting in places is a bit wooden but still its a good effort all round. If your looking for a haunted house film without the house this films for you!
****** out of **********
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
Good Open ended sequel!
After watching the first film it was obvious to all that there just had to be a sequel following Captain Jack's adventures on the ocean and everybody expecting as good a ride as the first film. The film did deliver! Dead Mans Chest finds Captain Jack searching for Davey Jones chest which holds a mythical contents inside, but on Jacks trail is Will who must bring Jack back to port Royale so he and Elizabeth can avoid been hung by Lord Cuttler for helping Jack escape capture, but Will ends up helping Jack to find the chest but also finds a family member along the way! And with Davey Jones making sure Jack and Will have a hard time finding the chest, they certainly have their work cut out for them! Of course with the original film the star of the show is Johnny Depp who is cool, funny, and just great eye candy for the viewer and he didn't win the Oscar last time for his performance but he should win it this time because his performance is even better! And of course we can not forget Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly put in good performances as well but they are overshadowed somewhat by Captain Jack! While the film plays out we meet a few new characters, one of which is the villain of the piece, Davey Jones who is half man, half every underwater creature you could imagine who is played by Bill Nighy. The great thing about the character is you really cant tell when it is Bill Nighy in makeup or when it is full CGI which is a massive achievement. We also catch up with Norrington who is no longer Comadore and is now a drunk who ends up joining Jacks motley crew to find the chest.
Like its predecessor this film relies heavily on CGI, and with some films it just isn't convincing enough but this film is absolutely fantastic with the CGI and with the character of Davey Jones you really cant tell at points whether it is the actor in makeup or not, it really is that good! The action has really been bumped up with even more sword fights in the most unusual surroundings for example fighting in a large water wheel rolling down a hill and also fighting on the ruins of a church. The fights are good but it feels like they are carbon copies of fights we saw in the original and i really wanted something new.
One of the best scenes has to be when the Kraken is summoned. By the way a Kraken is a giant sized octopus type of thing which is a weapon that Davey Jones uses a couple of times during the film and it really does gives some great action scenes.
The direction is very strong as is the script and the characters and i hope that this will continue to the next film. The ending of this film will surprise you as you will meet a character you may not be expecting to wet our appetites for Pirates Of The Caribbean 3.
Overall this films is about on the same level as the first but with some weak places within the film with the pacing being a little off but apart from that all thats left to say is bring on number 3! ******** out **********
Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
Very Nicely Done--Good Sequel!
After the comeback of the horror genre thanks to the likes of films such as Scream, I know What You Did Last Summer and Urban Legend it was of real no surprise that the Halloween films would get another look in and what came of it was a real good Horror/thriller with a good enough story to make this one of the better sequels of the franchise.
Halloween H20 finds Michael searching for his sister Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), problem is that she is dead or is she? Laurie faked her own death so that Michael could not find her or her son John (Josh Hartnett)Now she is known as Keri Tate and is the principal of a private school. Keri continues to have visions and nightmares of her brother and has started to turn to drink. She is also quite controlling of her son who just wants to break free and become his own man. On Halloween night Michael returns to find Keri and John and finish off his bloodline for good, but they're not going to go without a fight! The film i believe was a really good thriller and tried to be more than just the typical hack and slash horror affair we've come to know from lots of horror films which i felt was a breath of fresh air.
As ever Jamie Lee Curtis was excellent playing this very scared and tortured woman running from her past that she fears is constantly trying to catch up to her, she played the character to a top notch performance. Josh Hartnett is also very good playing Curtis son John who's is forever trying to be a free man from the constant controlling grasp of his mother. And of course Chris Durrand must get a mention as playing the part of Michael, i believe he does put in a good performance as Michael but i don't think he gives the best performance we've seen from the guys that portray Michael but it is among one of the best.
The story is one that is very believable with a few twists and turns that just make the film a little more fun. The look of the film is very clever and very creepy at times and in a suspense picture such as this you really need this. The direction is very good from Steve Miner who brought us Friday the 13th part 2 and 3 who makes his own Halloween film while at the same time reflecting and homaging the original.
I only have a couple of gripes with the film, one has to be the ending which i felt was a bit out of place from the rest of the film and also a little too quick which i felt spoilt it and didn't really round off the story completely which was a bit of a shame considering the film had been so good. The other problem with the film is that it takes some time for Michael to get to the nitty gritty of killing which in some ways isn't bad but in others it gets a little dull when the film is called Halloween but there is no boogeyman! Overall i thought that this was great film and definitely a great sequel in what was slowly becoming a very idiotic franchise but thanks to some clever storytelling this film manages to bring the franchise back up to a whole new level and a whole new Halloween audience! ******* out of **********
Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)
A Sequel No Where Near As Good As The Original
After viewing the first film i felt pretty good going to watch this film but to my amazement i found myself seemingly wondering is this really a sequel to such a good first film.
The sequel finds a group of young film students being picked off by a masked killer, the killings reference urban legends and soon one young students seems to be the killers main target.
Unlike the original film the sequel fails to interest the audience straight away. The opening sequence takes place on an aeroplane with a killer flight attendant but we find out that it is all fake and all a film set. Now the original film had an opening with something more gripping and then continued to thrill, but this film seems to take a long time to get going which is annoying because the director tries to build character which unfortunately just doesn't happen.
The characters are very predictable and at times very annoying and irritating and at some points you as a viewer just want to fast forward to a less annoying part of the film. At times i felt really annoyed with the film because the pacing was really out of tune and it just felt like a totally totally different film to the first.
The killer does what a typical killer does picks off the teens in very interesting ways but this killer didn't seem to have any bright ideas or bring anything new to the table. Also the killer seemed to appear when convenient for story purposes which is just plain old daft! And the ending and the killers motive is one of the worst i've ever heard and i found it rather stupid.
The film did have some strong points however, in terms of location and the look of the film both add to the atmosphere of the picture but these two things alone cannot make a brilliant film. The direction is very poor from first timer John Ottman who also composed music and edited the film. My advise would be to stick to scoring music because this guy cannot direct! Overall the film cannot touch the original because of this films lack of judgment to come up with any real plot and any real characterization thats worth even bothering with. I suggest you only watch this film only if you are any sort of hack and slash buff because you people probably wont be disappointed.
**** out of **********
Urban Legend (1998)
Nice Horror With A Nice Story!
Ever since its release I've been dying to see this (pun intended)and today after many long years i have finally seen it, and i wasn't disappointed.
The premise of the film is that somebody is killing off campus members by using urban legends. This entails some very interesting and very unique deaths that i have not seen before in other horror films. The story is very good and shy's away from the typical idea of teens getting picked off by some killer in a mask, the story leads to much more than that typical affair that has been set by the Scream franchise.
Of course with every horror film you have to expect some stereotypes, and in this case it is the characters. The typical sex craving busty blonde's etc also the typical scream fest of the woman being chased down the dark hallways by the crazed killer. Now this can become tedious but thankfully this does not happen a lot in the film as it frequently does with others so your ears are spared.
The film opens strongly although not as strong as say the opening to Scream, but this film opens with a kill that sets the tone of what is to come and also we get to see Brad Douriff play a small role with big assets to the film. Also Robert Englund makes an appearance as a creepy Professor who makes a couple of good jump in your seat moments and also Englund gives a unique performance way off from Freddy Kruger which isn't a bad thing really.
The rest of the cast are not really memorable in any way, although i did think Jared Leto and Joshua Jackson put in a good performances although i do think Jacksons character was a little under used as he did have a good character.
The look of the film is typical for the genre with the darkness and the low key lighting making it just the same as any other horror film you have seen before. The campus was a great setting and created some great opportunities for the atmosphere of the film.
The direction is good in places and only very rarely does it seem to let up which is good and the director builds tension with ease but the final scare never really seems to come which is a shame because the tension is well built.
Overall the film wont win any awards for being a fantastic horror film because the horror films of today never are as good as the classics and also these films will always be compared to the Scream franchise and films like I Know What You Did Last Summer but this films i think belongs up their with them, although not as good as say Scream this film offers new ideas to what is becoming a tiered genre and i think if you are a horror buff like me, just check it out its worth a look! ****** out of **********
House on Haunted Hill (1999)
Money, Death, Horror and Geoffrey Rush all await you in the House On Haunted Hill
I'm a big horror film buff and i've always thought that films that took place in a haunted house always seemed to fail to do anything for me. The Haunting is just one of them. This film i watched wondering whether i would enjoy it or not, but after watching the film i was surprised quite a bit.
Geoffrey Rush organizes a birthday party for his wife who wants to host it in an old sanitarium that is supposed to be haunted. The guests are all strangers who do not know why they have been called to the place but when Rush offers them each a million dollars to spend the night there they all accept to stay there but when things start to wrong and people start dying a million dollars just doesn't seem enough anymore! This is definitely one of the better horror in a house pictures i have seen as it seems to have something about it that you just like for me it had to be Geoffrey Rush's almost over the top character who you may mistake for looking like Vincent Price star of the original film.
The other characters seem to play well off one another but you really couldn't care less for them as the basic intention is that you really should be caring for Geoffrey Rush because he is set up so well.
The sets are just fantastic and really help this film come onto its own with the very creepy corridors and the many rooms in the house. You really never know whether something will jump out at you or not which is kind of fun.
The direction is pretty good but lacks in many places which is a shame because there really was a good story here with lots of potential but the director and the cast fail to reach new heights with this haunted house picture.
Of course this is a remake and as we know from experience remakes often suffer and it is very rare they beat the original and this certainly does not, sure we have advanced in technology but that doesn't mean we have advanced the story or its potential.
Overall i think this is a good watch with a few creepy scenes and some scares but don't hold your breath for anything original.
***** out of **********
Darkness Falls (2003)
Evil Rises Darkness Falls but the film does not
This film i thought was going to be a very cheap affair, seeing as though at the time Sony had not been able to get a great horror picture out but this was ACE! The story follows the evil spirit of a woman who was dubbed the tooth fairy as children would take there fallen teeth to her and she would give them a small bit of money for it. When several children went missing the town blamed her and burnt her. Now she has returned haunting the night and several children, one of which is Kyle who looses his mother to the tooth fairy and is afraid of the darkness. Many years later his old girlfriends brother begins having the same nightmares with the tooth fairy Kyle comes to help but the tooth fairy still has unfinished business with Kyle! The film plays on the darkness so for the most part of the film it is plunged in darkness and so if you are a viewer who hates films mainly set in the dark stay away from this one.
I believe the film is one of those horror films that was bashed before it even came out and so suffered badly but it need not have done because the film delivers with a story that just about works with characters that we just about care enough for. The horror is also there with a few jumps added for good measure, and also the tooth fairy herself is quite creepy and makes a few regular appearances throughout the film but it is not until the end of the picture that you will see her in all her glory.
The direction is mostly good with only few places in the film looking as though the director just gave freedom to do what ever the actors wanted to do.
The cinematography is creepy and yet elegant which is some what obscure for a horror film but because of the nature of the story and characters it works quite well on all levels.
The main downside to the film is that it is very short which for me spoiled it a little because the story goes very quick and by the end you're left wondering whether or not the film has really finished or not because it end really quickly, that is really my only complaint for the film.
Overall this film is exactly what it is meant to be, pure entertainment with a good slab of horror and jumps thrown in for good measure. People on IMDb are quick to judge horror films and this is certainly one of them and it should not have been because it is much better than some horror films out there such as Ghost Ship, or Gothika just to name two, so before you judge the film watch it first! ******* out of **********
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
This is definitely the end of the road for the X-men
I went in to my theater anticipating a great film, and with this being the finale to the franchise expected it to top the previous two outings. I was mistaken! A cure has been found to cure the mutant gene and of course Magneto is having none of it and so he and the brotherhood of mutants decide to bring chaos to the people. Only the X-men stand in their way.
The film visually looks the same as the previous two films, it also has similar characters to the original two films but the missing link here was Bryan Singers absence which pulls the film down slightly. Although Brett Ratner tries to bring us a good film he delivers something that feels rushed and quite out of time.
The film has so many characters it is so hard to keep track of them all which makes the viewer care less and less about them which i think is wrong. Angel is in about three scenes what a waste of a great character who had some great potential in this film. Wolverene and Beast are easily the best performers of the piece, each delivering great comedic pieces as well as great action and drama pieces.
Patrick Stewert is also on top of his game but again his character is cut down drastically something i did not like. Ian Mckellen gives another good performance as Magneto but the idea of him using the power to move metallic things is again something we've seen time and time again...lets do something new! The worst performance has to go to Vinnie Jones who plays Juggernaut which i had to compare to Bane from Batman & Robin because basically like Bane Juggernaught is put in there just because its a character that has not been seen on screen yet...utterly pointless! The film as i said looks similar to the previous two films which helps with the continuity and also gives great spectacle to the film as well.
The direction in many parts is good but in others very weak. The film has been geared more towards putting an action film together more so than a film with a story and the action set around that like we have seen in the previous two films.
Overall the film was good as it gave a good end finale to the franchise but i think this definitely should be the end after many characters are finished off in this film even ones you may not expect! ****** out of **********
Jason X (2001)
No X factor with this film
I picked this up for a cheap price, it looked an interesting way to spend an hour or so i mean a killer such as Jason in space could it possibly work? The plain and simple answer is NO. The idea was of great interest to me of could you possibly after ten films still make a great Friday the 13th film. This entry is weak and makes some of the others in a worse condition than this look like they should win an Oscar.
Jason is cryogenically frozen along with a young woman who is trying to make sure he never kills again. Jason makes it so they both freeze for four hundred years. Along come a team of students and stumble upon the pair frozen and decide to take them to their ship in space and thaw the woman out and keep Jason as a piece of history, but Jason has other plans. He awakens and all havoc and body parts break loose.
The film is poor in the fact that it feels more like a sci-fi film than a horror sci-fi film. There is no horror what so ever no jump out of your seat moments at all and for a film in this franchise that wasn't what i was expecting.
The acting is appalling and the one liners are totally stupid. For example this tough navy seal kick ass type gets impaled through a door by Jason to which he says "It's gonna take more than a poke in the ribs to put down this old dog" Jason sends a blade through him and he says "Yeah, that oughta do it" i mean that just isn't horror thats comedic.
The writing is full of that stuff and the story is totally stupid and a totally uncalled for sequel really.
The action was great but over within a few minutes of actually getting started. Jason is as menacing as ever and makes some good kills but again its nothing we haven't seen before but it will be enjoyable to the gore fest fan.
The direction has to be called upon too because this guy really has no sense of what a horror film is because he has put none of it in this picture and to be honest i'd be ashamed to call this a Friday the 13th film.
Overall the film is just a dumb piece of horror that shouldn't even be called that. If your after craptacular special effects, stupid screaming from stupid girls and some kick ass gore then this is the film for you otherwise avoid unless desperate for something to do!! ***** out of **********
Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Evil Has Found Its Way Home
Halloween Resurrection is the eighth film is the Halloween franchise, it's one of those that's been going on a long time such as 'Nightmare On Elm Street' & 'Friday The 13th' but like the latter these films are just about drying up.
Resurrection finds a group of teens entering the birth home of Michael Myers for a special web-cast that will be broadcast live. The teens are to spend the night there and find answers to the big mystery of Michael Myers. But Michael intends to crash the party LIVE.
This film i enjoyed and i cant understand why so many people hate it, i found it to be a good way to spend a couple of hours with a classic icon that is Michael Myers.
The opening of this film is quite interesting, and opens with Michael trying to kill Laurie something he's been attempting to do for quite sometime. The opening to the film i thought was great but just a little too short to give me the satisfaction of ending that particular era of Halloween. Jamie Lee Curtis gives a good performance as this battered, beaten down woman and i think she can be satisfied with the performance as can the viewer.
The film then turns to a different level with the film turning into one of those teen slasher films, now while usually this would be a terrible route for a horror film with Halloween in the title, it uses story as reasoning for Michael killing people. These teens have come into his home and so that is the reasoning for killing the teens.
The acting is mediocre at best, the best performances have to go to Jamie Lee Curtis and Brad Loree who portrays Michael. Loree really gives a performance to Michael that we really haven't seen since the original, he also looks menacing which always helps, he should definitely be considered for future Michael outings! Busta Rhymes definitely puts in the worst performance of the entire cast, he portrays a guy that in his words "just wanna give America a good show' well Busta you didn't so don't bother doing it anymore.
The set design is creepy and the darkness throughout really makes you cringe not knowing if Michael is in the shadows waiting and i think that is such a clever usage of the lighting.
Now this film does something interesting as far as cinematography is concerned. The story has the cast wearing head cams that films everything they see and a lot of the films footage is this sort of stuff with the head cam. I liked that idea and thought it worked quite well throughout the film and made it much more interesting, as though you were there with the actual characters in the film.
Of course deaths are always important in a film like this and Michael has his fair share in this outing. To name a few, Decapitation, Stabbing, and a clever use of a tripod. The deaths are really what we've seen before so don't expect anything original here.
The direction is all over the place with some bits like the opening done well while other seem like like he has let the cast run wild.
So what's bad about the picture then? well i think the main problem has to be that Michael just keeps coming back and i think that is a real problem when they kill him off in one film and then decide hes not for the next film. Also this film seems to ignore Halloween films 3,4,5,6 which seems pointless but hey this is Hollywood.
Overall i enjoyed this film, it had some good scares in places and the opening really intrigued me and sit up and pay attention. While the acting is sour and Busta Rhymes is just the most annoying guy in the whole film, this picture works and i think if you're looking for a little piece of horror to get your teeth into then look no further than this, its no masterpiece but its no piece of crap either.
****** out of **********
Valentine (2001)
Be My Valentine If Not You Die!
After looking for some sort of horror DVD to watch i found Valetine on sale at a cheap price and knowing little to nothing of the film i took it home and watched the film and was surprised by the film a lot.
The film is about a group of women that are stalked and killed off by a man that could be the class geek they all turned down at a valentine party thirteen years previous, and now he seeks revenge picking them off one by one.
Now from that you might be forced in to thinking that this is just the typical 'Scream' era hack & slash film with humor spread across the film and to be honest i was expecting the same but i found myself really liking the film and enjoying every moment.
The film really sets its tone straight away with a death within the first ten minutes which i thought was great, and this wasn't just a girl with the huge assets running round like a headless chicken she's quite a smart girl but not enough to outsmart the killer.
The acting is good but at times you sort of loose yourself with them as four of them are blonde and look very similar and so you find yourself asking wasn't she killed or didn't she just leave, but this is hardly going to ruin the film for you. Denise Richards is great but again she sort of tries to make the film her own as if it were a Denise Richards film when really its a shared effort.
The story is a good idea and well executed on film but it repeats itself a few times too many times with the same sort of stalking in the house type thing and also pointless characters that need not be there. Two great examples are Detective Vaughn who it turns out has a crush on Denise Richards character???? and also Dorothy's step mother who is younger than her and hate each other with a passion but they only meet in one scene nothing more happens between the two of them.
The direction is good by Jamie Blanks who gave us 'Urban Legend' this film for me was a better film and i found myself rooting to find out who the killer was and i wasn't disappointed, Blanks gives a good twist ending although not on par with what 'Scream' did the twist i'm sure will leave you a little amazed but also wondering if a sequel is on the cards.
Overall this is a good bit of horror fluff that wont have you scared much at all as we've seen this stuff time and time again but this one has a story and in horror it's hard to find that. With beautiful set pieces, great cinematography, and a good cast of characters and some great death scenes you really should pick this up just to have a look, that's what i did and i enjoyed every minute of it.
****** out of **********