This documentary provides an easy-to-understand introduction to Giallo, to its origins, where it came from and how it developed, up to its decline in the late 90s / early 2000s. If you'd like to know more about the genre, just listen to the great Giallo directors giving some background information and sharing their memories of the times gone by. Giallo came a long way from its beginnings, and these directors and movie historians shed some light on that journey. If I was to name one negative thing about it, it would be too much time devoted to Dario Argento. Sure, he is the father of Giallo movies, but others deserved a bit more screen time, especially considering the information they provided. Still, it's well worth your time.
Reviews
44 Reviews
Yellow Fever: The Rise and Fall of the Giallo
(2016 Video)
An interesting documentary focused on Giallo and Argento
24 April 2019
Skybound
(2017)
A collection of tired cliches, weak plot and unlikeable characters
12 December 2017
I was lured to this movie by an intriguing trailer and it also somewhat reminded me of a movie called "Altitude" (2005), which, despite it being utterly stupid, I kind of liked. But this movie, oh boy ....
First of all, this movie is a collection of all imaginable horror cliches - cell phones don't work, red herrings are a plenty, dumb characters are suddenly brilliant, etc. The plot, while interesting, has been done to death and better. The characters are generic (which is something I can forgive) and unlikeable - in the first 5 minutes we learn that the main female character is a blackmailing bitch who only dates rich guys (and she doesn't care they are brother). The black believes Odin is the name of an African god. How likely is that? And the always-right smarter brother gives an emotional motivational speech about how they need to work this out together as a family. Oh yeah, and the dumb blond turns out to be a smart-ass mathematician.
But the interior of the plane was nice. I mean, real nice. If you are into that kind of stuff. The movie, on the other hand, was jaw-droppingly bad with no saving grace at all. Avoid.
First of all, this movie is a collection of all imaginable horror cliches - cell phones don't work, red herrings are a plenty, dumb characters are suddenly brilliant, etc. The plot, while interesting, has been done to death and better. The characters are generic (which is something I can forgive) and unlikeable - in the first 5 minutes we learn that the main female character is a blackmailing bitch who only dates rich guys (and she doesn't care they are brother). The black believes Odin is the name of an African god. How likely is that? And the always-right smarter brother gives an emotional motivational speech about how they need to work this out together as a family. Oh yeah, and the dumb blond turns out to be a smart-ass mathematician.
But the interior of the plane was nice. I mean, real nice. If you are into that kind of stuff. The movie, on the other hand, was jaw-droppingly bad with no saving grace at all. Avoid.
VR.5
(1995–1997)
This show was too much 90s even in the 90s.
4 January 2017
I'm currently on a trip to watch older TV shows I find interesting (sci-fi, horror, mystery, etc.) which I couldn't watch back in the day. I came across VR.5 and found the premise interesting. The whole "entering someone's unconscious by the means of telephone and virtual reality" got my interest peaked.
Pretty much every 90s cliché you can think of is presented here - the main character has a mysterious past where the relatives may or may not be dead. The memories may or may not be fake. The main character lives in a loft. She has a childhood friend/neighbour who is all-alternative, reads books, knows the wisdom of many wise men, doesn't work but can still afford an apartment and a car. There is a shadowy organisation that may or may not be the enemy, but who the main character works for. She has a "keeper", who brings her new assignments but who also has a tragic/troubled past of his own. You name it, it's there.
The acting is, well, mediocre at best. Lori Singer is sleepwalking through the show and is hardly someone you will care for. Michael Easton mumbles some barely audible words (I wonder if his character was written this way or if he is always like this), Anthony Head, Louise Fletcher and David McCallum are utterly wasted in this.
For me the worst part is the writing. You see, in the mid-90s many people didn't even know what Internet (called Cyberspace then) is, and here's a show throwing terms and ideas at an audience not prepared for it. The technology needed a bit more explaining to make it more convincing or at least help to suspend the disbelief. A couple of rewrites from more competent writers could have saved the show.
There was a good show here with some good ideas buried under pretentious and cliché-filled writing and un-engaging characters. Still, I am glad I watched it and if it ever comes out on a DVD, I would grab a copy just as a time capsule of 90s sci-fi VR show.
Pretty much every 90s cliché you can think of is presented here - the main character has a mysterious past where the relatives may or may not be dead. The memories may or may not be fake. The main character lives in a loft. She has a childhood friend/neighbour who is all-alternative, reads books, knows the wisdom of many wise men, doesn't work but can still afford an apartment and a car. There is a shadowy organisation that may or may not be the enemy, but who the main character works for. She has a "keeper", who brings her new assignments but who also has a tragic/troubled past of his own. You name it, it's there.
The acting is, well, mediocre at best. Lori Singer is sleepwalking through the show and is hardly someone you will care for. Michael Easton mumbles some barely audible words (I wonder if his character was written this way or if he is always like this), Anthony Head, Louise Fletcher and David McCallum are utterly wasted in this.
For me the worst part is the writing. You see, in the mid-90s many people didn't even know what Internet (called Cyberspace then) is, and here's a show throwing terms and ideas at an audience not prepared for it. The technology needed a bit more explaining to make it more convincing or at least help to suspend the disbelief. A couple of rewrites from more competent writers could have saved the show.
There was a good show here with some good ideas buried under pretentious and cliché-filled writing and un-engaging characters. Still, I am glad I watched it and if it ever comes out on a DVD, I would grab a copy just as a time capsule of 90s sci-fi VR show.
The Starlost
(1973–1974)
I made it through 8 episodes and then gave up
7 October 2016
Being a sci-fi fan I was looking for a new sci-fi show set in space to watch. The Starlost was recommended to me on a forum. I was happy to find it online a started watching.
The sets looked promising (for a 70s TV show), the premise(though not entirely original) gave promise to countless possibilities (different worlds to visit on the ship and in space) and there was even a hint of mystery. So what went wrong? Well, I could not get beyond two things: first, incredibly wooden acting mixed with 70s style of camera work. Long shots of people looking out of window, going down a corridor, etc. I had to fast-forward in some cases so as not to fall asleep. I was losing interest fast. You could see cuts where the actors were waiting for the director to say "Act!" and they started acting. So baaaad.
The other thing were the stories: I understand that sci-fi is about ideas, values, decisions, and not about action in the first place, but some episodes were unwatchably slow with terrible pacing. Character motivation came out of nowhere and was never explained (some were evil simply for the sake of being evil). People come out of nowhere and are suddenly there (what the heck was with that police force?) Undeveloped ideas, some of them pretty good, lead to viewer frustration.
After 8 or s episodes I asked myself why I was doing this to myself and stopped watching. This could have been a good show even in the 70s, but this was not the way to go.
I rate this 3/10 simply for the effort and the intriguing premise.
The sets looked promising (for a 70s TV show), the premise(though not entirely original) gave promise to countless possibilities (different worlds to visit on the ship and in space) and there was even a hint of mystery. So what went wrong? Well, I could not get beyond two things: first, incredibly wooden acting mixed with 70s style of camera work. Long shots of people looking out of window, going down a corridor, etc. I had to fast-forward in some cases so as not to fall asleep. I was losing interest fast. You could see cuts where the actors were waiting for the director to say "Act!" and they started acting. So baaaad.
The other thing were the stories: I understand that sci-fi is about ideas, values, decisions, and not about action in the first place, but some episodes were unwatchably slow with terrible pacing. Character motivation came out of nowhere and was never explained (some were evil simply for the sake of being evil). People come out of nowhere and are suddenly there (what the heck was with that police force?) Undeveloped ideas, some of them pretty good, lead to viewer frustration.
After 8 or s episodes I asked myself why I was doing this to myself and stopped watching. This could have been a good show even in the 70s, but this was not the way to go.
I rate this 3/10 simply for the effort and the intriguing premise.
The Curse of Downers Grove
(2015)
No horror, but a teen rape-revenge drama
1 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's been ages since I reviewed a film, but this train-wreck of a movie made me come back.
The trailer and the storyline got me interested, so I watched it. Most of the time I kept asking myself "What the hell am I watching?", "Did that just happen?" and "How can they be this stupid?" You get the idea.
I won't bore you with the story, it's been done by other reviewers. I'll just point out that this film is NOT a horror, but a teenage rape-revenge drama with a very light touch of the supernatural. There is absolutely no curse, no matter how hard the movie tries to convince you. It's not even a slasher film, as I was mislead to believe. It's nothing. Much talk, some fighting among teens and an ending that makes little sense.
What bothered me most of all is how stupid the characters were: a girl almost gets raped and she doesn't tell anyone? I would have immediately went to the cops, called an ambulance or something. Then once her brother gets beaten, the cops can't do anything? There was an eye-witness! That doesn't count anymore? Incredibly stupid actions by badly written characters.
Not recommended. Not at all. But if you want to watch it, go ahead and make your own mind.
The trailer and the storyline got me interested, so I watched it. Most of the time I kept asking myself "What the hell am I watching?", "Did that just happen?" and "How can they be this stupid?" You get the idea.
I won't bore you with the story, it's been done by other reviewers. I'll just point out that this film is NOT a horror, but a teenage rape-revenge drama with a very light touch of the supernatural. There is absolutely no curse, no matter how hard the movie tries to convince you. It's not even a slasher film, as I was mislead to believe. It's nothing. Much talk, some fighting among teens and an ending that makes little sense.
What bothered me most of all is how stupid the characters were: a girl almost gets raped and she doesn't tell anyone? I would have immediately went to the cops, called an ambulance or something. Then once her brother gets beaten, the cops can't do anything? There was an eye-witness! That doesn't count anymore? Incredibly stupid actions by badly written characters.
Not recommended. Not at all. But if you want to watch it, go ahead and make your own mind.
Denial
(II) (1998)
formulaic 90s "controversial adult" film
9 August 2013
This film represents a certain genre popular in the 90s, where the focus of the film was a bunch of twenty a thirty-something old friends talking about personal and sexual relationships. It is as boring and formulaic as it gets.
You get exactly the characters you would expect in such a film. We have extreme feminists, weakling husbands worried about what is cheating and what is not, feeling guilty about a hand-job from a massage girl. We have a married couple who screw around with whoever they want (simply because they have an agreement to be liberal in their relationship and not tell their spouse about their adventures). Then another couple about to get married asking the question: "Is watching adult films cheating?" And the last but not least a writer with some pseudo-intellectual crap about how people are not more than animals and monogamy is not natural.
It is predictable and you can guess the ending 15 minutes into the film. For a film claiming to talk about controversial adult topics it seriously lacks in the nudity department.
I am very happy this sub-genre died with the 90s and I hope it's never coming back.
You get exactly the characters you would expect in such a film. We have extreme feminists, weakling husbands worried about what is cheating and what is not, feeling guilty about a hand-job from a massage girl. We have a married couple who screw around with whoever they want (simply because they have an agreement to be liberal in their relationship and not tell their spouse about their adventures). Then another couple about to get married asking the question: "Is watching adult films cheating?" And the last but not least a writer with some pseudo-intellectual crap about how people are not more than animals and monogamy is not natural.
It is predictable and you can guess the ending 15 minutes into the film. For a film claiming to talk about controversial adult topics it seriously lacks in the nudity department.
I am very happy this sub-genre died with the 90s and I hope it's never coming back.
Press Start 2 Continue
(2011 Video)
not as good as the original
12 June 2013
Seeing all the glowing reviews for this film (which looks a bit suspicious if you ask me), I decided to add my own two cents.
First of all, if you're not a gamer AND familiar with the world of Pokemon, you pretty much don't have to bother with this film at all. Even if you liked the original characters. It's nice to see them return (except for the character of Sam, where Lauren Chambers was replaced with Jennifer Zahn and it shows). The problem is the film is simply too short to develop a relevant story-arc for all three characters including one new character, princess Xanna. We barely learn anything about what happened between the two films. And what we learn is fragmented and only told, not shown. Characters don't really grow or change in the process, they stay the same by the end of the movie.
Some of the jokes are funny, some are not and some require some previous knowledge of the world of games.
If you liked the first one, chances are you will like this one as well. I cannot give it more than 5 stars, I simply wasn't impressed with it that much.
First of all, if you're not a gamer AND familiar with the world of Pokemon, you pretty much don't have to bother with this film at all. Even if you liked the original characters. It's nice to see them return (except for the character of Sam, where Lauren Chambers was replaced with Jennifer Zahn and it shows). The problem is the film is simply too short to develop a relevant story-arc for all three characters including one new character, princess Xanna. We barely learn anything about what happened between the two films. And what we learn is fragmented and only told, not shown. Characters don't really grow or change in the process, they stay the same by the end of the movie.
Some of the jokes are funny, some are not and some require some previous knowledge of the world of games.
If you liked the first one, chances are you will like this one as well. I cannot give it more than 5 stars, I simply wasn't impressed with it that much.
Eva
(I) (2011)
predictable and boring
19 January 2013
The moment I saw the trailer I knew where the writer and director were going with this. I knew how it would end and what the big reveal would be. Yet I liked the visual and I wanted to see a non-Hollywood film, so I gave it a try. Boy, was this a painful experience.
First of all, we learn nothing about the characters from the beginning or even in what year the film's taking place. If I don't know who the characters are and there are not even hints about their relations, why should I be invested? Why should I care? Imagine you walk into a store and a cashier looks at you for 20 seconds. Is that supposed to mean something? Should I care? No, because it's not someone you met before. The moment you turn around that cashier will be forgotten. And that's just what is going on in this film. From the very beginning there's nothing but long shots of people looking at each other. It might mean something to the characters, and it probably does, but that means nothing to the viewers watching the film. There is a scene where the main character is looking at a woman for 20 or 30 seconds. We don't know who she is, what their history is and their relationship. We don't even know whether there is one. By the time I learnt anything about the characters, I was not interested anymore.
Then there are long exterior shots. Do we really need to see someone drive a long way on an icy road, parking their car, turning off the engine, getting out of the car, locking the door and walking to a building? All that in about 3 minutes of time? What is it supposed to accomplish? Or long shots of the town the film is taking place in? OK, it's nice and covered in snow. What else did you need to say about it that you repeated the shot several times? I won't spoil the big twist, but if you've ever seen a film regarding creation of androids, you'll know it by the time the trailer finishes.
The acting is OK, but the main male lead is just dull and irritatingly boring. I couldn't stand him. The rest of the cast do their jobs well, but they are basically forgettable. And yes, that includes the character of Eva.
I couldn't wait for the film to end. It's tedious, painfully slow and unoriginal. It's got pretty visuals, but that's about it.
I respect independent filmmakers for their efforts and not so rarely they succeed. But this film just felt like a Hollywood production that's trying to pretend it's artsy by having long slow camera movements. A bit faster pace would have helped this time.
First of all, we learn nothing about the characters from the beginning or even in what year the film's taking place. If I don't know who the characters are and there are not even hints about their relations, why should I be invested? Why should I care? Imagine you walk into a store and a cashier looks at you for 20 seconds. Is that supposed to mean something? Should I care? No, because it's not someone you met before. The moment you turn around that cashier will be forgotten. And that's just what is going on in this film. From the very beginning there's nothing but long shots of people looking at each other. It might mean something to the characters, and it probably does, but that means nothing to the viewers watching the film. There is a scene where the main character is looking at a woman for 20 or 30 seconds. We don't know who she is, what their history is and their relationship. We don't even know whether there is one. By the time I learnt anything about the characters, I was not interested anymore.
Then there are long exterior shots. Do we really need to see someone drive a long way on an icy road, parking their car, turning off the engine, getting out of the car, locking the door and walking to a building? All that in about 3 minutes of time? What is it supposed to accomplish? Or long shots of the town the film is taking place in? OK, it's nice and covered in snow. What else did you need to say about it that you repeated the shot several times? I won't spoil the big twist, but if you've ever seen a film regarding creation of androids, you'll know it by the time the trailer finishes.
The acting is OK, but the main male lead is just dull and irritatingly boring. I couldn't stand him. The rest of the cast do their jobs well, but they are basically forgettable. And yes, that includes the character of Eva.
I couldn't wait for the film to end. It's tedious, painfully slow and unoriginal. It's got pretty visuals, but that's about it.
I respect independent filmmakers for their efforts and not so rarely they succeed. But this film just felt like a Hollywood production that's trying to pretend it's artsy by having long slow camera movements. A bit faster pace would have helped this time.
Thor
(2011)
there is no acting required here
18 January 2013
According to the trivia page, Anthony Hopkins said this when he saw himself and Thor in their costumes. And he nailed it.
This film is nothing but a parade of special effects. The world the producers created is fantastic, but that's just about the only advantage of this film. I love great special effects, but there just needs to be more to a film than that. And Thor fails on every other level.
The story is almost "by the book" - an arrogant young prince causes mischief, he is banished from home, learns his lesson and regains his powers. That's it. There's a bit of a romance thrown in, but I couldn't feel any chemistry between the main characters.
The acting is not present - I mean, why even bother acting when the characters are just stereotypes and say the most cliché things you can imagine? Speeches about great deeds, warrior's way of life and death, great battles, it was all supposed to be epic, but to me it was just annoying.
It's nothing more than a popcorn flick. Then again, it never intended to be anything else.
This film is nothing but a parade of special effects. The world the producers created is fantastic, but that's just about the only advantage of this film. I love great special effects, but there just needs to be more to a film than that. And Thor fails on every other level.
The story is almost "by the book" - an arrogant young prince causes mischief, he is banished from home, learns his lesson and regains his powers. That's it. There's a bit of a romance thrown in, but I couldn't feel any chemistry between the main characters.
The acting is not present - I mean, why even bother acting when the characters are just stereotypes and say the most cliché things you can imagine? Speeches about great deeds, warrior's way of life and death, great battles, it was all supposed to be epic, but to me it was just annoying.
It's nothing more than a popcorn flick. Then again, it never intended to be anything else.
All About Evil
(2010)
a solid 7 out of 10
17 January 2013
Two things attracted me to this film: Natasha Lyonne and a mix of horror and comedy. You can't go wrong with that combination, right? The film starts out as a comedy and even though it remains funny until the end, the second half is very dark and bloody. There are quite graphic killings and the ending is nothing short of a massacre. Yet, it still remains entertaining and keeps you guessing how it will all end.
The performances from all the leads are great. Natasha Lyonne totally disappears in her character as a somewhat demented auteur who gets consumed by her newly found fame. Cassandra Peterson puts on a very solid performance as a worried mother and there's even a nice little nod to her Elvira character.
If you can enjoy a mix of horror and comedy with a touch of the bizarre and macabre, definitely watch this film. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
The performances from all the leads are great. Natasha Lyonne totally disappears in her character as a somewhat demented auteur who gets consumed by her newly found fame. Cassandra Peterson puts on a very solid performance as a worried mother and there's even a nice little nod to her Elvira character.
If you can enjoy a mix of horror and comedy with a touch of the bizarre and macabre, definitely watch this film. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
The Philadelphia Experiment
(2012 TV Movie)
highly entertaining
14 January 2013
This was very solid for a SciFi Original. Actually, one of the best I've seen in quite some time.
Sure, the characters were one-dimensional and the plot made no sense, but did you really expect an Award-winning performance here? The movie was fast-paced, with some good special effects (the ship landing on top of a skyscraper was particularly effective) and soundtrack was kick-ass. It never got boring or tedious and I was curious to see how it would all end.
I have no clue whether this was a remake or a sequel to the original 1984 movie. And honestly, I don't care. I just watched it on its own and try to judge it as a standalone product. And as such, it was worth those 90 minutes of my life.
Sure, the characters were one-dimensional and the plot made no sense, but did you really expect an Award-winning performance here? The movie was fast-paced, with some good special effects (the ship landing on top of a skyscraper was particularly effective) and soundtrack was kick-ass. It never got boring or tedious and I was curious to see how it would all end.
I have no clue whether this was a remake or a sequel to the original 1984 movie. And honestly, I don't care. I just watched it on its own and try to judge it as a standalone product. And as such, it was worth those 90 minutes of my life.
Final Exam
(1981)
boring and tedious
13 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Being an 80s slasher fan, I've seen a lot of them. The good, the bad, the classics and the garbage. This one is somewhere between boring and uninteresting.
I read on Wikipedia that the director wanted to do a different slasher. One that focuses on character development rather than kills. While it may have sounded great as an idea, the outcome is poor.
If we don't count the first kill, the movie takes more than 50 minutes before anything slasher-related happens. The film spends so much time on the characters that it feels almost like a teen comedy. And one can only wish the characters were somewhat interesting, but they're not. They are as generic as they get. There are the obnoxious jocks, the computer nerd, the dumb blond who has an affair with a teacher and the "not so attractive, yet strong" final girl.
The killer is a chapter of its own. We never learn his motivation, or who he is. But we can clearly see his face from the very beginning. Also, he would absolutely need to have "serial killer super powers" in order to appear at certain places where there is no way he could get without someone noticing him. Simply impossible. I understand the writer wanted to go for something else in his film, but this decision was poor.
This film fails on pretty much every level. It's only recommended if you're a die hard genre fan.
I read on Wikipedia that the director wanted to do a different slasher. One that focuses on character development rather than kills. While it may have sounded great as an idea, the outcome is poor.
If we don't count the first kill, the movie takes more than 50 minutes before anything slasher-related happens. The film spends so much time on the characters that it feels almost like a teen comedy. And one can only wish the characters were somewhat interesting, but they're not. They are as generic as they get. There are the obnoxious jocks, the computer nerd, the dumb blond who has an affair with a teacher and the "not so attractive, yet strong" final girl.
The killer is a chapter of its own. We never learn his motivation, or who he is. But we can clearly see his face from the very beginning. Also, he would absolutely need to have "serial killer super powers" in order to appear at certain places where there is no way he could get without someone noticing him. Simply impossible. I understand the writer wanted to go for something else in his film, but this decision was poor.
This film fails on pretty much every level. It's only recommended if you're a die hard genre fan.
Ved verdens ende
(2009)
a different kind of adventure film
12 January 2013
I went into this film thinking it would be a Danish Indiana Jones. Well, it wasn't. I'm not a big fan of adventure films, but I do like to watch one from time to time. This one seemed interesting and the main premise kinda intriguing, even though quite unrealistic.
It's a good comedy adventure film, but it's not your typical family-friendly entertainment. Some parts of it were rather dark and in some places even brutal (there's torture, killings, and plenty of blood). On more than one occasion I thought to myself there was no way the main characters would survive that (and in real life they wouldn't), but then again it's a film, so some suspension of disbelief is necessary.
It was very well acted, the actors did a really good job and it was nice to see Matthias Hues again. If you're into jungle adventure films, give it a try. Just bare in mind that some parts may be disturbing for younger audiences.
It's a good comedy adventure film, but it's not your typical family-friendly entertainment. Some parts of it were rather dark and in some places even brutal (there's torture, killings, and plenty of blood). On more than one occasion I thought to myself there was no way the main characters would survive that (and in real life they wouldn't), but then again it's a film, so some suspension of disbelief is necessary.
It was very well acted, the actors did a really good job and it was nice to see Matthias Hues again. If you're into jungle adventure films, give it a try. Just bare in mind that some parts may be disturbing for younger audiences.
taking back America one pool at a time
5 January 2013
What first got me to watch this film was Kevin Sorbo. I've been a fan since his Andromeda days and try to check out as many as of films as possible. Sure, mostly they are not high quality, but they still manage to be entertaining. And "Poolboy" is no exception.
It's difficult to sum up this film. It's a movie about a movie with inter-cuts from the director/producer and his assistant (or whatever she is). It is a self-aware satire bordering on parody with intentional stereotypes and is definitely not for those easily offended. It is filled with terrible one-liners and adolescent jokes, gratuitous nudity from both men and women and it takes itself so seriously as if it was competing for an Academy Award. But it does all that on purpose and it works.
This film is easily the best worst film of the year. Do not hesitate and grab a copy (plus a few friends and a six-pack). You'll have a bloody good time.
It's difficult to sum up this film. It's a movie about a movie with inter-cuts from the director/producer and his assistant (or whatever she is). It is a self-aware satire bordering on parody with intentional stereotypes and is definitely not for those easily offended. It is filled with terrible one-liners and adolescent jokes, gratuitous nudity from both men and women and it takes itself so seriously as if it was competing for an Academy Award. But it does all that on purpose and it works.
This film is easily the best worst film of the year. Do not hesitate and grab a copy (plus a few friends and a six-pack). You'll have a bloody good time.
Nightmare Beach
(1989)
enjoyable slasher
3 January 2013
First things first - many have considered this film to be a 'Giallo'. It has some features of a giallo plus an Italian director, but it's a full-fledged slasher. And an entertaining one.
Being a slasher fan, I really enjoyed it. Sure, it's dumb as hell, the characters are just stereotypes, plot is as unoriginal as it gets, yet this movie is still fun to watch. It has all the elements right - a bunch of read herrings, a touch of supernatural, a twist ending, Spring Breakers and nudity a plenty plus John Saxon. The killer is easy to figure out, but that's the case with many slashers.
If you're a fan, don't hesitate and grab a copy.
Being a slasher fan, I really enjoyed it. Sure, it's dumb as hell, the characters are just stereotypes, plot is as unoriginal as it gets, yet this movie is still fun to watch. It has all the elements right - a bunch of read herrings, a touch of supernatural, a twist ending, Spring Breakers and nudity a plenty plus John Saxon. The killer is easy to figure out, but that's the case with many slashers.
If you're a fan, don't hesitate and grab a copy.
The Darkest Hour
(2011)
so bad you'll want the aliens to win
6 October 2012
I like alien invasion films, so I couldn't miss the chance to see this instalment in the sub-genre. Even though the trailer didn't make it look like this film would be anything extraordinary or ground-breaking, I was curious to see it. What a disappointment it turned out to be.
From the beginning of the film, when the main characters open their mouths and say the first lines, I started hating them. Those few lines were enough for me to know what kind of characters they were – one an obnoxious arrogant prick with too high self-esteem (based on what exactly?) and the other a nerdy geek or a tech guy if you will. Both Americans, both coming to Moscow acting as if they were the most important people in the world. One of them says it loud and clear: "I came to Moscow to break some Russian law, get laid and end up in a Russian prison". Because we all go to foreign countries to break laws just for fun, don't we? The two American girls are plain forgettable. The Russians are just there, serving as a cannon fodder in the fight against the aliens.
The special effects are OK, but then again nowadays there's no problem to create any CGI effect if you have sufficient funds. The aliens look stupid and their technology makes no sense. Maybe the producers are saving it for the sequel.
The plot is your basic "been there, done that, seen it a hundred times and better". Nothing original, or even memorable. The cinematography is most of the times alright, but I highly doubt the director was hoping for an Oscar.
This film represents everything that is wrong with today's cinema. The characters are annoying, irritating and by the end of the film you wish they were all dead. The plot is Luke-warm tea missing a single original idea. It is aimed at the audience of 13 to 21 and it tries to please them as much as possible disregarding any losses in the process.
Will I watch it again? No, I won't. And I sincerely hope a sequel never gets made.
On the side note – I've seen this film compared to "Skyline (2010)". Many people have argued which one is better and which is worse. They are both awful in their own way. No winners here.
From the beginning of the film, when the main characters open their mouths and say the first lines, I started hating them. Those few lines were enough for me to know what kind of characters they were – one an obnoxious arrogant prick with too high self-esteem (based on what exactly?) and the other a nerdy geek or a tech guy if you will. Both Americans, both coming to Moscow acting as if they were the most important people in the world. One of them says it loud and clear: "I came to Moscow to break some Russian law, get laid and end up in a Russian prison". Because we all go to foreign countries to break laws just for fun, don't we? The two American girls are plain forgettable. The Russians are just there, serving as a cannon fodder in the fight against the aliens.
The special effects are OK, but then again nowadays there's no problem to create any CGI effect if you have sufficient funds. The aliens look stupid and their technology makes no sense. Maybe the producers are saving it for the sequel.
The plot is your basic "been there, done that, seen it a hundred times and better". Nothing original, or even memorable. The cinematography is most of the times alright, but I highly doubt the director was hoping for an Oscar.
This film represents everything that is wrong with today's cinema. The characters are annoying, irritating and by the end of the film you wish they were all dead. The plot is Luke-warm tea missing a single original idea. It is aimed at the audience of 13 to 21 and it tries to please them as much as possible disregarding any losses in the process.
Will I watch it again? No, I won't. And I sincerely hope a sequel never gets made.
On the side note – I've seen this film compared to "Skyline (2010)". Many people have argued which one is better and which is worse. They are both awful in their own way. No winners here.
The Horror Show
(1989)
electricity of evil
26 September 2012
First of all, this has been mentioned many a times before, but this film is not a part of "The House" series. I could go on explaining why, but just watch all four films and you will understand.
This is a different movie in style and tone. It is very reminiscent of Wes Craven's Shocker (which was also made in 1989 and despite being a low-budget film itself is much better and more entertaining). Basically it is a horror thriller about a tough cop and a killer he wouldn't stay dead even after being executed. There is, of course, a professor with some totally stupid theory about how pure evil can be transformed to electricity and so electrocuting someone just makes them immortal and omnipotent ... you can clearly see the writers were pulling this plot point out of their asses. They simply saw "Shocker" and thought "Hey, this is a neat idea, let's use it in our movie". As the killer gets stronger, the cop's world start falling apart, he becomes the main suspect in the new killings, the usual clichés are thrown at us one at a time. You can even play the guessing game which one comes next.
What bothered me the most were the constant flashbacks and nightmares. The film actually starts with a flashback in a dream that's really happening in another dream. Wrap your head around that one.
What are really liked about it were the two main actors Lance Henriksen and Brion James. It was fun to watch them as they are both talented actors and were great in their roles. The rest of the cast is OK, even though forgettable.
So, did I like the film? Yes, I did. It was fun to watch (if you can look past its flaws and plot holes). It's not a part of House trilogy and is a story of its own. Take it for what it is and you too can spend enjoyable 90 minutes.
This is a different movie in style and tone. It is very reminiscent of Wes Craven's Shocker (which was also made in 1989 and despite being a low-budget film itself is much better and more entertaining). Basically it is a horror thriller about a tough cop and a killer he wouldn't stay dead even after being executed. There is, of course, a professor with some totally stupid theory about how pure evil can be transformed to electricity and so electrocuting someone just makes them immortal and omnipotent ... you can clearly see the writers were pulling this plot point out of their asses. They simply saw "Shocker" and thought "Hey, this is a neat idea, let's use it in our movie". As the killer gets stronger, the cop's world start falling apart, he becomes the main suspect in the new killings, the usual clichés are thrown at us one at a time. You can even play the guessing game which one comes next.
What bothered me the most were the constant flashbacks and nightmares. The film actually starts with a flashback in a dream that's really happening in another dream. Wrap your head around that one.
What are really liked about it were the two main actors Lance Henriksen and Brion James. It was fun to watch them as they are both talented actors and were great in their roles. The rest of the cast is OK, even though forgettable.
So, did I like the film? Yes, I did. It was fun to watch (if you can look past its flaws and plot holes). It's not a part of House trilogy and is a story of its own. Take it for what it is and you too can spend enjoyable 90 minutes.
Orion's Key
(1996)
the worst in the whole series
21 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Having seen all 4 films in the series, I can say this one is the worst of them. There is so much wrong with it, I don't even know where to start. Let me point out at least some of the flaws.
The first thing to make me suspicious were the many titles of this film. My copy was called "Shadowchaser: The Gates of Time", even though no time travel and no gates were involved. Probably the best one would have been "Orion's Key".
The plot is a convoluted mess. There are two archaeologists (a married couple) looking for something in Africa. Just when they are about to give up, they find the Key and despite having any clue as to what is really is, they immediately know it's important and they must not give it to anybody. They have a son, who's in hospital, because his mother was a reckless driver (I will get to her later). So they contact some university professor, who hires mercenaries (because all professors have those on their speed dials) and orders them to retrieve the Key at any cost (because all professors do that, right?). The artifact also awakens an alien android (or what exactly he is supposed to be) and hijinks ensue (wild car chases, gunfights, explosions, you name it).
I understand that script re-writes can make more damage than good, but that does not excuse the sloppy writing and horrible lines in this film. Words fail me how terrible the lines are. It feels as if the script was written by a ten-year-old who had just seen Alien and Terminator and liked Zagarino's hairstyle.
The acting is beyond redeemable. Especially the female lead Jennifer MacDonald. I don't know whether it was an intention to make her character so annoying and unlikeable, but they sure succeeded. There were moments when her delivery and her acting were so bad I wanted to punch my TV. She's the perfect definition of a self-centred arrogant bitch. She would rather have her husband killed by Zagarino than give up the Key (which she has no way of knowing what it is for).
But the worst for me was the whole concept of Shadowchaser. The producers had a great character on their hands, but didn't know what to do with it. In the first and second instalments he was a renegade android created by the government. OK, no problem there, sounds like fun. In the third film he was a .... well, I think a Russian android that went banana because of some virus or something. It's not clearly explained in the film. And now in the final film he is an alien cyborg warrior, a protector of his species whose sole job is to prepare some elixir. It's sad, real sad, that this was the final film and his character didn't get a proper closure.
So, do I recommend it? Only if you are a die hard Zagarino fan or a completist like me. Otherwise don't bother with it, there's really nothing to see here.
The first thing to make me suspicious were the many titles of this film. My copy was called "Shadowchaser: The Gates of Time", even though no time travel and no gates were involved. Probably the best one would have been "Orion's Key".
The plot is a convoluted mess. There are two archaeologists (a married couple) looking for something in Africa. Just when they are about to give up, they find the Key and despite having any clue as to what is really is, they immediately know it's important and they must not give it to anybody. They have a son, who's in hospital, because his mother was a reckless driver (I will get to her later). So they contact some university professor, who hires mercenaries (because all professors have those on their speed dials) and orders them to retrieve the Key at any cost (because all professors do that, right?). The artifact also awakens an alien android (or what exactly he is supposed to be) and hijinks ensue (wild car chases, gunfights, explosions, you name it).
I understand that script re-writes can make more damage than good, but that does not excuse the sloppy writing and horrible lines in this film. Words fail me how terrible the lines are. It feels as if the script was written by a ten-year-old who had just seen Alien and Terminator and liked Zagarino's hairstyle.
The acting is beyond redeemable. Especially the female lead Jennifer MacDonald. I don't know whether it was an intention to make her character so annoying and unlikeable, but they sure succeeded. There were moments when her delivery and her acting were so bad I wanted to punch my TV. She's the perfect definition of a self-centred arrogant bitch. She would rather have her husband killed by Zagarino than give up the Key (which she has no way of knowing what it is for).
But the worst for me was the whole concept of Shadowchaser. The producers had a great character on their hands, but didn't know what to do with it. In the first and second instalments he was a renegade android created by the government. OK, no problem there, sounds like fun. In the third film he was a .... well, I think a Russian android that went banana because of some virus or something. It's not clearly explained in the film. And now in the final film he is an alien cyborg warrior, a protector of his species whose sole job is to prepare some elixir. It's sad, real sad, that this was the final film and his character didn't get a proper closure.
So, do I recommend it? Only if you are a die hard Zagarino fan or a completist like me. Otherwise don't bother with it, there's really nothing to see here.
too much comedy, not enough horror
20 September 2012
The title pretty much sums up the whole problem with this film. For the third instalment in the series the producers decided to go with a mix of comedy and horror films popular in the early nineties (which involved hell, demons, the dead,etc, just think of Pinhead or a film like 976-Evil and you get the idea). In my opinion, this was not a very lucky move. The comedy elements aren't funny and don't produce even a giggle yet alone a real laughter. This also limits the effect of the scares which are too few and too childish. I liked the fact that they continued the Mary Lou story arc from the previous film, but they left the ending open and didn't follow with it any further. Also the fact that Mary Lou is played by a different actress doesn't help at all. I was bored by the film and couldn't wait for it to wend. This one is really not recommended.
"A Nightmare On Elm Street" meets "Carrie"
19 September 2012
I enjoyed the first part of the series and was curious to check out the sequel. I knew that the producers had taken a different approach and wanted to see where they went with it.
While the first film was your typical 80s slasher, this one was supernatural revenge film which was clearly influenced by A Nightmare On Elm Street (the dream sequences come from the first part, the bodily possession from the second one). Even though it wasn't a new tool to be used in a film, it served its purpose well. The acting was just what you would expect from this kind of film (in other words, no Oscar moments here). Yet huge respect and kudos to the female lead Wendy Lyon for spending about two minute completely nude. You just don't see it that often in mainstream films nowadays.
So is it worth watching? Yes, definitely. It's the second best in the series and tries to keep the tone at least somewhat serious (which the next one failed at horribly).
While the first film was your typical 80s slasher, this one was supernatural revenge film which was clearly influenced by A Nightmare On Elm Street (the dream sequences come from the first part, the bodily possession from the second one). Even though it wasn't a new tool to be used in a film, it served its purpose well. The acting was just what you would expect from this kind of film (in other words, no Oscar moments here). Yet huge respect and kudos to the female lead Wendy Lyon for spending about two minute completely nude. You just don't see it that often in mainstream films nowadays.
So is it worth watching? Yes, definitely. It's the second best in the series and tries to keep the tone at least somewhat serious (which the next one failed at horribly).
Project Shadowchaser III
(1995 Video)
standard 90s sci-fi actioner
17 September 2012
This film represents one of my favourite genres - 1990s sci-fi action (usually Alien rip-off) taking space on a spaceship or a space station. If you know what kind of genre I am talking about, you will know what to expect from this film.
The cast is multinational, where pretty much everyone is a stereotype to some extend. Or described using the basic characteristic features from a particular nationality. The plot usually involves a small crew (even on a huge spaceship) coming across some alien creature and having to fight for survival. In this case, the enemy is a Russian android infected by some unknown virus (that's never really explained). It's a pity that Frank Zagarino (a.k.a. the Shadowchaser) only gets a limited screen time and barely uses his martial arts skills. The rest of the cast is OK, especially Musetta Vander is easy on the eye (even though her fake Russian accents is terrible).
The part I have always liked about these films is that the producers use any factory they can to stand in for the spaceship/space station. It's simply hilarious. So get yourself some popcorn and some beer and enjoy. I know I will :)
The cast is multinational, where pretty much everyone is a stereotype to some extend. Or described using the basic characteristic features from a particular nationality. The plot usually involves a small crew (even on a huge spaceship) coming across some alien creature and having to fight for survival. In this case, the enemy is a Russian android infected by some unknown virus (that's never really explained). It's a pity that Frank Zagarino (a.k.a. the Shadowchaser) only gets a limited screen time and barely uses his martial arts skills. The rest of the cast is OK, especially Musetta Vander is easy on the eye (even though her fake Russian accents is terrible).
The part I have always liked about these films is that the producers use any factory they can to stand in for the spaceship/space station. It's simply hilarious. So get yourself some popcorn and some beer and enjoy. I know I will :)
7 Below
(2012)
utterly disappointing
17 September 2012
Two things made me curious to check out this film - first of all, the big names Val Kilmer, Ving Rhames and Luke Goss. I know all of them can act, all they need is a good script and a talented director. The other thing was the setting - I like haunted house movies and this one seemed right up my alley.
When the film finally started, I couldn't believe my eyes - the setting looked like some crew member's house, the special effects were laughable, the scared were stupid and predictable, the whodunit murder mystery could be solved very easily, and the acting .... oh, God, the acting. You could literally see Val Kilmer not give a damn about what was going on around him. He delivered those few lines he was supposed to and collected his paycheck. Ving Rhames is trying hard but has nothing to work with (those idiotic lines he has to say have to be heard to be believed) and Luke Goss is looking for at least some action. The rest of the cast is forgettable.
This film is horribly bad. I refuse to give it a higher rating simply because of all the star power the producers had and didn't know what to do with it. This is only for the die hard fans for any of the aforementioned stars.
When the film finally started, I couldn't believe my eyes - the setting looked like some crew member's house, the special effects were laughable, the scared were stupid and predictable, the whodunit murder mystery could be solved very easily, and the acting .... oh, God, the acting. You could literally see Val Kilmer not give a damn about what was going on around him. He delivered those few lines he was supposed to and collected his paycheck. Ving Rhames is trying hard but has nothing to work with (those idiotic lines he has to say have to be heard to be believed) and Luke Goss is looking for at least some action. The rest of the cast is forgettable.
This film is horribly bad. I refuse to give it a higher rating simply because of all the star power the producers had and didn't know what to do with it. This is only for the die hard fans for any of the aforementioned stars.
Four Flies on Grey Velvet
(1971)
Not a film for everyone
14 September 2012
I had heard about the giallo genre and had been curious to check out a film or two. I grabbed the very first one that I came across and it turned out to be this film.
The first thing to strike me was the camera work. Of course, by today's standards it seems outdated, but judging a film from the 1970s by today's standards is simply wrong. Argento's direction is captivating and conveys the feeling of being stalked very well. Audience can feel the paranoia of the main protagonist. There were some moments that would stand out even today (especially the ending) As for the plot, it's a murder mystery with some blackmailing thrown in, but finding out who the murderer is is not that complicated. I found the plot rather weak. The characters seemed quite stereotypical (the gay detective is hilariously funny). we also get some psychology explanation (that really doesn't explain much) and probably the stupidest murder motive I have ever seen in a film. I'm sorry, but it was seriously disappointing.
So did I like it? I think yes, I did. But it's definitely not a film for everyone. It's slow and more atmospheric than bloody. Yet it does have a certain charm of its own.
The first thing to strike me was the camera work. Of course, by today's standards it seems outdated, but judging a film from the 1970s by today's standards is simply wrong. Argento's direction is captivating and conveys the feeling of being stalked very well. Audience can feel the paranoia of the main protagonist. There were some moments that would stand out even today (especially the ending) As for the plot, it's a murder mystery with some blackmailing thrown in, but finding out who the murderer is is not that complicated. I found the plot rather weak. The characters seemed quite stereotypical (the gay detective is hilariously funny). we also get some psychology explanation (that really doesn't explain much) and probably the stupidest murder motive I have ever seen in a film. I'm sorry, but it was seriously disappointing.
So did I like it? I think yes, I did. But it's definitely not a film for everyone. It's slow and more atmospheric than bloody. Yet it does have a certain charm of its own.
Star Quest: The Odyssey
(2009)
why make a film when you don't have the budget?
27 August 2012
This film is absolutely horrible. There's so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start.
The sets look like someone's backyard, the ship's bridge is probably someone's basement and the CGI looks worse than 1980s video games. Unwatchable. The story consists of several episodes taken from old Star Trek episodes (I'm still amazed that no one has sued their asses yet).
Seriously - why do you make a film when you don't have enough money to pay for anything? Actors, sets, CGI, pretty much everything? What drove you to do something like that? Your overblown ego? This film is beyond bad. Even a vote of 1/10 is too much for this pile of trash. Avoid it.
The sets look like someone's backyard, the ship's bridge is probably someone's basement and the CGI looks worse than 1980s video games. Unwatchable. The story consists of several episodes taken from old Star Trek episodes (I'm still amazed that no one has sued their asses yet).
Seriously - why do you make a film when you don't have enough money to pay for anything? Actors, sets, CGI, pretty much everything? What drove you to do something like that? Your overblown ego? This film is beyond bad. Even a vote of 1/10 is too much for this pile of trash. Avoid it.
Haunted High
(2012 TV Movie)
with a bigger budget and some minor rewrites this could have been much better
27 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I think that my summary line says it all - this movie had potential. Unfortunately it faced the same obstacle many previous SciFi Originals had faced before. Insufficient funding. How are we supposed to believe the story takes place in a big school, when we only see one class of about 15 people? And the external and internal shots don't seem to match? A bigger building with more actors would have made this more believable.
As for the story, there are too many things unexplained. Some are hinted at (like the student-teacher relationship between a female student and her music teacher), but they are not resolved. What was 'the cult' all about? What was the director's main goal (apart from aimlessly killing all the students and staff).
The thing that bugged me the most was Charisma Carpenter. She was in the film for only two minutes and then got killed off. What the heck? Why not have her as a helpful librarian who knows stuff about the occult.
Even with all those faults this was a rather enjoyable film. If you can catch it on TV and you like some mild jump scares, then I can recommend it.
As for the story, there are too many things unexplained. Some are hinted at (like the student-teacher relationship between a female student and her music teacher), but they are not resolved. What was 'the cult' all about? What was the director's main goal (apart from aimlessly killing all the students and staff).
The thing that bugged me the most was Charisma Carpenter. She was in the film for only two minutes and then got killed off. What the heck? Why not have her as a helpful librarian who knows stuff about the occult.
Even with all those faults this was a rather enjoyable film. If you can catch it on TV and you like some mild jump scares, then I can recommend it.
Tell Your Friends