Change Your Image
aro-2
Reviews
1st to Die (2003)
You know you're watching a terrible film when the appearance of Angie Everhart does nothing to improve it.
Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.
Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.
Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
The Relic (1997)
A typical monster movie, but everything is too dark to enjoy...
The opening of the film is incoherent, so I'll just skip to the meat of the story. A Chicago museum is planning a grand event to open their new exhibit(dubbed Superstition) when a security guard is ripped apart. The police shut down the museum to conduct an investigation. After finding and killing a crazy man in the museum's basement the town Mayor decides to let the grand opening go on despite the warnings of one Lt. Vincent D'Agosta, who believes there may be a connection to the mysterious deaths aboard a cargo ship that was recently brought to port only a few miles away. With the help of evolutionary biologist Margo Green, his suspicion is confirmed. It seems the ship was carrying a pair of crates from Brazil, sent to the museum by anthropologist John Whitney. D'Agosta and Green make this discovery a bit late; the gala has begun and there's something lurking in the coal tunnels beneath the museum.
That sounds like a recipe for a decent, derivative monster movie, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it doesn't work for one main reason, and his name is Peter Hyams. While a competent director, Hyams will most times act as his own DP(director of photography), and therein lies the problem. He seems to think that keeping the lights as low as possible is an acceptable way to build tension. It's one thing to use dim lighting on a film(shadows can be very effective), but entirely another to keep the lighting so minimal as to eliminate shadow detail. The Relic isn't dark, it's black. There are no shadows; outside of direct light there is no detail whatsoever. Even scenes set inside the museum offices are too dim(and that's before the electricity has been cut). There are too many scenes where, despite there being several people in frame, the only things you can see are the flashlights they're holding. I could go on about this forever, but you get the idea. All this darkness is a real shame, too, because the always reliable Stan Winston has created another terrific monster. Note to producers: stop allowing Hyams to be his own DP!
On the other hand, there's the story. The opening attempts to pass on some information about Whitney and how exactly the creature gets to the museum. Throughout the film there are more pieces of the puzzle, but only enough to figure out what happened, not why. Evidently, the novel supplied a reason for the tribe's(in the opening sequence) actions, but all you can deduce from the film is that Whitney was simply participating in the ritual for the purpose of research. From what little I've heard about the novel, they had an ulterior motive.
To be fair, the film does have some good scenes(even if you can't see much of what's happening). The effects during the final chase are superb, as is the creature in general(again, what you can see of it).
Overall, there's not much to be attracted to in The Relic. I've always found films like this to be better when the sets, characters, monsters, and mutilations thereof are visible. So, if you're in the mood for an old-fashioned, gory, B-grade monster movie I recommend trying its 1999 counterpart, Virus. There's little worth watching here.
Soldier (1998)
Am I the only one who saw more than brainless action in this film?
The story is simple: a group of soldiers, trained from birth to be unemotional, brutal killers, are replaced by a newer line of genetically engineered soldiers. After a bloody 3-on-1 battle between the old and the new, the bodies of the old soldiers(one of them not quite dead) are dumped on a barren planet. Also on this planet is a colony, whose ship crashed years before. Todd(Russell) is taken in, then expelled, by these people. Soon after another ship arrives, carrying the improved soldiers. Their commanding officer(Issacs) feels it would be a good way for them to get some field experience, since there's supposedly no inhabitants. His orders are to sweep the area and if anyone is found they are to be classified as hostile and eliminated. Led by Caine(Lee), who defeated Todd in the match mentioned earlier, they follow their orders and the expected showdown ensues. The details of the story aren't important, though.
What matters in this film is the standard scenario of the unemotional man becoming more emotional. I know it sounds stupid, and, yes, it is melodramatic. Fortunately, we have Kurt Russell(speaking very few lines) in the lead role and a script that attempts to be moving without being manipulative or exaggerated. The whole thing is handled quite well, so I'll start at the beginning.
Before Todd is defeated and dumped, we have a short sequence detailing his training, which is like something out of "A Clockwork Orange". First step: desensitization. Watching three dogs viciously rip a wild boar to shreds while a monotone voice chants various phrases("Mercy is a weakness.") in the background is a prime example. Second step: endurance. The trainees are taken on a long run. Anyone who falls behind is shot. Third and final step: the test. Trainees prove themselves by beating the living hell out of each other and shooting hostages during target practice. This entire sequence is probably more brutal than many viewers can stand. For this reason, people(those who continue to watch) choose to distance themselves. However, the intention of it is to involve you, and if you aren't involved the rest of the film will most likely seem stupid and corny.
Cut forward to the planet and Todd's attempted integration into the colony. Here is where most of the film takes place. During the next series of events we see his progress(or lack of same). A couple, Mace and Sandra(Pertwee, Neilsen), takes him in to oversee his recovery. At one point Sandra asks Todd if he feels anything. When he responds with "fear and discipline" she hugs him. This is the first time we see him uneasy. No one has displayed any emotion towards him before so he's not sure how to react. The next notable encounter comes with Mace and Sandra's son, Nathan. As Nathan is watching a poisonous snake(he was bitten when he was younger) slither towards him Todd throws him a boot and shows him how to kill the snake, but he doesn't appear to understand. When the snake springs toward Nathan, Todd catches it(in mid-flight) and throws it back into the corner. Before anything else can happen Mace enters and kills the snake, surprised that Todd wasn't doing anything about it. Todd is eventually voted out of the colony. He takes refuge in a giant cylinder(not sure what it is). A tear slides down his cheek and, again, he's not sure what's happening because he's never felt anything before. Back at the colony, Nathan's little training session proves useful and Mace realizes they made the wrong decision by voting him out. Unfortunately, by the time Mace finds Todd the transport ship arrives and the fireworks begin.
There are several things Peoples was trying to say with this script. Many dismiss the final sequence as simply good triumphing over evil, but that's not what he meant. The point Peoples was trying to make(I think) is that even when you fight your hardest you'll still fight harder when you've got a reason.
Anyway, the technical aspects of this film are pretty good. Paul Anderson, while obviously not the best choice to direct a character-driven script, gives it all the visual style you could ask for(and then some). The set design and effects are as good as you'd expect from a $75 million budget.
Soldier is far from an original film, borrowing concepts from just about every Sci-Fi source you can imagine, but the execution is good, as is the film overall. If you're one of those poor, unimaginative people who don't have the ability to become engrossed in a film you're going to hate this one. You need to lend something of yourself to it in order to get the intended effect. Like I said, Anderson is not a character-driven director. So, if you can imagine, check this out. I think you'll be surprised.
Pitch Black (2000)
Good, effective Sci-Fi/Thriller...
We begin with the standard view of a ship drifting through space. A voice-over gives us a little background as we're slowly taken into the ship. Comet fragments begin piercing the hull(and one or two people) and the cryogenicly frozen crew is woken. So begins the ship's decent. During that decent the pilot(Mitchell) attempts to jettison the passenger section in order to land safely, but a malfunction prevents her from doing so. Nevertheless, they manage to make a rather ugly emergency landing(played out with awesome visual effects). The Captain is one of the unfortunate souls who dies in the crash. Now that everything's calming down, the passengers begin to assess their situation(not at all promising). Given that the planet has three suns(it's a giant desert, basically), some of them set out looking for water and stumble upon an abandoned mining outpost. A survey turns up no signs of life, just a lot of solar powered machinery and another(functioning) ship. Obviously they have a way off the planet. Kind of odd, though. Why would someone prep an evac ship and then abandon it?
The setup is probably the greatest asset of "Pitch Black". A standard Sci-Fi plot, heightened by the pacing of Twohy and a few genuine people mixed in with the fodder, is all it takes to create a good, if unexceptional, Thriller.
As I mentioned, the setup is superb, building tension by developing the current and forthcoming situations. For instance, the clues to the miners' disappearing: the final update in the research logs occurring 22yrs ago; the mobile that shows the alignment of the planets to be a 22yr cycle; the preped ship; the numerous animal carcasses scattered about. They all lead one to the conclusion that the miners didn't simply disappear, and that whatever happened 22yrs ago is about to happen again.
The films only major fallback is the hyper-active camera movement of Twohy. I don't know about you, but I got tired of it during the crash, but that's not to say he doesn't do a good job of putting the film together. On the contrary, he paces everything perfectly. He does a wonderful job with the latter half, where all the action is shrouded in darkness. The problem is, he doesn't change his tactics much in the light. Though there are some impressive visuals(kudos to Eggby for the beautiful coloring) Twohy never seems to take full advantage of his landscape. This is just a difference of artistic opinion, though. The only real complaint I have is the sometimes shaky camera work. It's become a trend of the Action genre in recent years and I don't care for it. Used sparingly, it can work, but constant use(like the crash) looks haphazard.
The final examination is of the actors and their characters. To be honest, I don't expect much from this genre in terms of acting, but every once in a while I'm pleasantly surprise. This is one of those times. The majority of the cast is expendable, so their characters aren't given any attention. On the other hand, there's the three leads, Mitchell, Diesel, and Hauser. Mitchell was willing to kill the passengers at the beginning of the film and she's faced with a similar choice later. Diesel plays a murderer who wants to get out alive as much as everyone else. It's not the typical "bad guy turned good guy" scenario we've seen countless times before. Instead, we have man who's struggling with the idea of leaving the rest of them to die, or risking his own life and it's not as predictable as you'd think. Last, we have Hauser, a drug addicted bounty hunter who's caught Diesel after chasing him for years. Their history will come into play, as well.
All together, "Pitch Black" is worth at least a matinee viewing. If nothing else you're going to enjoy it. Good Sci-Fi films are rare these days and it'd be a shame to miss this one.
Scream 3 (2000)
Almost matches the original, but falls short...
Sid, still recovering from her traumatic past, hides away in a remote cabin working as a call-in phone counselor. Meanwhile, back in LA, another sequel to the "Stab" films is being produced. Murders begin to occur, eventually bringing together the survivors of the previous films. As with the other two, this one begins with a long sequence of the killer stalking his first victims. The lucky couple this time is Cotton Weary and his girlfriend. Anything beyond this would spoil the development.
Truth be told, I really enjoyed this. However, I did have a few problems with it. It's almost too serious. The in-jokes and other self-referential material all but ceases after the first third. Without that, it's really nothing more than a slasher flick. The other is, as with part two, there's very little that will actually scare you.
On the good side, it's fun. The acting is acceptable, the dialogue is intelligent(most of the time), and the set pieces are great. One of "Scream 3"'s best scenes is a videotaped tutorial(Scary Movie 101) by Randy. Listening to him describe the differences between an ordinary sequel and the last chapter of a trilogy was a great idea. Then again, it wouldn't be right to have someone else taking his place as the resident film buff. Then, of course, there are the numerous chase scenes and even a chance for some special effects. In a slasher flick, how often do you get to blow up a house? The mansion provides an awesome place for the final confrontation. The best scares in the film(though not used to full effect) were Sid's encounters with her dead mother. There's always the fun of watching for references to other films, too. I can't be sure, but the position of Angelina's body and the way Wes filmed it as she was dragged out of view reminded me an awful lot of Tina in "A Nightmare On Elm Street", as did the sheet-covered body as it stood before Sid(in the recreation of her house).
After it was all over, I was satisfied with the way the "Scream" trilogy had ended(though I still prefer "Alien 3"), so they'd better not make another one.
The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
"Scream", for the "living dead" genre...
It all begins in a medical supply warehouse where Burt is training new recruit Freddy in the ways of running the business. Discussion eventually leads to Burt mentioning a few barrels being stored in the basement. According to Burt, they contain corpses that had at one time been reanimated. You see, "Night Of The Living Dead" was based on an actual event. Somehow a group of scientists accidentally created a gas that revives the dead. The military stored these corpses in cannisters and shipped them. Only problem is, they got shipped to the wrong place. Fortunately, these cannisters had an emergency phone number stenciled on them. Unfortunately, the owner of the warehouse never bothered to call it. Burt and Freddy decide to visit the basement and take a look. They end up puncturing one of the barrels, causing the body inside to melt, thereby releasing the gas. Well, this is a medical supply facility. What do you suppose they might be storing in that walk-in freezer upstairs? Oh, yes. That cadaver we were introduced to earlier.
"Alien" writer Dan O'Bannon makes his directing debut with this hilarious, violent sendup of zombie flicks. Beginning with the above mentioned, isolated situation, whose solution creates an even larger problem, the film progresses until the entire town is overwhelmed by walking corpses. O'Bannon takes any number of elements from Romero's series and gives them a twist. The zombies are no longer stumbling into walls. In fact, they appear to be rather intelligent. When a woman escapes by hiding in a locker, this particular zombie attaches the door handles to a miniature crane and proceeds to rip the doors off. They're also smart enough to figure out how to use a CB to acquire more food. These are picky corpses, too. They don't want just any piece of human flesh, they want brains.
As stated previously, this is a parody. While it does contain all the violence requisite to a horror film of this sort, it focuses on comedy. Realistic, if underdeveloped, characters make the profanity-laden dialogue genuinely funny. Other situations, such as Trash(Linnea Quigley) giving a short essay on the worst way to die which gives way to a striptease(all this taking place in a cemetery), are good moments of black comedy. Nevertheless, a love of black comedy is not required to enjoy this film. There are many other moments to laugh at. The only thing that might turn off some viewers is the level of violence. It's never excessive, but a few well placed effects will have the more squeamish viewers glancing at the floor. On the other hand, some of the violence is quite amusing. You have to admit, watching two guys restrain a formerly dead body while the third hits it in the head with a pickaxe(which has no effect, I might add) is downright hilarious.
All in all, whether you like horror of comedy, you're going to like this. Those of you who don't like being scared needn't worry. Not even the most timid viewer will find anything to be afraid of here.
House on Haunted Hill (1999)
Excellently crafted. A modern update of the classic haunted house formula...
The latest haunted house film is nothing like its disapointing predecessor, The Haunting. In fact, Haunted Hill is the exact opposite. The story(yes, there is one) involves a maniacal doctor(played by Jeffrey Combs) who liked to experiment on the patients of an asylum. The film starts with the patients breaking out and killing almost the entire staff before being caught in a blaze that burned down the asylum. All but five people were killed. Flash forward seventy or so years. The wife(Famke Janssen) of a rich amusement park owner(Geoffrey Rush, doing his best Vincent Price immitation) hears about the place on some bizzare TV show(Terrifying but True?) and decides it would be a good place to have a birthday party. The people that get invited aren't the ones on eithers list, though. They get to the house and you can see for yourself what happens next.
Even after the amazing disapointment that was The Haunting the trailer for this film still looked promising(with the exception of the ghost effects). Haunted Hill had a number of things going for it: a great cast; a good story; a perfect setting. Unlike The Haunting, this one decided to actually be frightening. The set design alone is enough to set one on edge. This film takes the term Gothic to an extreme. Of course, a large portion of the credit goes to William Malone. He's created some of the most disturbing images I've ever seen. The deformed characters and occasional flashbacks are well timed and serve to create an incredibly intense experience. The performances are all top notch, bringing a certain reality to their characters so seldom seen in Horror films. They make you believe what's happening and make you care about the outcome. Very rare, indeed.
If I were to pick one pitfall Haunted Hill stumbles into it would be the finale. While it does provide a good amount of terror, it comes on much too abruptly and ends far too soon(it lasts less than five minutes). It also fails to answer a number of questions. However, this is but one low point.
I'm sure you've already realized that I loved this film. There's simply so much to like and so little to dislike, but it's deffinately not for everyone. In fact, I'd warn most people away from it because of its intensity. The level of violence is also quite high in certain scenes, so if you have a weak stomach stay far away. Even if the violence doesn't get you the psychological impact will. The House On Haunted Hill is going to hit you and it will hit you hard. Those of you who think you're up for a ride you'll never, and I mean never, forget step up and get on!
Stigmata (1999)
Excellent supernatural/religious thriller. Not to be missed...
Ever since I first heard about this film I've been looking forward to it. The title alone was enough to get me interested. So I looked up the film on IMDb. Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne starring? Awesome, but who's Rupert Wainwright? Anyway, I walked into the theater expecting a great film and that's exactly what I got.
The story begins with Byrne investigating a crying statue. You see, he's a priest who's job is to find supposed miracles and disprove them. He encounters a bit of a problem here: this one's real. It occurs in a small Catholic church, who's leader has just died. One of the villager's steals the dead priest's rosary and sells it to the mother of Arquette, who just happens to be nearby. She then mails it home to her daughter. We then enter the life of Arquette, a self proclaimed athiest. That fact doesn't seem to make a big difference, though, because she's soon being rushed to a hospital with holes through her wrists.
Before I begin here, I'd like to state that, as a Christian, I found this film to be very believable and affecting. I'd also like to state that I found it in no way offensive. A plot to conceal a document that would weaken the Catholic church is not only plausible, but likely. After all, the church is the cornerstone of their faith(as stated in the film). If a document was found that would damage that, do you think they'd want it released? Not a very incouraging thought, is it? Now on to the film.
Stigmata has a good story, a great cast, and some truely excellent visuals. The only problem I had with it was the lack of restraint in the editing department. The excess of style is also a flaw. Many of the tricks Wainwright uses can be very effective in creating an involving film, but he overuses all of them. Dialogue from a prior scene being used as narraration is just one example.
Now, if you're interested in supernatural phenomena and/or are a religious person, this is deffinately a film you should see. On the other hand, if you're just looking for some good, scary entertainment you could do far, far worse. Enjoy it while it lasts, though, because once the entertainment factor diminishes you'll find yourself thinking about what you've just experienced.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Unrelated sequel with an interesting plot...
This film catches more than its share of flack for not being a true sequel. People seem to immediately dismiss it as a bad film simply because their favorite slasher character has been removed. Calling it "Halloween 3" was obviously a bad idea.
The story starts out with a man being chased(by whom we don't yet know). He eventually makes it to a gas station where the attendant drives him to a nearby hospital. He's rolled in on a stretcher, clutching a halloween mask and saying "They're going to kill us.". Again, we don't know who "they" are. Shortly after, while he's sleeping, the assassin enters his room and rips his skull apart. The assassin promptly leaves the hospital, gets into his car, soaks himself in gasoline, and lights a match. The next day the man's daughter is brought in to identify his body. Atkins is on hand to begin a little investigation into why somebody would want to kill her father. From that point on, the plot gets pretty unusual, involving everything from androids to stonehenge.
Writer/director Tommy Lee Wallace(Stephen King's It) keeps everything moving pretty slowly throughout the film as weird goings on are observed by the two leads. Wallace gives his film a genuinely creepy atmosphere with the "test" sequence being a clear standout.
While it's far from being the best in the series it is a good Twilight Zone style film. Ignore the absence of the Myers family and you just might enjoy it.
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Critically panned sequel deserves real recognition...
The Curse Of Michael Myers has been trashed since its release. Nobody has ever given it the credit it deserves. Sure, it doesn't live up to the original, but this is a sequel. What were you expecting? Out of all the sequels, though, this one would be the best. It attempts to explain the origin of Michael's evil(like "Jason Goes To Hell"). Not a great success, but it does explain why nobody has been able to kill him. Bothering to explain why he's killing isn't really important. A killer is scarier when he doesn't have a motive, right? Anyway, he's been killing off his family(and anyone else who happens by). The only survivor is a newborn baby. He spends the rest of the film chasing the baby as the rest of the cast is slowly eliminated. That's the story.
What makes this film the best of the sequels isn't the story. I mean, let's face it, there never was one. It's the style. Director Joe Chappelle(Phantoms) brings with him some of the style of Carpenter's original. However, there are significant differences: terror and violence.
I can't say the original Halloween was all that terrifying. It had all the suspense of a Hitchcock film, but no terror. Chappelle takes the accent off suspense and puts a healthy dose of terror in its place. Why? Well, this was made for a 90's audience. Slasher films aren't suspenseful anymore, so all that's left is pure terror. Any director can create terror, but it takes one who understands a bit about fear to do it with style. Chappelle is such a director. Particular scenes to pay attention to are the barn and the disappearing axe. Then, of course, there's the finale. Just to tell you, there is one scene that qualifies as the most chilling moment in the entire Halloween series: the conclusion to the family argument at the breakfast table.
Over the course of the Halloween films, the depiction of violence has changed. The first was completely bloodless. They got a bit more violent, in order to keep gorehounds from falling asleep, but it was still very tame for the genre. No matter how violent they got, they never included any gore. This one, on the other hand, is a full-blown horror film. All the gore you didn't see in the previous installments is on display right here. We have, in addition to the obligatory axe murders, more creative deaths, like: an electrocution, followed by an exploding head; impalement on farm equipment; a man being pushed through a steel grate. It should be noted that one murder is staged without gore, much like Carpenter would have done.
As you can clearly see, this was meant to be the last of the films. All the terror and gore were meant to give the series a big slasher film sendoff. It worked perfectly. That is, until the overrated H20 hit theaters.
Pet Sematary (1989)
Good film, great adaption. King fans shouldn't miss it...
Probably the most accurate Stephen King adaption yet. Not surprising, since King himself wrote the screenplay. The story follows the Creed family moving into a beautiful Maine house. One of the other residents is Jud, a pleasant old man who knows a few things about the area. One is the highway that runs right through their frontyard. The other is a path leading to the Pet Sematary, where children for decades have buried the animals killed by the highway. Soon enough, Ellie Creed's cat, Church, is found dead. Luckily, this happens while the family, with the exception of Louis(the father), is away for Thanksgiving. Jud takes Louis to another burial ground, beyond the Pet Sematary, where Church is to be buried. Later, Louis is greeted(not so politely) by Church. He's returned, appearing to have chewed his way out of the bag he had been buried in. Maybe he was buried alive. Maybe not. Nothing more I can say without ruining the story.
Of all the King adaptions I've seen this would be the most terrifying. The characters are real and the situations are normal. Mary Lambert does a great job directing the proceedings. Suspense is kept fairly high throughout the film, due in part to the plot development. The scene where Gage is killed will stick in your mind forever. Then, of course, we have the conclusion. Easy to determine what's going to happen, but Lambert pulls off some genuinely scary, and sometimes disturbing, moments.
Overall, this is a good film and an excellent adaption. If you enjoy being scared and don't mind being haunted by some occasionally disturbing images then "Pet Sematary" is just what you're looking for. Non Horror fans will want to avoid this.
The Mummy (1999)
Entertainment in the mildest of forms...
The story so far: Fraser and Weisz, together with some friends and a few rivals, visit the lost city of Hamunaptra in search of some buried treasure. Unfortunately, the city is also home to an ancient curse. They discover and revive Imhotep, a rather unfriendly corpse who, after being fully regenerated himself, plans to revive his lost love by sacrificing Weisz. What happens next? Well, if you've seen the Indiana Jones films then you know what to expect.
If done right, this could've been a very frightening Horror film. Writer/Director Stephen Sommers proved with last years' "Deep Rising" that he could successfully combine Horror and Comedy to create a fun, intense, and sometimes scary Adventure film. The difference with "The Mummy" is that the accent is on the Comedy and I'm not talking about a mild accent, either. This time the entertaining one-liners only succeed in diffusing the suspense he might've created. Why? Because they come one after another, without any breaks, even when the situation would seem better suited to silence. The thing I loved about "Deep Rising" and the similarly toned "Tremors" is that not only did they know when to keep the comedy coming, they also knew when to shut up. No such luck here. Instead of a fast paced monster movie we get the equivilent in the children's category; toned down violence and a few minor scares. This isn't the type of film I expected from the director who, just last year, had me on the edge of my seat while watching Treat Williams and Famke Janssen race through a flooded cruise ship on a waverunner mere meters ahead of a cluster of angry tentacles.
In closing, let me say that "The Mummy" wasn't the worst film. The one-liners were funny and I was certainly never bored, but this is a film that will appeal more to the preteen, early teen age groups. It reminds one of the days when parents didn't need to be quite so concerned about the films their children were watching. A Horror film for the young, if you will.
Copycat (1995)
A masterpiece that takes you inside the mind of a serial killer...
It all starts with Dr. Helen Hudson(Weaver) giving a lecture on serial killers, little knowing that she's about to have an encounter with one. After her lecture is over she visits the restroom, and is attacked by one Daryll Lee Cullum(Connick). Flash forward 13 months. We see Hudson yet again, but this time she's confined to her apartment. You see, she's now an agoraphobic, having retired after that fateful day. At the local police precinct detectives M.J. Monahan(Hunter) and Ruben Goetz(Mulroney) are tracking a killer of their own, played by William McNamara. He appears to be mimicing the MO's of various famous serial killers. Hudson hears about this over the radio and calls the precinct with some information. She speaks to Monahan, who thinks it's a crank call. Monahan and Goetz pay a little visit to Hudson's residence, carrying with them photographs of the recent crime scenes. Hudson determines the killer is indeed copying other serial killers. A while later, an unseen visitor breaks into her apartment, leaving the dress she was wearing the day she was attacked by Cullum neatly spread out on her bed. Her home is no longer safe. Monahan and Goetz have dragged her back into the world she tried to leave behind. Now Hudson must help the detectives catch the copycat before she becomes the next victim.
Realistic in just about every aspect, Copycat is right up there with Silence of the Lambs. Comparisons to Seven are not unwarrented, but the plot here is more believable. A very good cast, with Weaver giving one of the best perfomances of her career. Hunter and Mulroney are also excellent. The film is provided a very tense and terrifying atmosphere, thanks to director Jon Amiel. It doesn't need to wallow in needless violence and gore, because it has what every great Thriller needs: suspense on an epic scale. The violence is kept to a minimum, but what it contains can be a bit unsettling, if for no other reason than because we get to know how the killer thinks. Along the same lines, Weaver's portrayal of an agoraphobic is perfect. You don't have to imagine what Weaver is feeling when she steps out of her apartment, or what the killer is feeling while he murders his victims. You feel every bit of it, which is why this film succeeds so masterfully.
Copycat is that rare film that comes along every other year or so that has the ability to pull you into it. It takes you on a most terrifying journey into the mind of a serial killer and the doctor that understands him. I can't say anything more, except that I love this film. Hitchcock would've been proud.
Alone in the Dark (1982)
Slow, boring beginning. Passable, predictable conclusion...
Mediocre slasher film finds escaped mental patients terrorizing their doctor and his family. Strong echoes of John Carpenter's "Assault on Precinct 13" in the last half of the film. Some similarites can be spotted in the setup, as well. To bad the writers couldn't borrow some suspense.
"Alone in the Dark" does provide a few good scares. For example, the knife through the bed scene; as well as the daughter's first encounter with one of the psychopaths. Until then, however, it's very boring. Overall, a very predictable and forgettable film. If you're a big slasher fan, or if you like Donald Pleasance, then you might enjoy this. Everyone else is advised to stay clear.
I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)
A film for die-hard Slasher fans, but not many others...
A group of friends partying on the beach of a quiet little fishing town. While driving down a winding road on there way home from said party they accidentally run down a man who, for no apparent reason, is wandering across the road. They assume he's dead, which is their first mistake. Due to circumstances they elect not to report this to the authorities. Their second, slightly larger, mistake was deciding to dump the body into the ocean. One year later the four friends begin to receive certain "signs" that the man they dumped into the ocean may have survived.
Kevin Williamson mocked the Slasher genre in "Scream". This time he uses the classic Slasher formula; rules and all. Okay, so he does add a little to it by keeping the killer's identity secret, but including a bit of mystery isn't enough to revive the tired old formula.
There is neither suspense nor terror to be found here. This can partly be blamed on Williamson for the predictable scenario's, but most of the blame lies on director Jim Gillespie. Although he does manage a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments, there's not much else. The scene where Hewitt is trapped in the police car is telegraphed a mile in advance. The scene immediately following this(inside the store) isn't bad, but it's too short, as is the problem with the other chase sequences. They all end much too quickly. Another flaw is that we always know where the killer is. Gillespie tries to keep him hidden in the store with all the other figures covered in plastic, but there aren't enough others. It ends up being that the only truly effective scenes in this film are the false scares(the locker room).
Some people assume that "I Know What You Did Last Summer" has been created to cash in on the surprise success of "Scream". That may be the reason the studio exec's green-lighted the project, but I doubt that's why Williamson wrote the script.
Event Horizon (1997)
Truly terrifying, but still entertaining...
Event Horizon starts out with much promise: in 2040, a deep space research vessel, the Event Horizon, is sent out on its maiden voyage and was believed to be destroyed. However, in 2047, it returns and is found in a decaying orbit around Neptune. A search and rescue ship, the Lewis and Clark, is sent out to investigate the Event Horizon's mysterious return. On board the Lewis and Clark, as well as the rest of the crew, is Sam Neill, the scientist who designed the Event Horizon. He explains to the crew what the Event Horizon was designed to do: travel faster than light. When they finally board the Event Horizon, they find nothing but the body of one crew member, and what appears to be the partial remains of the other six. From there, the film goes slowly downhill.
If Anderson's only goal with this film is to make the audience jump out of their seats, then it's a masterpiece. However, there is very little suspense. It's a film where you're not wondering who dies next, but, rather, how that particular person will die. There is only one scene in the film that creates true suspense. It involves one of the crew being trapped in an airlock. To make matters worse, you don't really care about any of these people whose lives are in danger. The simplest of backgrounds are given to a few of the characters: Neill's dead wife; Quinlan's son. One thing they left out, though: before Neill cuts Pertwee open you can see a rather large scar on his chest. I wonder if an explanation was originally scripted.
Out of the two previously mentioned backgrounds comes the source for the film's most terrifying scenes: the scene in the green tunnel; Quinlan's son appearing in Medical. With the best scenes now described I can get on with the films main strength: terror. Very few films can give you such a feeling of dread. It's a very psychological film(not in plot, but in atmosphere) that's bound to disturb even the most desensitized of Horror fans. The images you see are only a part of it; the lesser part. The psychological aspect is much too intense for words. It must be experienced. Event Horizon doesn't just contain those feelings of dread and terror, it leaves them with you long after the credits have finished rolling.
The special effects are incredible. The model ships are so good that it's almost a shame to see them destroyed. The destruction of the Lewis and Clark is one of the most realistic and believable scenes in the film. The interior of the Event Horizon is also great. It's the most important contributor to the atmosphere. Actually, it's the only contributor. It allows Anderson to use all his tricks to make the audience jump in the setting they would work the best. This way he doesn't have to do quite as much work. That said, he's given his film a remarkable visual style.
After all of its faults I must say that I found it to be very entertaining. I would strongly recommend seeing this while it is still in the theaters, but beware: it doesn't leave much to the imagination. You get to see bits and pieces of what happened to the crew of the Event Horizon, in very brief, but graphic, images. Also, you get to see what happens to the crew of the Lewis and Clark in not so brief, but just as graphic, images.
Phantoms (1998)
Great first half, mediocre last half (except the dog)...
Dean Koontz adapted his novel of the same name for this good, but shallow Horror film. It starts out very promisingly: Jennifer Pailey(Going) is taking her younger sister Lisa(McGowan) to Snowfield, California to get her away from Los Angeles. The population of Snowfield in the Winter is about four hundred, but when Jennifer and Lisa are driving down the road to their destination they see nobody walking the streets. When they finally arrive at their house it appears to have been broken into. Not much later they find their maid on the kitchen floor dead, of course. They do a bit more exploring in the small town finding a pair of heads and a pair of hands. Everyone else is either dead or missing. Enter Sheriff Bryce Hammond(Affleck) and his slightly odd partner, Stu(Shreiber). Together they figure out that what originally appeared to be a disease(the maid was a bright yellow) was something else(easy to deduce, since rolling pins can seldom be found with the previous owners hands attached to them). Okay, so it's some nut with a meat cleaver, right? Wrong.
The plot to Phantoms is very interesting: that an evil being that has existed in the Earth since the beginning of time can be blamed for numerous historical disappearances. Not much of this is explored in the film, unfortunately. Instead, we get various scare tactics and, every once in a while, some genuine suspense. Most of the terror is achieved with loud sounds accompanied by a few fair special effects. On the other hand, there're a few scenes toward the end of the film involving a rather innocent looking dog that are quite suspenseful. One scene, in particular, involves a confrontation with Hammond(Affleck). You'll never see such a cute dog look even the slightest bit more menacing. Chappelle manages a few more terrifying sequences, but, unfortunately, they all occur in the first half(the dog doesn't appear until the final quarter). The film goes quickly downhill once it hits the halfway point. That's a shame, since the build-up is quite well done.
The final half of the film introduces Peter O'Toole as a tabloid writer. He's got some creative theories about what happened, but, like I stated above, they aren't explored. From what I've heard the confrontation between O'Toole and the monster is detailed beyond belief in the novel. It's a pity to not see it here.
If you're interested in jumping out of your seat and being intrigued at the same time then Phantoms isn't a bad choice. Providing, of course, that you don't mind the under-developed characters and finale. It's good old fashion monster movie fun.
Head Above Water (1996)
Black comedies don't get much better than this...
Get this plot line: married couple Keitel and Diaz are on vacation (honeymoon, maybe, can't remember), on a small island. Their only neighbor is Sheffer, a friend of Diaz. Along comes Zane, as Diaz's ex-lover. He talks Diaz into letting him stay the night. The next morning when Diaz goes to check on him, he's dead. Cause of death is, appearantly, a heart attack. At that same moment Keitel and Sheffer are arriving on shore. She tries to hide the body, but Keitel stumbles onto it (literally). Did I mention that Keitel is a judge? He believes that the only solutions would be to dispose of the body, or possibly be charged with murder. At that point the question arises about his death. Could it have been murder? If so, let's look at the suspects. Diaz obviously didn't kill him, so that leaves the other two. Is it Keitel, the possibly jealous husband, or Sheffer? This plot has "potential" written all over it.
Head Above Water is a remarkable black comedy with great performances and a great script that keeps you guessing. Just when you think you've found the killer, along comes some new evidence to point you in another direction. It plays great as both a Mystery and a Comedy, although the comedy is quite subtle. Anyone with a taste for mystery and comedy is in for a real surprise. Even if you aren't into those genre's, you'll still enjoy this great film. It would be extremely hard to dislike, because it's just so much fun.