Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hostel (2005)
4/10
Yet another average American horror movie
26 March 2006
As a horror fan it's getting really disheartening. Why is it that it's becoming increasingly difficult to find modern films that fit the bill of "decent effective horror"?? We all know it does exist as there have been the odd recent examples, but we're still having to rely all too frequently on the output from the Asian film industries to find something remotely effective.

Then I heard about Hostel. From everything I'd heard it seemed like this might actually get back to some of the raw darker roots of the horror genre – and for once this wasn't just a remake of a great 70's/80's exploitation flick. I never liked Cabin Fever, which although having potential, never actually delivered anything, but putting that aside, the impression I've got from reading interviews with Eli Roth is that he's actually interested in going back to those exploitation roots and pushing the boundaries again.

So what the hell happened?? There's an interesting premise (that's interesting in the context of a horror film), the dark, grim almost nihilistic feel that suggests something really shocking is going to happen, yet very little actually does. In fact, I was actually quite surprised by how little... The first half of the film was pretty bad and extremely cheesy, and sets out to show as many naked women as possible (which, intentionally or not, I found to be an mildly humorous homage to 80's slasher movies, despite it showing a lack of actual creativity), but also worked effectively in making 2 of the 3 main characters pretty unlikeable. As you know something shocking is going to happen later on, you can half accept these bad scenes. At least that was what I thought… The latter half of the film just completely missed the mark on being any sort of decent horror movie. The torture scenes were generally quite restrained and, unless you're new to the genre, pretty much veered away from anything particularly shocking, (the one exception being the scene with the Japanese girl). There were no scares and the one or 2 "suspenseful" scenes were lacking any actual suspense. The opportunity to shock should've been the saving grace of the film, as that's how it had been billed, but when this restraint is put alongside the bad first half, I was left wondering why I was wasting my time. The ending of the film turns out to be so contrived it's practically the most painful thing to watch. Despite all this though, the filmmakers did have 1 clever idea – the Takashi Miike cameo.

As this wasn't a tense or scary horror movie, it needed to shock and repulse the audience to get a reaction. That didn't happen. Yet again (this is becoming the ultimate cliché of the genre) the potential was there to make something really effective, but that was squandered and the film ends up as just another average American horror movie with little going for it. Although Eli Roth is clearly a horror movie fan, it seems he doesn't actually make his films for fans of horror movies.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My Little Eye (2002)
5/10
Another horror movie with wasted potential!
6 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Like the cliches that many horror movies are, it's beginning to feel like a cliche to say that a horror movie was filled with wasted potential. Unfortunately, it's so often true, and that's the case with My Little Eye.

The preview looked suitably creepy and promising but when I left the cinema I just felt like I'd been robbed. The set up is interesting due to the modern twist on a traditional horror movie cliche, but it just fails to deliver. I enjoyed the ambience that the movie had, very dark and always a little unsure about what was going to happen. But that's the problem, when something happens, it wasn't much at all. (*Spoilers*) The early attempts to shock failed and slowly killed the potential feeling of terror. And it feels that nothing really happened in the middle of the movie.

It does seem like the writers really didn't know where they were going with the plot - spending 3/4's of the movie convincing the audience it's a slasher movie then suddenly pulling the snuff movie card out didn't work. The snuff idea I thought was excellent and the scene where they realised this had me gripped, but they should've run with this idea earlier in the movie. I also hated the way the movie started 5 and a half months after they entered the house. Skip all that time, when they could've shown some relationship building and built some greater tension. Ineffective story telling. Finally, the killings in the end lacked imagination. They weren't gory or inventive enough, with the exception of the plastic bag - that was unexpected / shocking and quite graphic. The ending could've saved the movie somewhat, but didn't.

The acting was alright and it was good that they were unknowns (to me at least!). I mostly liked the way it was filmed, mostly, and I loved the effect of the glowing eyes in the dark. But on the whole it just lacked the scares and the nervous feeling of terror. So much more could've been done with this movie to make it so, and that's what seriously drags it down. A mostly unscary, sometimes tedious horror movie. You have to ask yourselves, is it worth your time?
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Resident Evil (2002)
4/10
The ragged they come, the ragged they kill. - Hardly!
26 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Essentially, I was extremely unimpressed by this movie because of the wasted opportunity that it was! This review may contain spoilers! (- if this movie can be spoiled by giving away plot details!)

To put this in context, I have never played the game but have always been aware of it and its reputation. I have always enjoyed the classic zombie movies of the 70's & 80's. As such, I felt it would make a good movie, especially as there have been no good zombie movies for quite a while.

The story was quite passable, but not totally engaging. The acting was also average, but that's what I'd expect from such a movie. Hell, the greatest zombie movies suffer from poor acting.

However, there are 2 major flaws with this movie. Firstly, the marketing aspect. It's based on a computer game, therefore it has to appeal to a younger market - there goes any potential for a nice gory movie. Secondly, as a result of this, it's clearly more of an action movie than horror or zombie flick.

There are moments that are supposed to be scary but these are all practically signposted - no surprises. You can practically guess what will happen next. This isn't a scary movie. The scary element of a zombie movie is the way these monsters never relent until they've totally ripped apart their victim. There is literally no blood or gore in this movie - no horror! The effects of missing body parts might be nicely completed, but the zombie action is ultimately poor. Does the audience really want to watch another average gung-ho Aliens rip off??

The action itself isn't particularly spectacular either. It's still amazing that these trained killers can't figure out that since body shots have no effect, a head shot might have more impact. And it was unsurprising to see the introduction of a "superbeast" into the movie, to allow for a greater amount of pointless CGI. Musically, they overdo it on the industrial metal front (an excuse for a tie in CD!!). More atmospherics and sparing using of the industrial metal would have been more effective!

This movie is passable entertainment, but it just could have been so much more. One can only imagine how different this movie would have been if George Romero had remained in charge. Do yourself a favour, watch the classics (Night Of the Living Dead, Dawn Of the Dead, Day Of the Dead, Zombi 2, Evil Dead) rather than this average action movie!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mallrats (1995)
8/10
Jay and Silent Bob as cool as they'll ever be!!!
4 January 2000
I get the impression that most people who comment about Kevin Smith's movies have never actually seen Mallrats and know it simply as his 'bad one'. They're missing out. Both Mallrats and the equally criticised Dogma are his best movies and are consistently funny and enjoyable. Clerks and Chasing Amy seemed to get a bit too weighed down at times but Mallrats is just so cool and so much fun to watch it's impossible not to like. Just because it is not another Clerks it gets criticised - critics would obviously be happier if Kevin Smith continually made films identical to that and then they'd get bored and criticise him for lack of originality. Ignore all the bad stuff you've heard about this movie, check it out and enjoy. Don't waste the opportunity to see something worth watching for once!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed