Valentine (2001) User Reviews

Its NOT that bad a movie

[funkervogt · 6/10 · 7 February 2001]

This movie, despite the low rating is NOT that bad. It is better then most of the teen movies that come out these days. (I liked it more then scream and I know what you did.....). I mean, its nothing ground breaking its just good scares and fun. Don't go into this movie expecting anything special...just some typical scares and it will make you jump at times. There are also a few good death scenes. Get your friends and go see this for a good time.....I give it 6/10

Roses are red, violets are blue. They'll need dental records to identify you.

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 15 February 2021]

A loose adaptation of a novel by Tom Savage, the 21st century, post-"Scream" slasher "Valentine" offers adequate entertainment, but not much more. It doesn't offer much that is fresh or interesting. Of course, it may still appeal to die hard lovers of this time-honored formula, especially the way that it concentrates on a very attractive, largely female cast. A bunch of friends start to get threatened and then killed by a mystery murderer who wears a creepy cherub mask. It just MIGHT be that geek whom the girls spurned back in junior high, but they can't know for sure.

Amusingly, many of the male characters are portrayed as being smarmy, self-serving jerks. Even nice guy Adam (David Boreanaz) has a character flaw; he's a sportswriter with a weakness for the bottle. It is because this particular slasher is so female-centric that it works to any degree. Some horror fans may appreciate the fact that director Jamie Blanks ("Urban Legend", "Storm Warning") downplays gore (for the most part, there are still some violent moments) in favor of straight suspense. All in all, the film is slick, and watchable, but hardly inspired, going through its paces with some competency but no nuance.

The cast doesn't rise above their material, but the gorgeous ladies (Denise Richards, Jessica Cauffiel, Katherine Heigl, etc.) and the hunky Boreanaz are entertaining enough to watch. Marley Shelton is the main focus as Kate, herself a journalist who is trying to learn to trust Adam (Boreanaz) again. In an amusing twist, even the requisite detective on the case (Fulvio Cecere) turns out to be a lech.

There is a prominent plot point involving nosebleeds that had some veteran horror fans recalling the 1982 thriller "Alone in the Dark", which did the same thing more memorably. The story plays out in a way familiar to any "Friday the 13th" series fan, where you have a final girl discovering various dead bodies during the final act.

You could certainly do better than this, but you could also definitely do worse.

Six out of 10.

almost good.... naaa, still quite bad

[baumer · 5/10 · 6 February 2001]

Valentine has a great premise. It takes all that Halloween stood for and tries to update it. It fails of course, but you have to give it full marks for trying. Where as a lot of films try to be original and fail at that as well, at least you can say that there is a masked killer in this film, he is incredibly strong, he walks and still catches his victims as they run and he finds original and quite disgusting ways of disposing of his victims. So I give the film credit for trying. But like most other films that have tried to follow in Screams footsteps, it does fail quite miserably.

Valentine is a story about a geeky kid that just wants to be accepted in the sixth grade. He is at a dance and asks all the pretty girls to dance and they all say no. Some of them are disgustingly mean to him and tell him that they would rather be boiled alive than to dance with him ( guess how that character dies? ). Then one heavy set girl decides she will make out with him and then when all the popular guys catch her doing it, she says that he forced himself on her and they beat the tar out of him and he is sent to reform school. That is the beginning and it is well done. It sets up the killer on the loose with a revenge plot quite nicely. We of course skip ahead about 15 years and we have beautiful women in college lined up to be slaughtered. The opening death is extremely laughable but has its moments of nice touches and subtle homages to films like Halloween. It is worth mentioning how the first woman is killed because it is a lesson in horror mythology of all the wrong things to do to attract a killer on the loose on a college campus.

A young woman just comes back from a disasterous date and decides that she is going to go do an autopsy at 11 o clock at night. Then to top it off, she is wearing a flimsy tank top, has large breasts and she decides to keep the lights off in the autopsy room, because, well you know, you don't need light to disect a human being. I started to ask myself why she was allowed to disect a corpse with no supervision this late and with no lights on seeing as she was only a med student. Horror movies are always filled with silly situations ( Friday the 13th's, no one wipes after they are finished in the bathroom, people always go to investigate noises and so on ) but this is one of the sillier ones. Then when she is grabbed by the corpse, instead of leaving, she stays in the room to see who it is. And then when the things chases her, she doesn't go for the door, she tries to hide in the other rooms. DUMB! DUMB! DUMB!

Figuring out who the killer is is fun, I must admit and they do a good job of concealing his identity until the end so you have to give it credit for that as well. But this is not really a scary film and it is not even a well done film. It had it's moments but when it leaves the theater, no one will really remember anything about it. Nothing really jumps out at you. I think Jamie Blanks has an idea of what it takes to scare an audience, he has probably tried to emulate many of the greats like Raimi, Hitchcock and Carpenter, but he can't quite seem to hit the perfect note. Maybe if he keeps trying he will get it because there are scenes in here that are close to perfection but then they end too abruptly or without the proper pay off. That is what made Halloween so elusive in it's brilliance. The pay off was so horrific and so perfect that to try to duplicate it is almost unfathomable. Valentine comes close but ultimately fails.

This is not as bad as some horror out there but it is not in the same league as some of the new horror films that have made audiences embrace horror again. Sixth Sense, Blair Witch, Stir Of Echoes, The Gift are all pretty good films. Valentine is on the brink.

6 out of 10

Slasher movie with a marvellous group of beauties

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 9 August 2007]

The picture begins in the 1980s at a High school party, a young geeky named Jeremy Malton is insulted and humiliated by young girls and boys.Years later the same girls(Katherine Heigl,Marley Shelton,Denise Richards,Jessica Caufield,Jessica Capshaw),nowadays grown-up and beauties are threatened by someone who send them a rare Valentine's day cards.After one of the girls is brutally murdered in the anatomy lab by someone wearing a cherub mask.Later are killed one at time,always appearing the masked psycho-killer.Then ,the Police inform them which Jeremy has not been seen from many years ago,and are suspects all their boyfriends(David Boreanaz: Bones, among other).

This slasher packs suspense,terror,gory killing and beautiful girls.The chief excitement lies in seeing what new and spectacular death can be executed by the cruel murderer that seems to dispatch some new victim every few minutes of runtime.The picture gets restless horror,shocks,tension and takes accent as the suspense as well as the terror when the gory murders happen.In the wake from ¨Prom night,Scream and I still knows what you did last summer¨,the movie take parts here and there of these movies.It's all frightening entertaining ,if predictable but we have seen the previous films,but also its predictability is redeemed in part by the wonderful protagonists.The film displays a colorful cinematography by Rick Bota and adequate music score by Don Davis(Matrix and sequels,Jurassik Park III).The motion picture is professionally directed by Jamie Blanks,he's composer and director and made a similar film titled ¨Urban legend¨.The movie will like to psycho-killer genre enthusiastic but gets some decent scares and a twisted ending. Rating : Average but entertaining.

Not very good, but better than expected

[jhaggardjr · 4/10 · 3 March 2002]

"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however.

** (out of four)

Roses Are Red...

[sammymayson · 6/10 · 25 April 2022]

A group of friends who tormented a young boy when they were in middle school receive threatening Valentine's Day cards from a mysterious killer who wants them all to hurt like he did.

Valentine is a visually beautiful film and the nearly all-female cast is impressive, but not all of them are given characters developed enough for us to care about the impending demise. Denise Richards impresses the most as a good time girl looking out for herself. The killer, dressed as Cupid, has a great look as well and almost all of the death scenes are creative.

Not too original - but a step in the right direction.

[bsupunk78 · 3 February 2001]

Ok. I'll say it right now - I'm NOT a fan of 1990's horror. Scream, I Know What You Did, etc... they can do without me. I'm a fan of 80's slashers, though - and the Italian horror films of Fulci and Argento.

While Valentine does share much with it's 1990's brothren (hot young cast, pulsating soundtrack), it also has much to share with 80's slasher flicks, and the films of Argento (please, fans of the maestro do not crucify me yet).

First an explanation of the 80's comparison, it should be a fairly obvious comparison. A young boy is tormented and rejected by his schoolmates, and comes back later to seek revenge. If that wasn't typical enough of the 80's, he also dispatches of victims in a way that reminds me of Prom Night. It's a very nice - you know who it is, but you don't - type of feel. As for comparing Valentine with Dario Argento's films - just look at the style of the killer, and then view "Tenebre." The black gloves, the relentless stalking, and even the death scenes (at times) could be seen as "style over substance."

All in all, Valentine is a fun, but sometimes slow moving, horror flick that is just a cut above the average horror films of late. It might not be such a big improvement, but it's definitely an effort.

Although Not Being a Great Movie, There Are Many Positive Points in the Screenplay

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 17 August 2004]

On the Valentine Day, after acknowledging the violent death of the former high school friend and presently student of medicine Shelley Fisher (Katherine Heigl), who was found with her throat sliced in a body bag, the friends Kate Davies (Marley Shelton), Paige Prescott (Denise Richards), Lily Voight (Jessica Cauffiel) and Dorothy Wheeler (Jessica Capshaw) are threatened by some weird Valentine cards and gifts. Kate has a boyfriend that she likes, Adam Carr (David Boreanaz), but the guy has a drinking problem and Kate does not feel safe with him. Page is a shallow and promiscuous young woman and Dorothy is very insecure and has many complexes because she was a fat teenager. They believe that an old school student from their high school, who was abused by other students in a Valentine party, is responsible for the menaces. Although not being a great movie, there are many positive points in the screenplay of `Valentine'. First of all, a beautiful cast: Marley Shelton and Denise Richards are delicious, Katherine Heigl, Jessica Cauffiel and Jessica Capshaw are very pretty women, and David Boreanaz is a handsome man. The murderers are very original and tense, specially the first one in the morgue; the locations, highlighting the video art gallery, are fancy. One negative point is the beginning of the movie, which is plagiarized from `Carrie'. But the greatest flaw in the screenplay is the lack of motives for the serial killer. There is no clue or hint showing why the killer commits such murders. Anyway, after the pros and cons, I believe that the viewers who like Jason, Freddy Krueger or Leatherface will have a good time with this Cherubim-masked killer. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): ` O Dia do Terror' (`The Day of the Terror')

This is right up my alley

[rcaballero-78131 · 5/10 · 5 July 2019]

This movie is both horrible and amazing at the same damn time! I love any slasher in this time period early 2000's. Typical slasher if that's your kind of thing I'd definitely watch

Not just a silly slasher film

[BrandtSponseller · 9/10 · 7 March 2005]

A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them?

My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".

It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.

Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".

Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.

Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.

While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more.

"Roses are red, Violets are Blue, They'll need dental records to identify you."

[drewnes · 6/10 · 30 May 2021]

I like that this is a horror movie that has the 90's feel to it, but also doesn't forget to have some fun. It has cheesy moments but the cast did a good job and Don Davis added a nice touch with his score.

I can just see the story board on this one

[rlcsljo · 5/10 · 11 April 2001]

Scenario: Studio big wig to hack producer--"We need a horror film for Valentines day--give me a storyboard(sketch) by the end of the week!". Next Week: Hack producer shows scene of guy in cupid mask shooting preppy chicks with arrows, nothing else--what else can you do for Valentines day? Studio big wig: "We cant keep up a film for an hour and a half with that crap--steal stuff from every hackneyed horror film you can think of--especially 'Scary Movie'".

Next week hack producer produces about 20 minutes of cool death scenes with some half baked originality.

Studio big wig: "I like it! now get me a cheap ghost writer to fill in the other hour and I think I can get Denise Richards!"

That's pretty much it, throw in a few relatives of some semi-famous actors looking for a break and you have "Valentine".

A bunch of good looking slasher scenes looking for a plot.

I hope Denise makes it big before her looks go!

Marilyn Manson is on the soundtrack. What more do you want?

[Jack the Ripper1888 · 8 August 2002]

The best thing about the film is the soundtrack: Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie and a bunch more. But, the film itself wasn't that bad. The killings are original and much better than Wes Craven's SCREAM. The cast is not very well known except for Marley Shelton (one of the many stars of THE BACHELOR) and the amazingly hott Denise Richards (you must see WILD THINGS)!

VALENTINE scores some points for being able to pull of some scary moments, which many horror movies are not able to do. It does not have the steadily mounting terror that THE EXORCIST held, nor does it contain interesting characters (most of them are original and stupid people who learned nothing from Jamie Kennedy's "Rules to Survive a Horror Movie" in SCREAM). If you want a horror movie that isn't genre defying nor terrifying, see VALENTINE. It is somewhat scary and entertaining which is most important. VALENTINE gets 3/5.

Does a mask on a face automatically mean 'terror'??

[ljwickert · 1/10 · 3 August 2001]

How many blonde, big-breasted women can be cast in the same movie?? This one tries to set the record. Very poor.....not really scary....and you can figure out the real killer pretty quick. Watching G.W. Bush try and pronounce a 'big word' is scarier than this flick! F

Good horror flick with a good story and a surprise ending, and hope for a sequel.

[Brian-272 · 7/10 · 10 August 2001]

Sure I know Valentine isn't the best horror film ever made, but it's a blend of terror mixed with sexy dialogue. The story is very good as it travels through the years having you thinking all the time the killings are motivated by revenge only to have a surprise in the end when you see who the masked killer is. Many people are given a rough time, but often others surprise and cause terror on others for their own hidden pain. Valentine is a great movie which has terror taken out on a cliche of people plus the sexy feeling from some of the female actresses will make you really enjoy this flick and the ending proves we need a sequel.

Horrible translation of a great book.

[billkubert · 1/10 · 12 February 2004]

Valentine is a hack job of a horror film that not only rips off a very good novel but also completely screws up the tension that the novel gave. It makes the movie `Scream' look like a masterpiece, and all of the actors involved deliver bad performances except David Boreanaz who actually does a decent job with what is giving but not even he is good enough to save this movie from itself.

Avoid.

Honestly?

[rosepetals495 · 7/10 · 15 August 2006]

OK, I'm going to be honest with you. The only reason I want to watch this movie (well, the first time anyway) was because David Boreanaz is in it. I know, shallow, right? Well, this comedy thriller was actually pretty good!

One thing that I LOVED was that Kathrine Hiegl's name is on the front of the box and yet she was only in 10 minutes of this 96 minute movie. That's okay though. The beginning part at the dance, was very upsetting and, of course, I felt sympathy towards Jeremy Melton. I mean, if you don't you have some serious problems. This entire movie consisted of constant murders and suspense, you barely have time to breathe!; there isn't a lot of down-time.

Did anyone else get freaked out about the whole maze thing? God, that was one of the creepiest parts of the entire movie!! And then when Lily is trying to find a way out, all of the screens start to turn off or go all static-y, I'm scared for her!! In the background you hear people saying, "Don't walk away from me"s and "Love me"s and "What do you like to do"s. AND THOSE EYES!!! *shiver*

This is probably one of the only recent horror movies I've seen that had some reasonable actors! Most horror movies stink because of the acting, but this one was actually pretty good because of it! With the exception of Marley Shelton (Kate). I don't understand where she got her acting diploma! I did like one of her lines describing Adam (Boreanaz), "Well, he's no angel...". You know. Because of his role on Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Angel? Okay then...

The ending was a major plot twist! Throughout the entire movie you pretty much know who the culprit is, but you don't know WHO it is... Does that make any sense? Well, if you've seen the movie, then you should get what I'm saying. Overall, this movie is very good!

7/10 stars!

A great slasher with a very misleading rating

[Dragoneyed363 · 9/10 · 28 March 2008]

I wanted to see Valentine ever since I saw that Denise Richards and Marley Shelton starred in it, because they had played in some of my favorite movies ever and some of the most enjoyable films, or so I thought, released in recent years. It looked mediocre, I must admit, and even though I had that in mind, I was also expecting it to be fun and entertaining nonetheless, at least. When I actually watched Valentine, I was amazed at how great the story line actually was for a slasher flick, and even though it has problems as any other slasher does, it is really entertaining and fun from beginning to end, which is all I need from a slasher to be satisfied.

It pains me to see that it has a low rating, because it was not that horrible at all. The actors and actresses played the parts wonderfully, or at least to the best of their ability with the characters and screenplay that they were given, and the way it ended was so brilliant and cunning, even if many don't think so, or were already put off at that point. Some scenes were a little unbelievable and/or poor, and I confess at a few minor parts it got just a bit boring, but overall it was non-stop entertaining and actually suspenseful, the first time around at least. It had a mind-twisting story line which made you guess the whole way through, as do most slasher movies, and it doesn't deserve all the crap it gets. I recommend this movie to watch anytime, but especially on Valentine's Day because it's sure to give you a ton of chills. Oh, and don't even pay attention to the trailer or rating. Especially not the trailer or rating, please. . .

Good Post-Scream Slasher

[michellegriffin-04989 · 7/10 · 7 August 2020]

A stellar assortment of familiar faces fills out the cast of this post-Scream slasher that seems less interested in that era's self-reflective humor and more interested in the relationships between the women and giving the audience a refreshingly old school style slash fest. Director Jamie Blanks fills every scene with tons of style and the killer's cupid masked garb is pretty unnerving in the best way.

Started with a sixth grade party. Never reached that intellectual level.

[gesteve · 1/10 · 13 April 2003]

This movie is so bad that it couldn't have been written by anyone with a sixth grade education. It was a total waste of resources to produce this thing. There is so much bad about the technical facts that 1,000 words would barely begin to note all of them. Read a book and use this tape for stuffing the trash bag.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre for beauty-queens.

[Coventry · 5/10 · 16 December 2005]

I think I'll have to categorize this film under "guilty pleasures", since the rest of the world really despised it (and probably righteously so...) whereas I found it mildly enjoyable! Sure it's banal modern day horror junk that hangs together by clichés and stupid plot holes, but at least it's never boring and it's actually quite funny in a cheesy kind of way. Five hot twenty-something babes, seemly with a lot of free time on their hands, all receive shocking Valentine cards signed with the initials "J.M". Could this be the morbid revenge of a nerdy kid that the popular girls collectively humiliated during a school dance more than 12 years ago? The joke really becomes alarming when Shelly is found brutally murdered...and she's only number one. The poorly written script is (unintentionally?) hilarious! Even though it are mainly just girls that get slaughtered, this movie is very man-unfriendly! Every male character that gets introduced is either a sexual pervert or a socially dysfunctional loser...most are even both! Heck, even the police inspector turns out to be an obscene freak! There's absolutely no tension and you can predict every next twist hours in advance. The beauty-queen killings are reasonably inventive but almost entirely bloodless, so gore-hounds beware. The ending (as in: the actual revelation of the killer's identity) is totally absurd and makes the movie even worse that Jamie Blanks' previous turkey "Urban Legend". In fact, "Valentine" was released 20 years too late! With a plot and gore opportunities like this, it could have been a minor 80's slasher-classic like "Happy Birthday To Me" or – oh yes – "My Bloody Valentine". Nobody cares about such slashers anymore nowadays. The politically correct American horror standards don't allow nudity or brutal gore and that's why every new slasher attempt looks lame.

Cupid draw back your bow. Slice and dice Valentine's Day.

[michaelRokeefe · 5/10 · 26 May 2002]

This slasher flick will actually hold your interest. Remember the nerd that couldn't get a dance at the prom? The same guy that seemed to always get stripped to his shorts and beaten to a pulp. Time does not heal those wounds, because he is now striking back at those that tormented and rejected him. Usually an advance warning in the guise of a valentine card/gift arrives. A neat little who-really-done-it. And talk about some nice looking victims.

The cast includes the gorgeous Denise Richards, Katherine Heigl, Jessica Capshaw, Jessica Cauffiel, David Boreanaz and Daniel Cosgrove. A whole lot of flashy, classy good looks; but very little actual acting skills. Miss Richards is worth sitting through the gore. Really this is a lot better than you might think.

Who is the killer, and Denise Richards' neck

[gtfernandez · 4/10 · 14 August 2015]

A group of female friends (around 25 years old) are being stalked by a man who seems to be a boy they bullied at 12. People start dying, a detective tries to solve the mystery, and the girls start having differences between them. The main idea, despite simple, is not bad. But the script is actually dull and ridiculous. And the acting, as you can imagine with that casting, is painfully poor. The "monster" of this movie, is a character about which we know nothing. This means there are no fascinating psychic features in his personality neither strange behaviors, an interesting lifestyle, strong and weird motivations, not even curious aesthetic aspects. He is a standard man wearing a ridiculous Cupid mask, without breaks, grime or anything to make it sordid. Among the girls there are no attractive psychic profiles or intimate conflicts either. And, of course, there are some extremely soft erotic moments (no nudity neither sex involved) around Denise Richards' character (her neck is the wildest thing you'll see and that's why this Review's Title), completely gratuitous and disconnected with the plot. The killing scenes are pathetic. Victims behave stupidly like Carmen Electra's character in Scarie Movie. The killer has no sinister behavior. And the act of killing itself is often physically absurd and visually not depicted. To sum up, there is nothing terrifying, sinister or even dark in this movie. It's basically a dumb "horror" flick for kids to watch a Sunday at 9pm with mom and dad at the living room. Of course, shooting, sound design, cinematography, editing, wardrobe and locations are not interesting, sharp or expressive either. By the way, it is absurd that this film got Certificate 16 at the USA. It's one of thousands of examples proving that the MPAA must seriously revise their labeling criteria.

A wannabe Michael Myers on a different holiday

[drdre1 · 6/10 · 4 February 2001]

In this day of horror movies, we have to understand that any new horror movie that comes out has already somehow or some way been done before. This is the case for Valentine, where there is evidence of a Prom Night meets Halloween type of plot. The movie seems to start off slow but does indeed get better as it progresses, providing some good scares and suspense. Overall, it isn't that bad a horror movie compared to some of the other bombs that have come out in the past few years. ** out of ****