morgan1976 Reviews

Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002 Video)

Surprising, Hellraiser 6 is better than 3-5!

[7/10 · 15 September 2004]

This is a pretty good sequel in this series (my favorites, in order: 1, 2, 6, 4, 5, 3). Bringing back the Kirsty Cotton character was the best thing for this series. Maybe I'm a sucker for female heroes. Let's face it, sequels seem better with more familiar faces; "Halloween" and Jamie Lee Curtis being prime examples (although I thought 'H20' and 'Resurrection' weren't very good, she definitely brought them up a few levels).

This franchise is so strange, it keeps continuity: the building in part 3 returns in part 4; part 4 occurs way in the future, making all other sequels after it flashbacks, but the series never screws the viewer over by trying to pretend the events of the previous films never happened (take that "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", and "A Nightmare on Elm Street"!). But "Hellraiser" does suffer from taking itself too seriously, making 3 & 4 almost laughable. 5 suffered from and unsympathetic character and 6 borders on that same edge. Kirsty ties this movie together so nicely because she brings the past back to the present, and we feel for her because we know her already.

Acting-wise, I think this is the best of the series, followed by the first two. Plot-wise it follows the first two--this is a sequel where you need not watch parts 3-5 before seeing it. The series' advantage over other horror franchises is that it's linear and non-linear at the same time. Watch the first two in order, and the others in any other order you choose--the continuity doesn't suffer. Or you can forget 3-5 and watch 1, 2, and 6 and have your own little Kirsty/Pinhead-trilogy.

But I won't completely sugar-coat this film. Kirsty's not in it much and Pinhead and the Lament Configuration are in it even less. The main character is quasi-unsympathetic, but based on the plot, you're really not supposed to know what to feel for him. I found myself confused a few times, but everything wrapped up at the end. The special-effects are on par with part 5--so it's pretty much the best in the series on that level too. I think the editing could have been a bit better, as it cut from some scenes too quickly or left the viewer lost for a minute or two before catching up, but overall it wasn't that bad and there were some very nice transitions. One or two things are never completely resolved, or are intentionally left to the viewer's imagination and I haven't figured them out yet.

My favorite thing about this film is it's length: it knows when to quit; it's not too long and not too short. If only the series would know when to quit. Coming soon: 'Hellraiser: Deader' and 'Hellraiser: Hellworld'…and possibly a 'VS.' film against another franchise villain-that truly will be 'hell on earth.' And not in a good way

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000 Video)

Decent, but not very interesting...

[6/10 · 12 September 2004]

This is an alright detective film, I guess, but as a "Hellraiser" installment, it doesn't fit. I like that Pinhead is more in the background here as he was in the earlier films, but he in this so little, you really forget that it's supposed to be a "Hellraiser" film. If you replaced the him and the box with anything or anyone else, it might be a better movie. To be fair, it's not actually a bad film, just a tad on the boring side--I found my mind wandering away about what the next installment is like and how it fits into the series. The acting's not bad, the plot starts out good but flat-lines about halfway through, but I might give it another glance on a boring, rainy day. Can I recommend this film? No, but I wouldn't tell people not to watch it either. If you're a fan of the earlier installments, you'll probably want to see this too, but it's pretty forgettable.

Red Dragon (2002)

Better than Hannibal.

[8/10 · 20 August 2004]

I was pretty disappointed when they said they were filming this. Originally filmed as "Manhunter" (before "Silence of the Lambs"), without Anthony Hopkins, I thought the original was good and didn't warrant a remake--Hollywood just wanted to make more money off the Hannibal Lecter 'trilogy' (Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal). And after the not-so-great "Hannibal", I was expecting the worst. Although it looks like a shiny, expensive Hollywood film; it's really pretty good. Not as great as it's predecessors, but very watchable. Ted Tally returns as script-writer (he did "Silence..." as well), and he knows how to adapt Harris' novels--I just wonder why he didn't decide to adapt "Hannibal", which could have been much better. The acting is better than good, but I can't say great and I can't exactly put my finger on why that is. Everyone is good in their roles, although there's something about Watson's American accent that rubs me the wrong way and I think it hinders her performance a little bit (it's akin to Kate Winslet's in "Titanic"...ugh!). I don't think "Red Dragon" has the rewatchability as "Silence..." but it's still certainly good enough to watch more than once. I recommend it in addition to "Silence...", but "Hannibal" is skippable.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Excellent!

[10/10 · 20 August 2004]

When I first saw the trailer to this in the theaters, I was instantly interested in it, so I read the book before it's release. Although movies seldom live up to the respective novels in which their based, this one equals it, but in different ways. I have to hand it to Ted Tally for his script adaptation; his script keeps the core of the story while stripping away the more complex and unnecessary aspects of the novel and still makes it suspenseful and interesting. The acting is magnificent, Foster plays Clarice with what looks like such ease, and yet keeps the character complex, smart, strong, and comfortably flawed, and aware of those flaws. Hopkins is equally brilliant as Lecter: he is everything Clarice is but more charming and unaware he possesses any flaws at all. One of the things I love about the film is it's simplicity. The sets and clothes look normal, unimportant, everyday, cheap. Nothing's flashy or overly ornate looking. It still holds up very well after 13 years. Won Oscars for Best Actor, Actress, Adapted Screenplay, Director, and Picture. Highly recommended.

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)

Actually pretty good, but kinda stupid.

[6/10 · 19 August 2004]

So it's come to Pinhead in space! Actually, the movie follows the creator of the puzzle box and his bloodline through hundreds of years of meeting up with the cenobytes. At first I was put off on the fact that it starts in space before flashing back in time to tell the story, but it's not too bad. It even refernces the 'Lament Configuration' building the last movie ended with. The effects were pretty good, considering it's a low-budget film (was this straight-to-video?); and the acting was really good for a low-budget horror sequel (nice to see the Meryl Streep look-alike chick from "A Nightmare On Elm Street 2" found work again). I wouldn't say this film is scary or even gory, but very watchable in my opinion. Overall, I went into this film with really, really low expectations after seeing Part 3, but I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the movie and surprised that the absurd storyline actually works.

Evita (1996)

Very well-done.

[10/10 · 19 August 2004]

I've been a fan of this musical for years and I've been a fan of Madonna's for years (although I've been pretty critical of her acting and choice of film roles), so I was ecstatic when she finally got the part she's been fighting for for many years. "Movie musicals are really long music videos with a storyline." I heard people refer to this film as that since it's release and, well yeah--it is, what the hell do you expect a movie musical to be like? If it was a film of the stage version, well, it wouldn't be a movie would it? This is a sung-through musical: no dialogue. Most other musical movies will have dialogue and then break into song, which seems unnatural and silly. Evita, from start to finish, is non-stop music, so there aren't really any awkward moments of breaking into song. I think this movie was extremely well-done, and well-sung (although other fans of the stage version criticized the way the music was re-written to accommodate Madonna's voice, but I found her voice to sound more natural than say, Patti LuPone's high-pitched shouting of every line being said/sung <I love Patti's Evita, but what worked for the stage, wouldn't work on film>). My only real gripes with the film are with the balcony scenes and the noticeable differences in the soundtrack where some parts were obviously sung live and not lip-synced--the audio just doesn't match up. The balcony scenes were either shot from so far that the cast looked like little ants in the background, or so close that you can't tell if it's really the real Casa Rosada's balcony (Madonna actually did sing on the same balcony Eva Peron made several speeches from) or just a set on a sound stage. Those two minor gripes aside, I really love this movie. And before you say, "but I don't like Madonna", well her acting is really pretty good here, but you'll find the real scene-stealer is Antonio Banderas. If you like musicals, you'll like "Evita".

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

A bad movie, that's really bad...

[1/10 · 19 August 2004]

Okay, I like bad movies. I even liked "Friday the 13th. Part 5: A New Beginning". My criteria for a bad horror film: 1) the acting doesn't have to be great, but at least as good as a high school drama student; 2) special effects don't have to look that real, but at least show that someone tried to make it look realistic (show a little effort); 3) it should have a somewhat coherent plot; and (applying only to sequels) 4) let it follow the other movies logically, use a little continuity, and resolve what was left unresolved in the previous film(s). That said, this film isn't even 'so-bad-it's-good' it's just bad. Terrible acting, terrible story, but slightly follows previous movies in the series via references to Kirsty Cotton, from the first two films. But even the reference is, at best, weak and only serves as a way to connect the film to the others (which is okay, but amounts to-- and resolves nothing). The new cenobites are pretty stupid too. This movie tries to be things it cannot be: it tries to be a good story, but it's not; it tries to add a little comedy, but nothing's funny; it tries to be scary, but if there was any horror in this movie it's the fact that it was made at all. But it is gory, but not like the previous movies. Pinhead is more menacing when he's in an atmosphere that's not quite British and not quite American. He's scarier in an attic or in the walls of a mental hospital than a New York nightclub or in the streets of Manhattan. This film sort of suffers from the 'Friday the 13th Syndrome'--"let's put Pinhead in New York and see what happens". What's next, Pinhead in space?

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

Everyone's favorite step-mom is back--and this time she's skinless!

[7/10 · 19 August 2004]

Even if the story's weak, bringing back the surviving (or not surviving) cast members of the original, can make a sequel better. Everyone thinks crazy old Kirsty Cotton is making up stories of demons from hell (which happened to be her attic), but we all know better, don't we? She's now in a mental institution with a girl with a penchant for solving puzzles, under the guidance of a sadistic doctor with a penchant for a skinless Julia. Part of the story is just a re-hash of the first with different characters in similar situations. This time around we go to hell and find that it's like an Escher painting with a giant "Lament" diamond spinning in the sky. Not as good as the first film, but pretty close--a bit gorier and disturbing (but after "Hellraiser", I was expecting this) The acting is similar to the first film, but the special effects are a bit more elaborate this time around as the budget was bigger due to the success of it's predecessor.

Hellraiser (1987)

Bloody disturbing fun!

[7/10 · 19 August 2004]

I've been watching horror films ever since I can remember. The first one I really remember seeing was Halloween 2. I was 11 when I saw this film and it was the first horror film that really creeped me out after being desensitized by modern horror films (pre-1987). I remember lots of controversy about "Hellraiser" and it's sequel "Hellbound: Hellraiser II" about the amount of gore, sex, and violence and the MPAA wanting to rate them X (before NC-17). I can't believe my parents took me to see it! The acting is decent, but a little wooden. Some of the special effects are pretty silly, like the yellow and blue bolts of electricity (they were borderline-bad back in 1987), but they remain effective and aren't too distracting as some effects in the third "Hellraiser" installment. I remember, even at eleven, that the scariest parts of the film weren't with the cenobytes, but the scenes with Clare Higgins who plays Kirsty's wicked stepmother, Julia. She's cold, distant, calculating, sly, and evil. Uncle Frank is also menacing, but I wouldn't say he is as evil as Julia, but the incestuous feelings toward Kirsty are enough to creep anyone out. I also liked the fact that the films is not quite all-American or British. It makes the movie more accessible to both countries, while keeping that 'this-might-be-anywhere' feeling (like Willy Wonka--where the hell did that take place?). As an adult, this movie is still pretty shocking in it's gore and violence, but not as scary.

Night of the Comet (1984)

Totally awesome, for sure!

[10/10 · 19 August 2004]

Yes, it's a B-movie. Yes, it's a zombie-ish movie. Yes, it's about the end of the world. But it's the mid-eighties, so everything is totally awesome, for sure!

This is one of my favorite horror flicks. There's something about two teenage valley girls from L.A. being the only survivors (well, there are a few others) of an unexpected mass-extinction flyby of a comet, that makes you love this film. It's fun, has a few jumps, and tons of one-liners. It's one of those films that if you watch it more than once, you'll be quoting lines from it. It's all just good fun.

Sadly, I think I've seen this film more than any other film in my life. This used to be my guilty pleasure: I watched this almost every other day for a year when I was a kid and I used to know every line. I just recently watched it after a decade-long absence and I still love it every bit as much.

Swept Away (1974)

Fantastic!

[7/10 · 19 October 2002]

I really loved this movie. I have to admit I only saw this because I heard of Madonna's remake and my love for the Goldie Hawn movie "Overboard", but...wow! Interesting, romantic, powerful, hard-to-watch, political, funny, sad, etc. This movie has it all. You can analyze this movie to death, but it will do it a disservice. Quite simply, it's about a bizarre romance that happens when two people who are total opposites, thus hating each other, are stranded on a remote island and must learn how to live together. By today's standards, this is a very un-P.C. movie: Male domination over a woman. However, it IS just a movie, not real life--don't let that put you off; and there are some scenes that are hard to take, but given the context of the characters, you might think to yourself--"is this deserved?" I think some parts are, and others--not at all. You might like this film if you liked Pedro Almodovar's "Atame! (Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down!)". This is a film you'll end up discussing with others after you've seen it. Also, I don't recommend viewing this around children or very impressionable teenagers.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Interesting movie, but definitely NOT a sequel!!!

[7/10 · 18 October 2002]

I really liked this film. And like so many other before me, I will say that this isn't a sequel to The Blair Witch Project. This is a seperate movie that is loosely connected. This movie plays with your mind (which I have a tendency to enjoy) and sort of makes you think (for as much a horror movie can): Things are not what they seem, and memory can, at times, be deceiving...and your worst enemy. And as I said in my review of The Blair Witch Project, you need an open mind watching this film. Book Of Shadows shows you the blood and gore that wasn't needed in the first film, which is either a plus or minus--depending on your taste. I thought it was interesting and entertaining. Don't take movies (especially horror movies) so seriously people, it's entertainment, nothing more.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

I was never so scared in the theatre!

[10/10 · 18 October 2002]

I won't go on and rehash the plot. But I will say that this movie is NOT for everyone. To see this film, you need an open mind and a pretty good imagination. If you need to see blood, gore, and things popping out at people to be scared--please see something else. The Blair Witch Project is a movie that scares without showing...it's up to you to create the horrors, the unknown, the monster that you're scared of, and take the movie in as real. Suspend your disbelief, and you won't be let down. Knowing it isn't actually based on true events, for me, didn't make it any less scary. On DVD, I think the movie loses quite a bit of the effect it had on the viewer. But even on home video, it remains effectively creepy.

Titanic (1997)

An accurate history lesson...yeah, right!

[2/10 · 18 October 2002]

Rent it if you have a dollar or two and 3 hours to give up.

I've seen this movie roughly 4 times, and that's all the chances I'm giving it. To me, this movie is pure eye-candy. It's beautiful, simply amazing to look at, and if you're deaf--it might be a good film. Everyone in the cast is a fantastic actor/actress. But Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet turn in the WORST performances of their careers. I watched them in embarassment. A bad car accident on film (actually a boat disaster).

That's not to say the film lacks any emotion. I felt for everyone on the ship except Jack and Rose. What really makes my stomach turn is the entire cast and crew not minding that this is a fictional story set in historic facts. It's rearranging history and I do hope future generations don't see it this way. If you liked Disney's Pocahontas or any other film playing off historic events, then you might enjoy this. I'm not saying this couldn't have happened, but I would have preferred that they would have said up front, on the cover or box or poster that this movie is 95% fiction: Yes there was a boat named Titanic, and it did in fact sink.

I wonder if the survivors thought the movie was good or accurate (or if any of them saw it at all). Were their feelings hurt that such a horrific event was made into a blockbuster love-story film and capitalized on relentlessly? I honestly cringe thinking about the future real-life disaster films--will 9/11 be turned into a love story? Maybe...only when we're dead or too old to even see it.

Hollywood, start writing original material. No remakes, no copying, no historical 'what if' scenarios, and no predictable endings. Be creative, be bold, be fresh.

Hannibal (2001)

Great!...but not fantastic.

[7/10 · 13 February 2001]

I'm in a very small group of people who genuinely liked the book. I even liked the ending. As for the movie, I liked everything about it but the ending. The "shocking twist" wasn't very shocking and I was somewhat let-down. I would have preferred the book-ending rather than what they did with the movie. I didn't really miss Jodie Foster at all. I like Julianne Moore as the new Starling and I really couldn't see Jodie Foster taking on this movie anyway--she's not missed. I do wish there was a little more emotion coming from Clarice, she seemed a little too hardened after 10 years. Anthony Hopkins is different in this film compared to the first. He's a little over-the-top, but it's acceptable and understandable (the book was over-the-top as well). Here we see Hannibal free and living life, doing everything he's truly passionate about, yet he's bored and he needs to play. There were just a few parts in the plot that make little or no sense, but I will not spoil them here. I really missed some characters from the book that didn't make the movie, mainly Margot Verger (Mason's sister) and the swimming eel. There is an eel in the film, but it's shown quite briefly and nothing ever comes from it as it does in the book. I also don't think they fully explained the true relationship and emotions Hannibal and Clarice have for one another, whether it's fear, dread, hatred, love, father-figure, teacher, etc. They could have done a little more with the story had they not been so eager to make the film so quickly. Go see this film for your entertainment, but if you want the real story, read the book.