I saw this on late night tv in the early eighties. I was staying at my grandmothers house and I was in a sleeping bag. She had one of those Ye olde toilets where you had to go outside to pee. Needless to say I was to scared to go out side lest the Snowbeast would get me. There was no snow but I was too scared and peed in the sleeping bag. I'm still scared of the dark. And sleeping bags. And my grandmother. She's dead now though which is fine cause she was crazy. Also don't watch scary movies if you have to outside to pee, it may not end well.
Reviews
39 Reviews
Daddy's Little Girl
(II) (2014)
Not very impressive, but worth watching.
9 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
There's major spoilers ahead so don't read this if you haven't seen the film.
Revenge/avenger films are among my favourite types of films, The Horseman; I Spit on Your Grave et al, at the top of my list. After reading some reviews I was quite excited to get the DVD. I was kinda disappointed, so I'll start with the good.
It looks *amazing*, it's wonderfully shot, there's some fantastic crane shots and the camera really adds character to the film. The score, again, awesome, adding another fantastic dimension (and, without trying to sound like a DVD review there's some great rear surround effects, especially during crowd scenes). The story, and the message contained within are also solid.
The bad. Most reviews mention the acting with great praise. For the most part I felt the acting was pretty bad (with the exception of the gorgeous Billi Baker). It was one of those cases where I (and my girlfriend) could really feel each actor waiting to say their respective lines, as a result the dialogue felt forced and unnatural. Not all the time, but most. But I could deal with it because the story was so compelling. The thing that I had problems with mostly was the lack of realism in the police investigation and the torture scene/s.
Firstly; No Forensic Evidence. This film wasn't set in 1980 so unless the kidnapper/murderer was Mandrake there would have been. As evidenced by his diary, the murderer did not plan these things, they were borne out of snap decisions. No Forensic Evidence would imply great care, planning and covering up, the exact opposite of which was implied in the film.
Second; Computer & Diary. The murderer has a nanny cam in the bathroom which leads our protagonist to the murderers computer and an unlocked drawer that contains a diary that describes at great length the extent of his misdeeds. Would you leave something incriminating like that lying around? Let alone let someone use the computer right next to it? Seems unlikely.
Next; Police Sketch. The only witness was an old man who saw "someone leaving the scene at 3am, in the dark, from a distance." When we finally see the sketch it looks *exactly* like the killer. Pretty good description for 3am, in the dark, from a distance. Also, the police have a sketch, they know who the killer is but they wait until the next day to act on it? Four; Cleanliness. The murderer, bolted down on a table for 6 days, did not urinate or defecate the entire time, I don't necessarily need to see that, but I don't need to see someones kneecap getting shattered either and if I do I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be holding it in.
And speaking of cleanliness, Five; on the 5th day of torture the CID detective comes to visit Dad at the site of his vengeful torture. He hears the doorbell just after sawing into his victims arm, spewing blood everywhere, and goes straight upstairs to answer the door and is totally clean. The detective, despite sitting down with him for a period of time does not notice any type of odour emanating from him or his clothes, it's pretty implausible that a hardboiled violent crimes detective would not recognize the scent of blood, feces and burnt flesh. Equally implausible is the idea that there wouldn't be a smell at all.
My biggest problem with the film was that I just didn't care enough about the characters. I didn't care enough about the protagonists situation so that I could feel exalted when he exacted his revenge, and there was so little characterisation that his actions were of no surprise when he found out who killed his daughter. There was so little characterisation of the antagonist, and so little indication of the full extent of his crimes that the only reason I was happy he was getting smashed around was cause he was just a general douchebag.
The fact that I had very little emotional connection to the characters (and believe me I am not an unemotional person) stopped me from being able suspend my disbelief and allowed me to see the flaws in the film.
Other than that I liked it.
Revenge/avenger films are among my favourite types of films, The Horseman; I Spit on Your Grave et al, at the top of my list. After reading some reviews I was quite excited to get the DVD. I was kinda disappointed, so I'll start with the good.
It looks *amazing*, it's wonderfully shot, there's some fantastic crane shots and the camera really adds character to the film. The score, again, awesome, adding another fantastic dimension (and, without trying to sound like a DVD review there's some great rear surround effects, especially during crowd scenes). The story, and the message contained within are also solid.
The bad. Most reviews mention the acting with great praise. For the most part I felt the acting was pretty bad (with the exception of the gorgeous Billi Baker). It was one of those cases where I (and my girlfriend) could really feel each actor waiting to say their respective lines, as a result the dialogue felt forced and unnatural. Not all the time, but most. But I could deal with it because the story was so compelling. The thing that I had problems with mostly was the lack of realism in the police investigation and the torture scene/s.
Firstly; No Forensic Evidence. This film wasn't set in 1980 so unless the kidnapper/murderer was Mandrake there would have been. As evidenced by his diary, the murderer did not plan these things, they were borne out of snap decisions. No Forensic Evidence would imply great care, planning and covering up, the exact opposite of which was implied in the film.
Second; Computer & Diary. The murderer has a nanny cam in the bathroom which leads our protagonist to the murderers computer and an unlocked drawer that contains a diary that describes at great length the extent of his misdeeds. Would you leave something incriminating like that lying around? Let alone let someone use the computer right next to it? Seems unlikely.
Next; Police Sketch. The only witness was an old man who saw "someone leaving the scene at 3am, in the dark, from a distance." When we finally see the sketch it looks *exactly* like the killer. Pretty good description for 3am, in the dark, from a distance. Also, the police have a sketch, they know who the killer is but they wait until the next day to act on it? Four; Cleanliness. The murderer, bolted down on a table for 6 days, did not urinate or defecate the entire time, I don't necessarily need to see that, but I don't need to see someones kneecap getting shattered either and if I do I'm pretty sure they aren't going to be holding it in.
And speaking of cleanliness, Five; on the 5th day of torture the CID detective comes to visit Dad at the site of his vengeful torture. He hears the doorbell just after sawing into his victims arm, spewing blood everywhere, and goes straight upstairs to answer the door and is totally clean. The detective, despite sitting down with him for a period of time does not notice any type of odour emanating from him or his clothes, it's pretty implausible that a hardboiled violent crimes detective would not recognize the scent of blood, feces and burnt flesh. Equally implausible is the idea that there wouldn't be a smell at all.
My biggest problem with the film was that I just didn't care enough about the characters. I didn't care enough about the protagonists situation so that I could feel exalted when he exacted his revenge, and there was so little characterisation that his actions were of no surprise when he found out who killed his daughter. There was so little characterisation of the antagonist, and so little indication of the full extent of his crimes that the only reason I was happy he was getting smashed around was cause he was just a general douchebag.
The fact that I had very little emotional connection to the characters (and believe me I am not an unemotional person) stopped me from being able suspend my disbelief and allowed me to see the flaws in the film.
Other than that I liked it.
Meh
2 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As a true fan of the series, I was somewhat disappointed with this entry into the franchise. It doesn't bother me that it had nothing really to do with the mythology, no conspiracy, no alien replacements, no Doggett, no Reyes.
What did bother me, however, is that it didn't have much else either.
I honestly went in with a completely open mind, and came out unmoved, from an 'event' that should have moved me.
The script was very flat and lifeless. The acting was stale and uninspired (due to the script no doubt). The plot, long and not punchy enough to deserve who slow it played out. And the climax (and I use the term loosely) was really flat. There were no 'spikes' in this film, when 'spikes' are the reason we watch. If anything, I would have to rate this among the more average episodes of the show. Indeed, it actually felt like an episode that had been blown out to a 2 hour run time. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, just make the content something worth watching.
The Good: Seeing Mulder and Scully again. Bless their hearts. Seeing the location type across the bottom left hand side of the screen. Ahh nostalgia. Hearing the signature theme for a brief moment. And, the opening scene was quite good, interesting and gripping.
The Bad: It stops right there after that first scene. The reasons for Mulder's return to the FBI are unsound. Mulder and Scully are both wanted by the FBI. Mulder on the run from his sentence to death. I don't believe for a moment that the FBI would drop charges to save one Agent, considering no one in the high positions believed in his work anyway. There were too many nods and winks for the fans. If Carter had maybe have spent less time naming things after previous writers and directors and more time focusing on writing a tight script, things may have been different. The script had too much emphasis on Scully's patient, and not enough emphasis on what was actually happening in the main story. Scully was really whiny. And it annoyed me that she brought up Samantha. Mulder was a little bit weak, and somewhat boring, he did not have the spirit and gusto that he had in the show. It was not scary. It was barely dramatic. It was not engaging, and unfortunately I really never asked the question "what's going to happen next", or how are they going to solve this?" But rather, when will this speed up. It is only my die hard fan-ship of the show that made me not ask myself "When can I go home?" Although, I did have free tickets, so it would have been silly to leave. And the inclusion of Skinner was an obvious fan treat, and completely irrelevant to the plot.
I hate the fact that I didn't like it. It should have been an event. And it wasn't. I'm not disappointed, because I got to see my beloved Mulder and Scully again. But I wasn't impressed.
An unfortunately low 5/10 :(
What did bother me, however, is that it didn't have much else either.
I honestly went in with a completely open mind, and came out unmoved, from an 'event' that should have moved me.
The script was very flat and lifeless. The acting was stale and uninspired (due to the script no doubt). The plot, long and not punchy enough to deserve who slow it played out. And the climax (and I use the term loosely) was really flat. There were no 'spikes' in this film, when 'spikes' are the reason we watch. If anything, I would have to rate this among the more average episodes of the show. Indeed, it actually felt like an episode that had been blown out to a 2 hour run time. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, just make the content something worth watching.
The Good: Seeing Mulder and Scully again. Bless their hearts. Seeing the location type across the bottom left hand side of the screen. Ahh nostalgia. Hearing the signature theme for a brief moment. And, the opening scene was quite good, interesting and gripping.
The Bad: It stops right there after that first scene. The reasons for Mulder's return to the FBI are unsound. Mulder and Scully are both wanted by the FBI. Mulder on the run from his sentence to death. I don't believe for a moment that the FBI would drop charges to save one Agent, considering no one in the high positions believed in his work anyway. There were too many nods and winks for the fans. If Carter had maybe have spent less time naming things after previous writers and directors and more time focusing on writing a tight script, things may have been different. The script had too much emphasis on Scully's patient, and not enough emphasis on what was actually happening in the main story. Scully was really whiny. And it annoyed me that she brought up Samantha. Mulder was a little bit weak, and somewhat boring, he did not have the spirit and gusto that he had in the show. It was not scary. It was barely dramatic. It was not engaging, and unfortunately I really never asked the question "what's going to happen next", or how are they going to solve this?" But rather, when will this speed up. It is only my die hard fan-ship of the show that made me not ask myself "When can I go home?" Although, I did have free tickets, so it would have been silly to leave. And the inclusion of Skinner was an obvious fan treat, and completely irrelevant to the plot.
I hate the fact that I didn't like it. It should have been an event. And it wasn't. I'm not disappointed, because I got to see my beloved Mulder and Scully again. But I wasn't impressed.
An unfortunately low 5/10 :(
The Happening
(2008)
Painful at best
25 July 2008
I cant believe I watched the whole thing.
This film treats the audience like they are idiots. The plants are getting there revenge? C'mon, if you're going to do that, then remake Day of the Triffids. But you damn well better treat it with the respect it deserves. The plot was so thin I almost missed it as it evaporated in to the air.
The whole movie in one sentence: Nature seeks revenge, Marky Mark and hot chick attempt to outrun, will Planet Earth learn the lesson? That's it.
The only good thing about it was the Cello score.
And let's not forget the token crazy old lady who lives alone in the middle of nowhere, but even she ends up walking backwards. And whats with that? What's the freakin walkin backwards got to do with it? This had rip offs from Psycho to Doctor Who... And thats sad, when you have to rip off Doctor Who.
There was nothing there for any of these actors to work with, everything about this movie sucked. Hard.
I'm going to watch 'Shutter' now, and i will probably give it 7 out of 10 cause of how bad 'The Happening' was.
The Happening. Why not call it 'Oh, the scary Plants come get us Movie'. Are there any plants in New York anyway, wouldn't it have started where the was more flora? At least there wasn't an awkward sex scene.
Man, it all just sucked so bad.
This film treats the audience like they are idiots. The plants are getting there revenge? C'mon, if you're going to do that, then remake Day of the Triffids. But you damn well better treat it with the respect it deserves. The plot was so thin I almost missed it as it evaporated in to the air.
The whole movie in one sentence: Nature seeks revenge, Marky Mark and hot chick attempt to outrun, will Planet Earth learn the lesson? That's it.
The only good thing about it was the Cello score.
And let's not forget the token crazy old lady who lives alone in the middle of nowhere, but even she ends up walking backwards. And whats with that? What's the freakin walkin backwards got to do with it? This had rip offs from Psycho to Doctor Who... And thats sad, when you have to rip off Doctor Who.
There was nothing there for any of these actors to work with, everything about this movie sucked. Hard.
I'm going to watch 'Shutter' now, and i will probably give it 7 out of 10 cause of how bad 'The Happening' was.
The Happening. Why not call it 'Oh, the scary Plants come get us Movie'. Are there any plants in New York anyway, wouldn't it have started where the was more flora? At least there wasn't an awkward sex scene.
Man, it all just sucked so bad.
Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
(2007)
The Most Average of the Average
1 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
In all honesty, I wasn't actually expecting all that much from this movie, and by the looks of it, the film makers weren't expecting all that much either.
There has been no effort put in to any part of this film, making it entirely a 'by the numbers' movie.
Fairly average script, nothing special, but nothing really terrible. Extreme close ups of the actions scenes, making it near impossible to see said action. Stupid goofy mean people that can be used as fodder to be killed off. A ridiculous amount of 'homages' to the rest of the franchise, primarily Aliens (to the point where the Reiko Aylesworth's kid has an English accent, despite living in America and being brought up by an All American Dad). No real action starting until nightfall (in a town without power) so you really can't see anything. Most alien action taking place either off camera, or through diffused pov's like rain washed windows. Not one but TWO massive explosions at the beginning of the movie that NO ONE even notices. Explosions in the middle of town that people drive past without noticing. Stupid Sheriff. Stupid Ex-Con who will go on to prove himself and therefore be able to make a valid contribution to society. Slutty blonde chick who gets killed off way too late. LOTS of CGI. Silly throw away tie-in Yutani reference at the end. Complete lack of realistic actions from the Predator, Aliens and Humans. And so on....
Although, I never realized how good Reiko Aylesworth's body was until this film. It has that much going for it.
Oh, and I rolled my eyes so much during the film that I thought it should have been called AVPRE (Alien Versus Predator Rolling Eyes).
Balls!
There has been no effort put in to any part of this film, making it entirely a 'by the numbers' movie.
Fairly average script, nothing special, but nothing really terrible. Extreme close ups of the actions scenes, making it near impossible to see said action. Stupid goofy mean people that can be used as fodder to be killed off. A ridiculous amount of 'homages' to the rest of the franchise, primarily Aliens (to the point where the Reiko Aylesworth's kid has an English accent, despite living in America and being brought up by an All American Dad). No real action starting until nightfall (in a town without power) so you really can't see anything. Most alien action taking place either off camera, or through diffused pov's like rain washed windows. Not one but TWO massive explosions at the beginning of the movie that NO ONE even notices. Explosions in the middle of town that people drive past without noticing. Stupid Sheriff. Stupid Ex-Con who will go on to prove himself and therefore be able to make a valid contribution to society. Slutty blonde chick who gets killed off way too late. LOTS of CGI. Silly throw away tie-in Yutani reference at the end. Complete lack of realistic actions from the Predator, Aliens and Humans. And so on....
Although, I never realized how good Reiko Aylesworth's body was until this film. It has that much going for it.
Oh, and I rolled my eyes so much during the film that I thought it should have been called AVPRE (Alien Versus Predator Rolling Eyes).
Balls!
Lake Placid 2
(2007 TV Movie)
This Decade's Houseboat Horror
21 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone in this film takes it too seriously. Its not tongue in cheek at all, it looks like it thinks it's a real movie, which is what makes it so terrible. The actors look like they actually think that there's a croc near this lake... When clearly, and I mean, clearly, this is not the case. It's very likely that there was as much money thrown at this as there was at the opening titles of Superman, which I also watched today (thought 'was much better', incidentally).
Oh, look, a fluffy white bunny rabbit! What the hell is such a clean rabbit doing at a dirty lake anyway? Schnieder looking in surprise at his poking stick after its been bitten off... Right after a 40 foot croc eats the pig on the other end of it? What did he expect? Maybe he's shocked that he accepted this script! If the FX weren't so horribly bad (I assume they were made on a Commodore 64) it wouldn't be so horrible (the script still needs some work), but they are so amateur and dated that the film simply can't be taken seriously at all, making the performances seem ridiculously over acted, (the performances that is, not the 'actors' that turned up for one day of shooting to take their clothes off, stage some unconvincing scenes and swim in filthy lake). The glorious special FX of, say, Tarantula (1955), spring to mind.
And cheap cheap cheap. Sometimes the croc doesn't even look like a croc (the dummy they actually hired (sometimes its not C64 animation, but not much), but more so a big pile of crap floating on the water. It's a paradox, they actually use the finished film as a prop on the movie Schnieder would be less annoying if he wasn't grinning like a lunatic for half the film (though he can recognize which of the teens is dead from his sneaker (cause there's only 7 in town)), but McMurray is kinda funny, however not enough to stop me from writing a scathing review whilst I actually watch it to make it more fun.
It lacks pretty much everything the first one has, in fact, it pretty much lacks everything any film has, which is unfortunate as I have nothing else new to watch tonight.
**SPOILER** The dog survives.
Maybe *I* should've faked *my* own death!
Oh, look, a fluffy white bunny rabbit! What the hell is such a clean rabbit doing at a dirty lake anyway? Schnieder looking in surprise at his poking stick after its been bitten off... Right after a 40 foot croc eats the pig on the other end of it? What did he expect? Maybe he's shocked that he accepted this script! If the FX weren't so horribly bad (I assume they were made on a Commodore 64) it wouldn't be so horrible (the script still needs some work), but they are so amateur and dated that the film simply can't be taken seriously at all, making the performances seem ridiculously over acted, (the performances that is, not the 'actors' that turned up for one day of shooting to take their clothes off, stage some unconvincing scenes and swim in filthy lake). The glorious special FX of, say, Tarantula (1955), spring to mind.
And cheap cheap cheap. Sometimes the croc doesn't even look like a croc (the dummy they actually hired (sometimes its not C64 animation, but not much), but more so a big pile of crap floating on the water. It's a paradox, they actually use the finished film as a prop on the movie Schnieder would be less annoying if he wasn't grinning like a lunatic for half the film (though he can recognize which of the teens is dead from his sneaker (cause there's only 7 in town)), but McMurray is kinda funny, however not enough to stop me from writing a scathing review whilst I actually watch it to make it more fun.
It lacks pretty much everything the first one has, in fact, it pretty much lacks everything any film has, which is unfortunate as I have nothing else new to watch tonight.
**SPOILER** The dog survives.
Maybe *I* should've faked *my* own death!
The Hills Have Eyes 2
(2007)
Possibly as Horrid as the Sequel to the Original
30 May 2007
The original sequel to the original film was pretty bad in its own right, as we know it was nothing more than a rehash complete with flashbacks.
This film, while completely different to the original sequel (and therefore not really a remake) is unfortunately just as bad and pointless. Retaining none of the spark and ferocity of the Hills remake that Alexandre Aja injected (much like his earlier, and equally impressive and ferocious High Tension), this film is nothing more than a cash in on the success of the aforementioned remake. It is a poor excuse for a sequel, even if there isn't much to work with (some soldiers and some hills and some violence), Wes Craven should be absolutely ashamed of himself. Not even Aja could have done much with this.
It only warrants a 5/10 because there are some nice moments of gore, but it is entirely predictable, very silly, and looks and feels just like Aja's remake... without any of the substance.
But in all honesty, with so little to work with, and with such an amazing film to be following up on, the recipe was for nothing more than disaster.
I expect Hostel II will be better, but it will be doubtful that it will be by much.
This film, while completely different to the original sequel (and therefore not really a remake) is unfortunately just as bad and pointless. Retaining none of the spark and ferocity of the Hills remake that Alexandre Aja injected (much like his earlier, and equally impressive and ferocious High Tension), this film is nothing more than a cash in on the success of the aforementioned remake. It is a poor excuse for a sequel, even if there isn't much to work with (some soldiers and some hills and some violence), Wes Craven should be absolutely ashamed of himself. Not even Aja could have done much with this.
It only warrants a 5/10 because there are some nice moments of gore, but it is entirely predictable, very silly, and looks and feels just like Aja's remake... without any of the substance.
But in all honesty, with so little to work with, and with such an amazing film to be following up on, the recipe was for nothing more than disaster.
I expect Hostel II will be better, but it will be doubtful that it will be by much.
Wolf Creek
(2005)
That's not a knife...
5 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There is no doubt that there will be two types of reaction to this film, viewers will either love it to death, or hate it's guts. I am of the first, I thought it was great.
A lot of people will hate it, and that's fine, I'll briefly state why i liked it and why you should give it a watch, and in saying those things, I'll also be letting you know why the people who hate it, hate it so much.
There is no real characterization of the cast. That's fine. We know they're going to die anyway, so what's the point? Instead of making the characters likable, Director McLean has filled the first hour up with beautifully shot images of wonder and scenery of the great land of Australia, informing us just how beautiful the wonderful land of Australia really is. Setting us up for the exact opposite in the last act, beautifully shot images of horror, torture, and sheer terror (not for us, for the victims)...
(I would like to point out here, that any of the detractors of this film that spout on about 'the characters are so stupid they deserve to die', well, you should be ashamed of yourself, you seem to forget that whilst this is a fictional horror film, this sort of stuff DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THE WORLD - what rock have you been living under?!? Just because YOU wouldn't react in the same way, and not do something that might be a little unthought out by our protagonists, I would like to remind you that unless you have been in that situation, you don't really have any right to say a freaking word, it's a lot easier for you to comment about how YOU would have done something different... from the comfy surrounds of your air conditioned, stadium seated safety of the cinema... when the biggest threat is that your popcorn might spill, or your going to get ripped off buying maltesers, it's a lot easier to do the most sensible thing).
Uncle Mikey... our antagonist, is McLean's answer to the United State's version of the Australain Ocker Outback Aussie, Mick Dundee. Since the serial slaying of Peter Falconio and the kidnapping of his British backpacking girlfriend, the Outback Aussie, who uses the phrase 'fairdinkum,' is no longer the same mythological figure, once upon a time, Mick Dundee was a figure to be revered, the ever helping, ever knowledgeable, do gooder... this figure no longer exists, this figure has now become someone to fear....
next up.... NOT a slasher film. The antagonist in a slasher film always has a motive. Norman Bates, Zombies, Freddy, Micheal, Jason, Pinhead, the genre classics have a reason to be killing everyone. Uncle Mikey does not. he is not driven by emotion or need, like all those mentioned above. Even Leatherface and his family have motive and need to kill people, they were cannibals, so they killed for food. take note viewers, Uncle Mikey has no motive, Mike has no NEED, uncle Mikey does this for one reason and one reason only. FUN.
He does it because he likes to see people in pain, begging for their lives, bleeding, crying, their eyes when they are raped, their eyes waiting for what's going to happen next, their insistence on being alive when there is no possibility of their escape, he likes to make sure people understand the futility of the cries and their screams, and wants to see the terror in their eyes constantly.
Uncle Mikey is not crazy. He just has no boundaries, just like the Australian Outback. Harsh, unrelenting, uncompromising, just like the Australian Outback.
This will effect Australians, or those that have actually traveled from the east to the west (or vice versa) more than anyone, because you really have to have experienced it to understand the scope, the reality of just how big and empty it really is. Quite simply put, if you meet a psycho out on the road in the middle of Australia, and they want to kill you, or chase you and kill you, the likelihood is... you're gonna die. In fact, the only unrealistic element of this film is that someone survived.
Lastly, at the very end of the film, our antagonist walks off into the sunset (much like the mythological John Wayne type western heroes) and fades away, because he, like the events of the film, is mythological, an urban legend, Uncle Mikey doesn't exist, really, the same way that chick didn't really pop a pimple on her face and have hundreds of baby spiders jump out. The 'these events actually happened' line at the start is not a gimmick, it's part of the film, to give it more of a sense of reality, and after all, is that not what urban legends are all about? To scare you, and make you paranoid? this is a very well made film, the imagery is not as shocking as the marketing would have you believe, but it's not about the gross out and the gore, this film is supposed to scare you, not shock you, it's supposed to make you realize the futility of the protagonists situation and make you think twice about accepting help from a stranger.And no doubt, anyone that does travel across Australia, and has seen this film, will at some stage, across the desert, get scared. Especially when they see a big 4WD, or a car on the side of the road, or any other sign of life.
The closest films that Wolf Creek will remind us of are: Last House on the Left and Bloodsucking Freaks. The antagonists in these two films have no motive. They just like hurting people, and with no one around to stop them, they will hurt people for as long as they can.
A lot of people will hate it, and that's fine, I'll briefly state why i liked it and why you should give it a watch, and in saying those things, I'll also be letting you know why the people who hate it, hate it so much.
There is no real characterization of the cast. That's fine. We know they're going to die anyway, so what's the point? Instead of making the characters likable, Director McLean has filled the first hour up with beautifully shot images of wonder and scenery of the great land of Australia, informing us just how beautiful the wonderful land of Australia really is. Setting us up for the exact opposite in the last act, beautifully shot images of horror, torture, and sheer terror (not for us, for the victims)...
(I would like to point out here, that any of the detractors of this film that spout on about 'the characters are so stupid they deserve to die', well, you should be ashamed of yourself, you seem to forget that whilst this is a fictional horror film, this sort of stuff DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN IN THE WORLD - what rock have you been living under?!? Just because YOU wouldn't react in the same way, and not do something that might be a little unthought out by our protagonists, I would like to remind you that unless you have been in that situation, you don't really have any right to say a freaking word, it's a lot easier for you to comment about how YOU would have done something different... from the comfy surrounds of your air conditioned, stadium seated safety of the cinema... when the biggest threat is that your popcorn might spill, or your going to get ripped off buying maltesers, it's a lot easier to do the most sensible thing).
Uncle Mikey... our antagonist, is McLean's answer to the United State's version of the Australain Ocker Outback Aussie, Mick Dundee. Since the serial slaying of Peter Falconio and the kidnapping of his British backpacking girlfriend, the Outback Aussie, who uses the phrase 'fairdinkum,' is no longer the same mythological figure, once upon a time, Mick Dundee was a figure to be revered, the ever helping, ever knowledgeable, do gooder... this figure no longer exists, this figure has now become someone to fear....
next up.... NOT a slasher film. The antagonist in a slasher film always has a motive. Norman Bates, Zombies, Freddy, Micheal, Jason, Pinhead, the genre classics have a reason to be killing everyone. Uncle Mikey does not. he is not driven by emotion or need, like all those mentioned above. Even Leatherface and his family have motive and need to kill people, they were cannibals, so they killed for food. take note viewers, Uncle Mikey has no motive, Mike has no NEED, uncle Mikey does this for one reason and one reason only. FUN.
He does it because he likes to see people in pain, begging for their lives, bleeding, crying, their eyes when they are raped, their eyes waiting for what's going to happen next, their insistence on being alive when there is no possibility of their escape, he likes to make sure people understand the futility of the cries and their screams, and wants to see the terror in their eyes constantly.
Uncle Mikey is not crazy. He just has no boundaries, just like the Australian Outback. Harsh, unrelenting, uncompromising, just like the Australian Outback.
This will effect Australians, or those that have actually traveled from the east to the west (or vice versa) more than anyone, because you really have to have experienced it to understand the scope, the reality of just how big and empty it really is. Quite simply put, if you meet a psycho out on the road in the middle of Australia, and they want to kill you, or chase you and kill you, the likelihood is... you're gonna die. In fact, the only unrealistic element of this film is that someone survived.
Lastly, at the very end of the film, our antagonist walks off into the sunset (much like the mythological John Wayne type western heroes) and fades away, because he, like the events of the film, is mythological, an urban legend, Uncle Mikey doesn't exist, really, the same way that chick didn't really pop a pimple on her face and have hundreds of baby spiders jump out. The 'these events actually happened' line at the start is not a gimmick, it's part of the film, to give it more of a sense of reality, and after all, is that not what urban legends are all about? To scare you, and make you paranoid? this is a very well made film, the imagery is not as shocking as the marketing would have you believe, but it's not about the gross out and the gore, this film is supposed to scare you, not shock you, it's supposed to make you realize the futility of the protagonists situation and make you think twice about accepting help from a stranger.And no doubt, anyone that does travel across Australia, and has seen this film, will at some stage, across the desert, get scared. Especially when they see a big 4WD, or a car on the side of the road, or any other sign of life.
The closest films that Wolf Creek will remind us of are: Last House on the Left and Bloodsucking Freaks. The antagonists in these two films have no motive. They just like hurting people, and with no one around to stop them, they will hurt people for as long as they can.
Hostel
(2005)
Unoriginal, just like Cabin Fever
3 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm reading a lot of comments that state how kick-ass this film is.
Has anyone noted that there is almost, not one single original piece to this film, at all? Every, and I mean EVERY depiction of violence, has been done before, many times over. Most of the sequences (after the initial oh, so long characterization of the vic's) were lifted from other films, as obscure as Delicatessan, mainstream(ish) as Marathon Man (Ummm hello!!), to as 'lowest common denominator' as Toxic Avenger.
This is no more 'on the edge' or 'pushing the envelope' than Bloodsucking Freaks... it just looks better, same amount of nudity (though there's more augmented breasts here), same amount of poor acting, same amount of redeeming social value; zero.
You want people to freak out, like REALLY freak out, this film is an example of how the potential was there, but wasn't done properly, if this film really wanted to screw peoples minds properly, than Josh's (Derek Richardson - the best actor in the piece - killed off first - duh!) torture/death scene, should've gone for 20 minutes. THAT would've been scary.
Films like this focus too much on the violence to freak people out... you wanna freak people out? Focus on the psychosis of the people DOING THE TORTURING, show us HOW MUCH FUN THEY'RE HAVING. Seeing an eye being blow torched out of a victim that I don't even KNOW let alone CARE about does nothing for me, however, seeing the antagonist's excitement over it... that would scare me, would scare anyone.
All due respect to Roth, I have never made a horror film, I have seen a lot of them tho, and I can tell you, I have seen Hostel before, in many different variations, often made by far superior film makers, more often made by people who can't direct a hose pipe, let alone a film, people kinda like Eli Roth.
I'm sorry, but geez, even compared to Saw (another film made from rehashed ideas from countless other films) this was bad, bad, bad.
At least it was better than Cabin Fever.
Has anyone noted that there is almost, not one single original piece to this film, at all? Every, and I mean EVERY depiction of violence, has been done before, many times over. Most of the sequences (after the initial oh, so long characterization of the vic's) were lifted from other films, as obscure as Delicatessan, mainstream(ish) as Marathon Man (Ummm hello!!), to as 'lowest common denominator' as Toxic Avenger.
This is no more 'on the edge' or 'pushing the envelope' than Bloodsucking Freaks... it just looks better, same amount of nudity (though there's more augmented breasts here), same amount of poor acting, same amount of redeeming social value; zero.
You want people to freak out, like REALLY freak out, this film is an example of how the potential was there, but wasn't done properly, if this film really wanted to screw peoples minds properly, than Josh's (Derek Richardson - the best actor in the piece - killed off first - duh!) torture/death scene, should've gone for 20 minutes. THAT would've been scary.
Films like this focus too much on the violence to freak people out... you wanna freak people out? Focus on the psychosis of the people DOING THE TORTURING, show us HOW MUCH FUN THEY'RE HAVING. Seeing an eye being blow torched out of a victim that I don't even KNOW let alone CARE about does nothing for me, however, seeing the antagonist's excitement over it... that would scare me, would scare anyone.
All due respect to Roth, I have never made a horror film, I have seen a lot of them tho, and I can tell you, I have seen Hostel before, in many different variations, often made by far superior film makers, more often made by people who can't direct a hose pipe, let alone a film, people kinda like Eli Roth.
I'm sorry, but geez, even compared to Saw (another film made from rehashed ideas from countless other films) this was bad, bad, bad.
At least it was better than Cabin Fever.
Saw II
(2005)
Saw 2, painful to watch
29 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
How did this film manage to reach a vote over 7 on here? Let alone receive a score that closely matches the original film? Have our desires and expectations of what a film should contain sharply plummeted since the original Saw? Who knows, and quite frankly, I don't care. This film had no socially redeeming value what so ever.
The cop planted evidence to help get convictions of the people locked in the house, and thats the reason Jigsaw targeted him. Crap! They were all self confessed junkies and crims etc ANYWAY so what difference does it make? What if the kid died, then Jigsaw becomes the very thing he is trying to rid the world of, or teach! So obviously Shawnee was in there to make sure no harm came to the kid. Think it's pretty obvious that she almost got killed so what would have happened if she had have died? The kid would have died too, which means that even if the cop 'played by the rules' the risk is there that the kid still would have died which means that Jigsaw would have failed his own game, and what? He has to then push a key behind his eye so he can get himself out of the deathmask he has managed to get himself in to? I'm sorry, but if you make a film with rules, everyone has to play by them, otherwise the rules (like this film) become completely redundant.
Lastly, the film cheated, it didn't just hide the 'twist', it specifically delivered the VIEWER information which made it impossible for the twist to become apparent or guessable. When Shawnee first wakes up, she grabs the back of her head like she's in the deathmask again (thats how I knew who she was), like it's a memory. Considering none of the people in the room with her would have a clue about who she was, and she already knows that she's OK, for what reason does she grab the back of her head? To show us that she's as much a victim as all the others in there.... But she wasn't was she? No.
The film cheated and therefore becomes nothing more than fodder to sit alongside other ridiculous films like CABIN FEVER.
I may not get these 90 minutes of my life back, but you know, I don't care, cause I'm going to spend a lot longer trashing this film, as it should be trashed.
Pathetic effort right across the board. The ONLY thing i liked about this film...: Oh yes, there will be blood.
The cop planted evidence to help get convictions of the people locked in the house, and thats the reason Jigsaw targeted him. Crap! They were all self confessed junkies and crims etc ANYWAY so what difference does it make? What if the kid died, then Jigsaw becomes the very thing he is trying to rid the world of, or teach! So obviously Shawnee was in there to make sure no harm came to the kid. Think it's pretty obvious that she almost got killed so what would have happened if she had have died? The kid would have died too, which means that even if the cop 'played by the rules' the risk is there that the kid still would have died which means that Jigsaw would have failed his own game, and what? He has to then push a key behind his eye so he can get himself out of the deathmask he has managed to get himself in to? I'm sorry, but if you make a film with rules, everyone has to play by them, otherwise the rules (like this film) become completely redundant.
Lastly, the film cheated, it didn't just hide the 'twist', it specifically delivered the VIEWER information which made it impossible for the twist to become apparent or guessable. When Shawnee first wakes up, she grabs the back of her head like she's in the deathmask again (thats how I knew who she was), like it's a memory. Considering none of the people in the room with her would have a clue about who she was, and she already knows that she's OK, for what reason does she grab the back of her head? To show us that she's as much a victim as all the others in there.... But she wasn't was she? No.
The film cheated and therefore becomes nothing more than fodder to sit alongside other ridiculous films like CABIN FEVER.
I may not get these 90 minutes of my life back, but you know, I don't care, cause I'm going to spend a lot longer trashing this film, as it should be trashed.
Pathetic effort right across the board. The ONLY thing i liked about this film...: Oh yes, there will be blood.
!kcoR s'teL
1 October 2005
There's no doubt about it, Twin Peaks changed the living, breathing face and body of television, the soul and minds of those who watched it, and the attitudes of film and television makers everywhere, who watched what was intended to be a 2 hour Tele-movie become a phenomenon. A phenomenon that dissected the way television was made and shown to its very core, and reassembled it in a fashion that no one had ever witnessed, or dreamed of. A phenomenon that would sweep the world
Not since JR was shot in Dallas had the entire worldwide viewing public stopped to ask itself a question, for one brief, shining, crystallized moment, in 1990
Who Killed Laura Palmer? And so, with David Lynch's Fire Walk With Me, the question is not Who? But rather, Why? This film precedes the TV show, these are the last 7 days of Laura Palmer, and after watching this film, it is pretty apparent why Laura wanted to die, she lived in a world out of her grasp and control, she was desperately fighting what she was becoming, but realized that the forces that were pulling her down, were too strong for her to fight against
I knew someone like that once, and to be quite honest, it has changed the way I look at Laura Palmer. The first time I watched this film was in 1992 when it came out on VHS, I was 16 or 17 and I hated it. It wasn't Twin Peaks. It was horrible and violent and had none of the cuteness and quirkiness and lovable characters of the TV show, and I never watched it again. Watching it almost 15 years on, as an adult, I understand why I hated it so much when I was a kid. As a 16-17 year male, I had absolutely no concept or understanding of what it would be like to be Laura Palmer, completely unable to relate to her, and therefore completely unable to understand or sympathize. Completely unable to understand what it would mean to live in a world where everyone is in love with you, and how that would only make you hate yourself more, when you hate yourself so much already.
This is a really sad movie. It really puts you in to Laura Palmer's world, or what's left of it, briefly. Maybe too brief, but, you know, maybe I read too much in to films, or I get too close too them, but this film has changed Twin Peaks for me forever. And it's quite possible that it will do the same for you. Even though she was dead before the opening credits, I never realized until watching this film again that Laura was never freed, she was always in 'purgatory' if you will, always in the Red Room when we saw her, or seeing a flashback of her murder during the course of the TV show. Fire Walk With Me gives something to Laura Palmer that she had been denied on television.
Release.
For the most part, this film was not made for the fans, nor was it made for the money, Lynch made this film for Laura palmer. His love of her is what inspired him to breathe life into her character on the big screen, after taking it away on the small. This is his dance, first and final, with Laura Palmer. It is not ours to be involved with, it is ours only to watch the romance between character and director evolve and be burnt too soon. It is ours only to witness, not too understand or judge, not to ask or question.
From the opening shot, a television with no reception, which is quickly obliterated by an Axe, it is quite clear that this ain't no TV show, and if the symbolism of the TV being smashed isn't enough to tell you that, then the opening scene will. This is the part of Twin Peaks that simply never would have made it to TV. The real Twin Peaks, if you will, the dark, tortured, seedy underbelly of a town with too few people, and too many secrets, the sort of place that exists almost everywhere in the world (with the exception of Cicely, Alaska).
This is a really sad movie. It really puts you in to Laura Palmer's world, or what's left of it, briefly. Maybe too brief, but, you know, maybe I read too much in to films, or I get too close too them, but this film has changed Twin Peaks for me forever. And it's quite possible that it will do the same for you. Even though she was dead before the opening credits, I never realized until watching this film again that Laura was never freed, she was always in 'purgatory' if you will, always in the Red Room when we saw her, or seeing a flashback of her murder during the course of the TV show. Fire Walk With Me gives something to Laura Palmer that she had been denied on television.
Release.
For the most part, this film was not made for the fans, nor was it made for the money, Lynch made this film for Laura palmer. His love of her is what inspired him to breathe life into her character on the big screen, after taking it away on the small. This is his dance, first and final, with Laura Palmer. It is not ours to be involved with, it is ours only to watch the romance between character and director evolve and be burnt too soon. It is ours only to witness, not too understand or judge, not to ask or question.
From the opening shot, a television with no reception, which is quickly obliterated by an Axe, it is quite clear that this ain't no TV show, and if the symbolism of the TV being smashed isn't enough to tell you that, then the opening scene will. This is the part of Twin Peaks that simply never would have made it to TV. The real Twin Peaks, if you will, the dark, tortured, seedy underbelly of a town with too few people, and too many secrets, the sort of place that exists almost everywhere in the world (with the exception of Cicely, Alaska).
Toolbox Murders
(2004)
Surprisingly watchable.....
25 April 2004
I wasn't expecting too much from this flick, the cover art didn't hold too much the first five minutes had a few shaky cameras, alot of the day stuff was under exposed and there was a quite obvious red herring. However, I really like the concept of someone building a place that steals a bit of space from this room and that to allow for quite alot of space within the building to allow someone to sneak around without anyone else having a clue.
The film is average, and therefore watchable, I have only one gripe. Julia (Landau) is more than willing to go and get some chocolate cake after telling Bettis that she has lost 70 odd pounds of weight.
I dont think so!
3.25 out of 5
The film is average, and therefore watchable, I have only one gripe. Julia (Landau) is more than willing to go and get some chocolate cake after telling Bettis that she has lost 70 odd pounds of weight.
I dont think so!
3.25 out of 5
House of 1000 Corpses
(2003)
Colourful
25 April 2004
It really looks like a great big video clip. And fair enough, Mr Z has been around that for quite along time.
This was a pretty bad movie. It was fun, sure, but I did find myself hitting the FFWD button towards the end of the film.
The good side is that Z uses "stock" footage to show the murders, the bad side is that I saw this film when I watched TCM 2 and it was a hell of a lot more freaked out and crazy and nasty (the fact that Bill Mosely is in it is a coincidence, or is it tongue in cheek good casting?)
I see what he was wanting to do but ............
There's a fine line between homage, "throwing something in because you can" and downright lazy theft, and apart from the stock footage, Mr Z's House of 1000 Corpses blurs these lines terribly.
This was a pretty bad movie. It was fun, sure, but I did find myself hitting the FFWD button towards the end of the film.
The good side is that Z uses "stock" footage to show the murders, the bad side is that I saw this film when I watched TCM 2 and it was a hell of a lot more freaked out and crazy and nasty (the fact that Bill Mosely is in it is a coincidence, or is it tongue in cheek good casting?)
I see what he was wanting to do but ............
There's a fine line between homage, "throwing something in because you can" and downright lazy theft, and apart from the stock footage, Mr Z's House of 1000 Corpses blurs these lines terribly.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
(2003)
I really didn't like this film
9 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Pull the rocks out and get ready to throw them at me when I say that I thought the original TCM was a great film, it was, 20 years ago. It's not great by many standards of todays films, but that doesn't mean it's not, or wasn't a really good film. The "heroine" in the original film was terrorized for about 40 minutes in the original, constantly screaming while 5 family members danced and screamed and sang and yelled and acted completely freaking wacko around her, for 20 or so minutes she was gagged and bound to a chain and her her hands nailed to the arms. THAT is postitively disturbing.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER** (If there is such a thing with this film) The only thing that disturbed me about this remake is that Leatherface dropped his chainsaw not once, not twice, but, oh yes friends and neighbours, count 'em, THREE times, and NOT ONCE did ANYONE think to PICK IT UP. Please, the first two I can deal with but in one of the climactic scenes Leatherface is completely occupied by an assailant, drops the saw and Jessica Biel still refuses to pick the damn thing up. Yeah, sure, Leatherface had a foot on her back, but he took it off long enough for her to stand up and get away.
This film had very little class, very little inventiveness, the bad guys were WAY too nice (sure the sherrif was pr*ck, but you should meet by next door neighbour). I didn't even know the characters names, I cared for them so little.
The closest this film came to nasty (which is what TCM is all about) is where the hitching girl at the start pulled that gun from. At a glance it would even seem that Leatherface was putting salt all over the first guys wound to be mean, but it was only to seal the wound to make for good eating later.
However, it's not as bad as Cabin Fever.
I give it 1.5 out of 5, 2.5 if you watch it with Cabin Fever.
**POSSIBLE SPOILER** (If there is such a thing with this film) The only thing that disturbed me about this remake is that Leatherface dropped his chainsaw not once, not twice, but, oh yes friends and neighbours, count 'em, THREE times, and NOT ONCE did ANYONE think to PICK IT UP. Please, the first two I can deal with but in one of the climactic scenes Leatherface is completely occupied by an assailant, drops the saw and Jessica Biel still refuses to pick the damn thing up. Yeah, sure, Leatherface had a foot on her back, but he took it off long enough for her to stand up and get away.
This film had very little class, very little inventiveness, the bad guys were WAY too nice (sure the sherrif was pr*ck, but you should meet by next door neighbour). I didn't even know the characters names, I cared for them so little.
The closest this film came to nasty (which is what TCM is all about) is where the hitching girl at the start pulled that gun from. At a glance it would even seem that Leatherface was putting salt all over the first guys wound to be mean, but it was only to seal the wound to make for good eating later.
However, it's not as bad as Cabin Fever.
I give it 1.5 out of 5, 2.5 if you watch it with Cabin Fever.
Cabin Fever
(2002)
How to I go about getting 94 minutes of my life back?
9 February 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I was looking forward to this film, I really was, the basic premise sounded great; lock a bunch of brainless kids together to get eaten alive by a flesh eating virus which they couldn't escape if they tried. NICE! Die, yuppies, die.
But, no, you cant even see dumb people die in a horrible sickening helpless way if the antagonist isn't wearing a mask or starring in a battle royale with an equal evildoer (Jason had it won from the start BTW).
Quite frankly, Eli Roth (Director/Writer) treats us as though we are stupider than the cast. **PLOT SPOILER** >>>> Everything was going swell, Badalamenti's music was giving the film a nice Twin Peaks feel, some guy gets burned up by accident and we know there's gonna be problems, and then we see the burned guy in the water catchment and we are treated to the obvious, a nice 20 second long shot of a pipe running from the water catchment through the grass, through the grass, through the grass (etc) and running into the cabin where the kids are staying. I don't know about these film festival people, but if I have to be told that this guys gonna contaminate their water, then I really have to be told how to do the most basic things, like think!
Why does stupid hunting hat boy not tell anyone about the guy he accidentally shot? Why do they take so long to search for someone to help them? Why did the stoner guy's dog go freaking crazy? Why did that loser guy hump the blonde yuppies girlfriend when the love of his life was melting in the barn? Why, if no one wanted to touch the melting blonde girl, do they pick her up with bare hands, touching the mattress and blanket that she's lying on (which is covered with ... her)? What does the hillbilly decide to hunt down hunting hat boy after his monkey boy son bit him, when he clearly saw monkey boy attack him for no reason. How the hell did yuppie blonde boy manage to evade the virus, and what was with his crazy antics at the end ("oh, all my friends are melted and shot on the floor, but "I MADE IT") and hey this film sucks so much, I can see why the original Night of the Living Dead climax was ripped, there had to be at least one redeeming feature (the director recognized that the climax of NOTLD was good), but even that was screwed up because yuppie white boy was the least outcast of the group!
Why can't I remember any character names? Because I didn't care about anyone!
I have seen some bad horror flicks in my time, but I never thought I would say that this is possibly the worst film I have seen that came from any year after 1981.
But, no, you cant even see dumb people die in a horrible sickening helpless way if the antagonist isn't wearing a mask or starring in a battle royale with an equal evildoer (Jason had it won from the start BTW).
Quite frankly, Eli Roth (Director/Writer) treats us as though we are stupider than the cast. **PLOT SPOILER** >>>> Everything was going swell, Badalamenti's music was giving the film a nice Twin Peaks feel, some guy gets burned up by accident and we know there's gonna be problems, and then we see the burned guy in the water catchment and we are treated to the obvious, a nice 20 second long shot of a pipe running from the water catchment through the grass, through the grass, through the grass (etc) and running into the cabin where the kids are staying. I don't know about these film festival people, but if I have to be told that this guys gonna contaminate their water, then I really have to be told how to do the most basic things, like think!
Why does stupid hunting hat boy not tell anyone about the guy he accidentally shot? Why do they take so long to search for someone to help them? Why did the stoner guy's dog go freaking crazy? Why did that loser guy hump the blonde yuppies girlfriend when the love of his life was melting in the barn? Why, if no one wanted to touch the melting blonde girl, do they pick her up with bare hands, touching the mattress and blanket that she's lying on (which is covered with ... her)? What does the hillbilly decide to hunt down hunting hat boy after his monkey boy son bit him, when he clearly saw monkey boy attack him for no reason. How the hell did yuppie blonde boy manage to evade the virus, and what was with his crazy antics at the end ("oh, all my friends are melted and shot on the floor, but "I MADE IT") and hey this film sucks so much, I can see why the original Night of the Living Dead climax was ripped, there had to be at least one redeeming feature (the director recognized that the climax of NOTLD was good), but even that was screwed up because yuppie white boy was the least outcast of the group!
Why can't I remember any character names? Because I didn't care about anyone!
I have seen some bad horror flicks in my time, but I never thought I would say that this is possibly the worst film I have seen that came from any year after 1981.
My mommy died in a plane crash.
10 January 2004
Possibly due to the fact that Part 3 was so horrid, it obviously seemed necessary to bring Michael back to give the name of the film some class. So after Michael was burnt up, he didn't actually die, he went into a coma, and Loomis, who was stabbed as well as blown up, is back with only a few burn marks on his face and hand. Pretty thin, true, but a thin Michael is better than no Michael at all. And in part 4, he returns to Haddonfield to stalk his niece (played by Harris, better known for her role in the U.S. sitcom Roseanne and The Last Boyscout), the daughter of Curtis. It's all pretty much the same, but there are some good scenes in it, the violence is played down and mostly suspense takes its place. Worth a look.
I love the poster art for this film.
I love the poster art for this film.
Atkins rocks!
10 January 2004
The basic idea for this film isn't too bad. A crazy psycho wants to rid the world of children, so he makes tons of Halloween masks, which will cause the kids' brains to explode on October 31 at nine o'clock. There are just way too many meaningless jolts and throwaways. The original Halloween is part of a movie marathon on TV (Ironically, that's the film all the kids will be watching when they die). The acting isn't too bad but the script didn't exactly give an opportunity for the actors to win awards. Not scary, and slipping in a sequel' that has nothing to do with its highly successful predecessors is an idea that just falls flat on its face. Keep in mind, when you are watching (especially the first scene) that this film was made before Christine, which came to us a year later. The chase scenes and scares are Halloween-style and the gore scenes (which occasionally surprise), are more Fog(1983) orientated. Check out Stephen King's It for a better piece of Wallace's work (but not that much better).
Halloween II
(1981)
The Night He Came Home Again and again and again
10 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
**Spoiler**
Taking off from the immediate end of Part 1, this follows Curtis to the hospital after her ordeal as does Michael Myers, whom we find out later is actually Curtis' brother, and that's why he wants to kill her. Differing from the original in that Michael kills everyone that is not necessarily in his path, this one is more gory and a lot more mean which detracts from the quality, and unfortunately turns out like the rest of the horror films of the eighties; a copy of Halloween. But, despite all that, there are some nice moments of tension and some good acting, especially from the loopy, obsessed Dr. Loomis.
Taking off from the immediate end of Part 1, this follows Curtis to the hospital after her ordeal as does Michael Myers, whom we find out later is actually Curtis' brother, and that's why he wants to kill her. Differing from the original in that Michael kills everyone that is not necessarily in his path, this one is more gory and a lot more mean which detracts from the quality, and unfortunately turns out like the rest of the horror films of the eighties; a copy of Halloween. But, despite all that, there are some nice moments of tension and some good acting, especially from the loopy, obsessed Dr. Loomis.
Alligator
(1980)
eat this
9 September 2003
A monster movie satire that works well and has some freaky dialogue playing off some real good scares.A twelve year old girl gets a pet alligator and hr father flushes it down the toilet. Whilst living in the sewers for a decade, living off radioactive dogs which have been secretly dumped down there, he grows into a 36 foot long man eater who rages a war on the upside world. An intelligent film that succeeds where a lot of other films in this vein fail.
Eat Toilet, T-X!!!!!
12 August 2003
T3 is one of my favourite sequels ever made. It is completely unique in that it is part of a unique franchise, where I'm happy to say, that so much story was developed and shown in the first and second (moreso the second) films, that all further storytelling is left behind, we know what's gonna happen in this flick, and director Mostow delivers .... T-X and T-800 major kick ass take no prisoners action. Eat Toilet, T-X!!!!!
The best thing about this flick is that Director Mostow never once tried to make a film with Cameron's unique vision, but rather, has used his own vision, which has also proved unique and worthy of the Terminator franchise. He's obviously a fan.
Whilst Sarah Conner didn't appear, she was easily replaced by Katherine Brewster (Claire) and would probably give her a run for her money. And lets face it, if there is any Sarah Conner action, than you know there has to be even MORE story. Stahl was great in the role of Connor, even if it was only because if I heard Furlongs high pitched girly squeal again I would kill myself.
Part 4 will be even better if writer/director's remember that they are NOT James Cameron and do not try to emulate his skill, if they don't try that, they may make yet another brilliant Terminator sequel.
The best thing about this flick is that Director Mostow never once tried to make a film with Cameron's unique vision, but rather, has used his own vision, which has also proved unique and worthy of the Terminator franchise. He's obviously a fan.
Whilst Sarah Conner didn't appear, she was easily replaced by Katherine Brewster (Claire) and would probably give her a run for her money. And lets face it, if there is any Sarah Conner action, than you know there has to be even MORE story. Stahl was great in the role of Connor, even if it was only because if I heard Furlongs high pitched girly squeal again I would kill myself.
Part 4 will be even better if writer/director's remember that they are NOT James Cameron and do not try to emulate his skill, if they don't try that, they may make yet another brilliant Terminator sequel.
Halloween: Resurrection
(2002)
No offence Mr. Rosenthal but you suck!
26 December 2002
Is it not bad enough that we experienced Rick Rosenthal's travesty of the Halloween series as early as part 2?
Is not enough that we have sat through countless cliched horror films? Why must we be subjected to the same old thing, Rick? Why bloody rip scenes off from John's very fantastic original Halloween and NOT EVEN MAKE THEM SCARY? Can you not think of your own ideas?
AND (forgive me for being so negative), that whole story at the start that showed why Michael was still alive? I mean PUHLEASE! If it was a paramedic in the back of that ambulance and not really Michael at the end of the last film, why in the name of Norman Bates was he trying to kill Jamie Lee? Because he was angry? Because he was p***ed that he accidently washed his white shirt with his coloureds and it came out pink? No wait, he was a jilted lover of Jamie Lee's and wanted revenge. Or maybe he was Donald Pleasance and he figured that the only way to stop Michael was to kill her!
I am so sure that Jamie Lee Curtis said "Sure I'll do ANOTHER Halloween film but ONLY if you kill me in like 10 minutes so I can NOT come back cause I'm so OVER these films."
And what's with Michael opening his eyes at the end? - Gee! Michael is not dead, how surprising, I really wasn't expecting that!!!!!!!!! How insulting!
Not only was this film boring, it was cliche ridden and it was no fun. And I really needed to go to the toilet about 30 minutes in and I thought to myself "no, I won't go cause something really good is going to happen", and GUESS WHAT?? I peed my pants waiting for like 3 DAYS.
Anyway, I over putting myself through any more pain about this film, although, I must say, Halloween 2 is MUCH better than this fish and that's saying something.
Is not enough that we have sat through countless cliched horror films? Why must we be subjected to the same old thing, Rick? Why bloody rip scenes off from John's very fantastic original Halloween and NOT EVEN MAKE THEM SCARY? Can you not think of your own ideas?
AND (forgive me for being so negative), that whole story at the start that showed why Michael was still alive? I mean PUHLEASE! If it was a paramedic in the back of that ambulance and not really Michael at the end of the last film, why in the name of Norman Bates was he trying to kill Jamie Lee? Because he was angry? Because he was p***ed that he accidently washed his white shirt with his coloureds and it came out pink? No wait, he was a jilted lover of Jamie Lee's and wanted revenge. Or maybe he was Donald Pleasance and he figured that the only way to stop Michael was to kill her!
I am so sure that Jamie Lee Curtis said "Sure I'll do ANOTHER Halloween film but ONLY if you kill me in like 10 minutes so I can NOT come back cause I'm so OVER these films."
And what's with Michael opening his eyes at the end? - Gee! Michael is not dead, how surprising, I really wasn't expecting that!!!!!!!!! How insulting!
Not only was this film boring, it was cliche ridden and it was no fun. And I really needed to go to the toilet about 30 minutes in and I thought to myself "no, I won't go cause something really good is going to happen", and GUESS WHAT?? I peed my pants waiting for like 3 DAYS.
Anyway, I over putting myself through any more pain about this film, although, I must say, Halloween 2 is MUCH better than this fish and that's saying something.
Bats
(1999)
Suck this!
26 December 2002
Standard `We changed them to wipe out the Bat population but its all gone horribly wrong' scenario with Phillips as the small town cop suddenly surrounded by partially eaten bodies and terrible bat puppets. Writers assume you'll know why the bats are going crazy and don't bother wasting time and money putting the explanation on film.
Epitaph
(1987)
Bury this
26 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILER** Rather boring film about a psycho mass-murdering mother whose adventures are covered up by her loving hubby and daughter. Things go awry when she kills her husband and the daughter flips out and then the story really doesn't know what to do (About 18 minutes into the film).
Tell Your Friends