Change Your Image
pinback-6
Reviews
Shi shan nu ni (1977)
Hilarious, especially if you see it in 3D...
Well, okay, so the film is basically a big lump of c**p. But it's good c**p, ie the entertaining kind. And if you ever have the chance to see the film in a theater IN 3D, then SEE IT! Words can not describe how much more entertaining the film gets, and before this it's already wacked out enough for ten movies, but then you give the nutcases behind the camera the 3D technique, and they use it when ever they can, to hilarious results, scenes that appear to be in the film just so they can show off some 3D stuff. Anyway, I actually gave this movie a 6, even though it really doesn't deserve it in terms of actual quality, but it was so outrageously ridiculous that I couldn't resist...
Urban Legend (1998)
An okay film, but little else
The film has got a lot going for it. A neat premise and an excellent opening scene with a superb cameo by the great Brad Dourif, but then it just morphs into run-of-the-mill stalker/slasher mode. And to top it all off, the killer/killers is/are very easy to spot. But it has got a couple of really good scenes, but it's not exciting and entertaining enough to be scary, which keeps it from being a good horror film. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad film by any means, it's well shot and paced, but the acting from basically everyone but Brad Dourif leaves much to be desired. It's okay midnight entertainment when one has little else to do, just don't expect anything from it, and you'll probably be mildly entertained.
Scream 3 (2000)
Well, at least it's better than number two...
After having not really enjoyed "Scream 2" at all, I was not expecting much from this. I was pleasantly surprised, not because I found it scary, but because it was entertaining enough for me to like it. This time, I didn't figure out who the killer/killers was/were, unlike last time, where it was just so obvious that it was sad. That which makes the film work despite not being the least bit scary is that many times it's funny. Very funny. Especially the gab between Courtney Cox and Parker Posey (who gives the by far best performance in the film, by the way). It features a bunch of neat cameos and in-jokes that kept me entertained throughout, but let's hope this is the last film. Let the franchise come to an end before it's too late. Give this a go though. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but at least it's entertaining and well shot/edited/acted. And that's good enough for me.
The Faculty (1998)
Great film. Not scary, but endlessly entertaining.
Now this I like! Sure, it's not scary, but it's so entertaining that it doesn't matter! The performances are perfectly suited, the homage seen to the "test" in "The Thing" is hilarious, and the film never takes itself seriously for one minute. This helps the film, and keeps me in a very good mood throughout. I remember how pleased I was when I exited the theatre after viewing it, and having rewatched it numerous times on VCR, my opinion stays the same. And then there is the cast! Robert Patrick is great as ha gets to poke fun at his T-1000 images, Famke Janssen, Salma Hayek and the rest are really good too. The only thing I dislike is the musical score by Marco Brambilla, who also scored "Scream". Why would they keep hiring him when his scores are such CRAP?! I can make a better score with my guitar and synthesizer alone! But other than that, the film gets highest recommendation from yours truly, see it, again and again, you'll find something new to like about it every time. At least I do.
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)
Predictable, but still somewhat entertaining...
After having been pleasantly surprised by the original film, about thirty minutes after having watched that one, I popped this one into my VCR. I thought that the original was a really okay slasher flick, now it was time to see if this one could surprise me also. It was better than I thought it would be, even though it's totally predictable. What else would you call it if I called the "surprise" twist in the end TEN MINUTES into the film. It was JUST TOO OBVIOUS! But still, Hewitt was pretty good, as she was in the first, and it's kind of fun to see that they've cast Jeffrey Combs in the film. Even though the score is annoying, the film is entertaining enough for me to give it an okay. It's not exactly a must-see-or-die film, but it can at least make for 100 minutes of midnight entertainment. Don't expect to be scared though, but this is coming from a guy who hardly ever gets scared by movies. I can basically count the movies that have scared me on my ten fingers, but unless you scare easy, you're probably not going to be biting your nails. At least it's better to pick up these two films than to watch one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Now that I have surprised myself that I actually somewhat liked both these films even though I expected to absolutely loathe them, I'm probably gonna have to go and rent then remake of "The Haunting", even if I really don't want to. But if these didn't suck, like I thought they would, then maybe that will also be pretty good. Ahh, who am I kidding, it's going to suck badly, and when I have suffered through it, I will be here to complain about it.
Scream 2 (1997)
And why should this scare me?
Granted, when I rented the film I had very low expectations. I found out that I didn't think the film sucked, but I had many problems with it. First of all, the killer/killers is/are so easy to spot that it's almost embarrassing. Again, the musical score is utter and total crap. And also it's not nearly as funny as the original. I thought the funniest scene was in the "movie in the movie" when Tori Spelling is going to take a shower and we get a shot of the shower knob with water streaming down EXACTLY like the one in "Psycho"! That, and that they for some reason play the theme from John Woo's "Broken Arrow" every time David Arquette enters. Other than that, it relies on stringers instead of atmosphere and suspense, which is truly despicable. It's well shot and edited, and pretty well acted, but that's about it. Above all, the film is too predictable and too stupid to be scary, and that's not a good thing for a horror film. It's not bad, it's and allright film, just not something particularly memorable. But give it a try, maybe you'll like it more than I.
I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)
Better than I thought it would be, actually...
When I, the horror film aficionado, went out to catch up on more contemporary horror films, I realized that this one and it's sequel where among the few that I had not seen. With some doubt I rented this and the sequel along with some other films. Then last night, I placed the tape in my VCR, expecting the worst. I was actually pleasantly surprised, but that is given that I expected utter crap. Sure, the film is neither scary nor exciting, but it is pretty entertaining nonetheless. It's well shot, and the music isn't as annoying as in the "Scream" films, for instance. The actors are surprisingly well cast and GASP!, the characters are somewhat developed! In a contemporary mainstream horror film? WHOA! Despite that it's fairly easy to figure out who gets killed in advance, even though figuring out who the killer is might be a little trickier. If you have nothing else to do, why not give it a try? Sure, it's not "Halloween" or "Suspiria", but at least it remains fairly entertaining for 100 minutes. Just don't expect too much, and you'll be fine.
Scream (1996)
Good, not great, but good...
I remember when I stepped into the theatre to see this film, it had been praised as a masterpiece and the greatest horror film in the nineties (which it's NOT, if you ask me). I was in a good mood while leaving the theatre, having been very entertained throughout the film. The events in the film actually managed to surprise me, and when the killer/killers was/were unmasked, it was proven to me that my guesses were completely off track. I did not however think that it was a masterpiece, for one reason mainly. The point of a horror film is to be scary, and this one wasn't. I have three criterias for a great horror film, and for it to be okay it has to pass atleast one, they are: Scary, Exciting and Entertaining. I found the film to be highly entertaining, somewhat exciting in places, but not scary. But two out of three ain't bad. The actors are okay, the cinematography is slick and good, so's the editing, but the music, AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!! It's utter and total crap! CRAP!!! Okay, now that that's out of my system, perhaps I can continue with some more thoughts on the film. A lot of people say that the film owes a lot to "Halloween", which may be a valid point, but the film this one mainly reminds me of is "Black Christmas", just think about it, the phone calls, the hiding places and all. Plus it's a who dunnit. You've probably already seen it, but in case you haven't, then give it a try, you'll probably find it very entertaining.
Black Christmas (1974)
Unsettling, but...
Being a horror film afficiando, I headed off to one of my local videostores to catch up on horror films that I ought to have seen for one reason or another. One of the films I picked up was this one, having read that it was probably the first slasher flick, which qualified it to my list. After watching it, I thought that it was very unsettling, but was it REALLY scary? And was it any good? Well, sort of. The problem with the film is that one, I couldn't care less about the characters, and when they go about acting like total idiots I even caught myself mumbling: "if he/she/it gets killed now he/she/it's got him/her/itself to blame". This keeps the film from really being scary, plus that, and this probably wasn't the case for the audience when it was released, the ending is so unbelievably predictable that it's plain silly.
WARNING! SPOILER!
I mean, if you have a long cameraroll that drifts from he bed where the heroine lies across the hall, doesn't that give it all away? And they basically signal that it's coming, I mean, why else would everybody leave the room? I called it right when the scene started!
END OF SPOILER
Now, don't get me wrong, it is a pretty good film. Now it's time to compare it to the other film of this kind, John Carpenter's "Halloween". There are similarities, but there is one significant difference. In "Halloween", we know who the killer is a couple of minutes in, in "Black Christmas" we don't. And that makes a bigger difference than one might think. One film which is a big ripoff of "Black Christmas" though is "Friday the 13th", which is built up in a similiar fashion, but is indeed a MUCH MUCH worse film. But back to "Black Christmas" vs "Halloween", the question now is, which one do I prefer? The answer is easy, I'll pick "Halloween" any day of the week. Why? Easy, Carpenter is a much more skilled director than Bob Clark and it shows in a major way. Clark manages to build an effective mood, but the mood Carpenter builds is more menacing than Clark could build in his dreams.
SPOILER!
Second of all, in "Halloween", the characters act more human. When they are given a chance to escape they take it, they don't go out to investigate.
END OF SPOILER
Next is the camerawork. It is similiar, but it's far more slick in "Halloween". The same goes for just about everything else in the film. But back to just "Black Christmas", the film is definitely worth the price of rental, since it is after all a sort-of classic. I personally don't think it's good enough to be classic in terms of quality, but does belong on the cult classic list since it helped spawn the genre that "Psycho" laid the building blocks for. But it's definitely not a masterpiece. According to me, anyway.
Cul-de-sac (1966)
A menacing and morbidly funny masterpiece
This film is really hard to describe, so I'll just jump to why I enjoyed it so much...
The acting is phenomenal.
The beautiful black and white cinematography.
The morbid humour.
The menacing atmosphere.
This film is unlike most of what I have ever seen, and the best film I have had to the pleasure to see from Polanski so far. Some people will not like it, for like most truly great films, it's, say it with me, NOT FOR EVERYONE! Is it a thriller? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? Is it a horrorfilm? Who cares? It's a masterpiece no matter what!
WCW Monday Nitro (1995)
Hogan... He ruined it all...
I got to see WCW before Hogan came along, and they were doing great with two kickass PPV's (Spring Stampede '94 and Slamboree '94) and the good Clash 27, but then Hogan came along and destroyed the company. Not only is Hogan one lousy actor, he's one of the worst workers there ever was. Under Hogan Sting got buried, Flair got jobbed and humiliated constantly, Vader became a joke, Austin got fired for being injured, they brought in top notch workers like Benoit and Malenko and did nothing with them, while idiots who did nothing but suck up to the almighty Hulk Hogan got pushed to the top, even though they couldn't wrestle their way out of a wet paperbag. And today? Well, it's not much better, well at least it wasn't when I got to see the show (thanks my cable company for not letting me recieve TNT anymore). How can you sum up Hogan's impact on WCW? Well, you may quote Chazz Palminteri in "Bullets over Broadway" (slightly altered): "He ruins everything he's in. He ruins everything he's not in". And I still don't get why they let Nash and Sullivan run the company again. Last time around it almost killed the company! Both Nash and Sullivan are AWFUL bookers, and they ought to know that by now. Why don't they ever learn?
The Thin Red Line (1998)
A beautiful, stunning film...
This film just blew me away. It had me captivated for three hours, which really shocked me.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a flawless picture. It has too many characters and putting stars in small roles just so they can put their names on the poster is kind of annoying. But I am willing to forgive the film, for the poetic narrative and the beyond-all-superlative cinematography. For the performances of the lesser known actors. For the wonderful score. For the fact that it doesn't reek with repulsive patriotism like most other war films. And because it's almost three hours and I didn't get bored for one second.
The film reminds of a lot of Coppola's masterpiece "Apocalypse Now", in that way in which it gives an almost dreamlike feel to war (and by that I mean it's like a surreal nightmare). It shows that there is NOTHING glamorous about war, and that no good can come from it.
It's really hard to describe the film, it's a film that you have to experience to understand. But be forewarned that this film, like almost all good films, is NOT for everyone. If you think "Saving Private Ryan" was the best war film of all time, you'll hate this film, for it actually makes you think on your own.
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Why ruin a good film with a predictable mess of a story?
Why? It had such potential! It has some of the greatest battle scenes ever filmed! But WHY did they have to include such a banal plot that manages to send dual messages that contradict themselves in the worst way possible. Sure, when speaking of the technical aspects of the film, it is in fact a great achievment, and the acting is above average. But Spielberg packs into so full of repulsive nationalism, especially during the later part of the film, that when the final frame appeared I almost want to throw up in disgust towards the overblown cliches that populate this film. And then we have the thing that has always kept Spielberg off my list of outstanding filmmakers, the film is so sentimental it almost caused me to start yelling obscene words at the screen. Plus, the film is way too long, and VERY predictable. But it is worth seeing for the great cinematography, acting, editing and the battle sequences. Can you guess if I think this is one of the best films about war ever made? Do I really think that about the film? Hell no. It's a pretty good film, all in all, it's better than most films Spielberg has made since "Raiders of the Lost Arc", not nearly as good as "Schindler's List" though. If you compare it to the likes of "Missing in Action" it looks great, but when it faces the likes of "Apocalypse Now", "Full Metal Jacket", "Salvador" and "Bullet in the Head", it's DOA.
Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)
Outstanding
Directed by one of my heroes, the great John Carpenter, this film uses subtle tension and superb atmosphere to create a breathtaking edge-of-your-seat thriller. Carpenter is a master of the malevolent atmoshpere and proves it here. The story is about a couple of police officers and convicts who are seiged in a nearly empty police station by a gang of youngsters, who are after a man inside who has killed one of their leaders after that leader killed his daughter for no appearent reason (in one of the most upsetting murder scenes on movie history).
This is one of John Carpenter's best films, even though "Escape From New York" is better, and it's an unusually "quiet" film, being an action/thriller. Just observe the scene in which the gang fires into the police station using silencers. Carpenter never lets the pace go down and keeps things going in his typical low-key fashion. The acting is okay, nothing special, except for two excellent performances by Tony Burton as Welles and especially by Darwin Joston as Napoleon Wilson. Great soundtrack by Carpenter, too. Outstanding film, well worhty of it's cult-film status. If you consider yourself a movie buff and you haven't seen it you should instead call yourself a hypocrate, that is, until you've seen it.
A note of warning, though. You HAVE to watch the film in widescreen or else several shots are ruined as half of peoples faces end up outside the screen.