Reviews

I'm not a huge fan of the original, as many others are. It's been hailed as a slasher classic for many years but I always just preferred Halloween. However, I must say that now my love for the original has grown, which is about the only thing I can thank the remake for.

Because people, the remake IS as dire as you thought it would be and it almost made me physically ill. I feel even worse writing this review because the movie was directed by Glen Morgan, so great in his work with James Wong and a solid genre choice that had fans retaining a tiny sliver of optimism. Throw that sliver away.

Whereas the original movie had the sense to leave the killer mysterious and unexplained, the remake gives us the background spread throughout the first half of the movie.

Whereas the original may have had a few cliché moments, the remake seems to revel in contrivance and sheer nonsense, veering perilously close to parody in more than one scene. The excuse for the police taking their time to get to the house is ridiculous as is the "let's all just stick together" argument while everyone splits up. And the least said about the "I'm the killer so I'll just wait right here while everyone screams at each other" scene the better.

It's just irredeemably bad and everything, I mean everything, is by the numbers teeny popcorn fare. A hint of nudity, an overexplanation of everything, more kills, more gore and yet nothing half as effective as that seen in the original and a final reel that holds no surprises and yet seems to think it does. And that's before . . . . . well, I'd better not ruin it for anyone still gullible enough to think this may provide a passable 90 minutes.

Wow. This sequel moves almost completely away from the tension and atmosphere of the first movie but still, somehow, manages to be almost as good, thanks to some real kitsch moments and fun ideas.

Angela, kind of head demon nowadays, is back and although the house form the first movie is still the focal point the demons do get a little road trip this time around too. There's more death scenes, some more decent gore and more . . . . . . . . . . super nuns. Yes, you read that right. A super nun who kicks ass in a nun style-ee. Fantastic.

It's things like that which make this movie a whole lot of fun. The super nun, who's also as strict as can be, the religious student with an unhealthy interest in demonology, the dumb characters who you can't wait to see die. Sometimes these things are really annoying but here they just get added to the mix in a way that continues the sense of fun from the first movie (there are a nice couple of links to the first movie as well).

With this and the next movie we have sequels that, while not up to the same standard, are certainly far from awful considering how quickly many franchises start to slide in quality.

I like Renny Harlin. I have yet to see a movie from him that I hate and that includes the ill-received Cutthroat Island (before pirates were trendy again). So I watched this movie with mixed feelings. You see, I hate Andrew Dice Clay. The man sums up everything I dislike about dumb American comedy. I have nothing against American comedy, some of the better acts (Bill Hicks, Steven Wright, Steve Martin, Mitch Hedberg, Rchard Pryor, etc, etc) deserve to be right up there with the best of the bunch. But, sadly, many of the more popular acts seem to rely on a mixture of unsubtle punchlines recognised by the audience because they are LOUD or stale material mixed with flag-waving patriotism. Clay falls into the former group.

He's unfunny, he's brash and he's a complete dick. BUT that's fitting for the character he plays. Sadly, it doesn't make him any more enjoyable. It just means that I have to try to enjoy a Renny Harlin action comedy with one of the worst lead characters I've ever seen.

The sad thing is that the rest of the cast is a veritable goldmine. Gilbert Gottfried, Wayne Newton, Lauren Holly, Priscilla Presley, Vince Neill and Ed O'Neill all appear and all do well in their supporting roles. The movie is also helped by a script that is chock full of gems. Some of these lines are even delivered by Clay, which weakens their comedy kudos, but most of them just appear and make you chuckle instantly.

The plot hanging over everything is flimsy, nothing is too subtle and Clay is the biggest downside of the matter but Harlin walks the line between reality and cartoon incredulity far better than, for example, Sam Raimi in Crimewave. It's big, dumb fun and those who like Clay will derive a lot more pleasure from it than I did.

Third outing in the series and , amazingly, nobody has thought of demolishing the house and having a priest pee all over the foundations (or something suitable that would destroy the evil).

This time the house is visited by a van full of teens who are on the run from the law. Some of them are on from the law, at least, and some of them are just caught up in the middle of things. Unsurprisingly, Angela welcomes in the new blood with open arms.

This has just as much fun with the gore and the death as the previous two movies but it takes a step down with the level of acting throughout. Almost everyone involved here is pretty poor and it's not surprising that you won't recognise any of the faces. What is surprising is that the third outing in this series is still almost as much fun just because of the freedom and opportunities provided by the central idea. This may be the one I'd not choose to watch again but I certainly wouldn't mind if it ever did appear on my TV and I was distracted by it.

It's the old, old story : kids have a party in an old house, demons are unleashed, death and gratuitous nudity ensues. You all know it, it's still a lot of fun.

Many people (okay, many horror fans, to be specific) have fond memories of this movie and it's always with slight trepidation that you revisit an old movie to see if it's still as good as you used to think it was. Luckily, this is.

It has something for everyone (well, everyone who happens to be male, I suppose). From a fun title sequence to a shoplifting scam involving cunning use of Linnea Quigley's ass to the "mirror" scene to the full on demonic fun, this is a blast from start to finish.

The girls are cute, the guys are . . . . male, the death scenes are well done with some good gore effects and, unlike some horrors from the era, this actually keeps a good sense of atmosphere and even tension throughout. Don't get me wrong, it's still fun first and foremost but it offers some nice, freaky moments that should please most genre fans.

Quite simply, one of the sharpest screenplays ever written and luckily it has performances to match.

ASome people have points they argue about this movie. Why did Joe stick around for so long ? He was a shallow guy, he wanted the meal ticket that he was being offered and, yes, despite his disgust at the offerings he always ended up taking them. Why did he end up back with Norma on that fateful night after her suicide attempt ? Because he was too scared, he didn't want to feel responsible for anyone else's pain. If he'd never actually heard of Norma's fate then he would have been long gone but once it was relayed to him, and still with the fresh memory of the part he played, then he had to make sure that he hadn't done any long-term damage. Joe enjoyed making a buck but he wasn't a completely uncaring man.

As for Norma Desmond herself, she may well be the single greatest human character ever to be thrown onto celluloid. Half Quasimodo, half Bride Of Frankenstein and . . . . . . ummmm . . . . half Dracula's Daughter. Gloria Swanson bravely plays the faded movie star with a perfect mix of sadness, fiery anger, intense narcissism and pride, all mixed up with some mild overacting and permanent melodrama.

William Holden is the coolest narrator ever and his character, although often unlikeable, just about keeps us onside for the duration of the movie. Even if writer/director Billy Wilder doesn't manage to keep our sympathies with the right character for most of the movie he produces some scenes in the second half that give Holden's character a twisted redemption and reason to finally make a completely clean breast of things.

Max, the butler, IS the avid fan taken to the extreme. Devoted, adoring, ever-present, he's the perfect audience member and just what Norma Desmond needs to keep her sanity for as long as she does. Does he actually help her or is he ultimately responsible for her fall over the edge ? Max or Joe, who is the bigger culprit ? An interesting question that I'm not sure I could easily answer.

Of course, many other people also help to keep Norma from the truth. Cecil B DeMille, her card-playing buddies, even security guards still working at the studio. If more people had reacted the same way as Joe did initially (dismissing Norma and prompting her reply of "I AM big, it's the pictures that got small") then maybe she would have eased back down to earth. If her ego and vanity would have EVER allowed it.

The only real innocent character in the movie, the only one who doesn't help to perpetuate any fantasy and who doesn't act for purely personal gain, is Betty Schaffer. It is poor Betty who is quickly drawn in, chewed up and spat out by Holden's character (hmmmm . . . a writer responsible for breaking the heart of a young, up and coming lady . . . . surely not).

I love this movie with all my being. I love the faded, preserved shrine that is Norma Desmond's house. The car and the swimming pool being returned to working order, just as Norma herself is, for the benefit of Joe. Are we watching Gloria Swanson playing Norma Desmond throughout this film or are we watching an older actress play every idol that we've ever discarded ? Is the movie disturbing because of the interplay of the characters or because we, as an audience, do not want to venture into this world of forgotten stars and empty theatres ? Am I reading too much into this film ? Maybe I am and maybe I don't care. Just see it and love it.

Hugo Weaving plays an anarchic anti-hero with a flair for the dramatic, trying his best to embody an ideal and a fearless identity that can be assumed and passed on by everyone in the country.

Oh, the country is a strictly regimented place that has abused civil rights for many years after setting up stunts that keep the citizens fearful and docile . . . . . . . sounds eerily familiar to anyone ?

Natalie Portman plays a young girl take under the wing of a killer . . . . . oh no, wait, that's Leon. She plays a young, important female who has to make some difficult choices for the benefit of many others . . . .oh no, wait, that's the Star Wars prequels. Okay, okay, she plays both of those characters in one and does so with a fairly decent English accent. And a bald head for the latter half of the movie (and I still totally would).

Stephen Fry, perhaps not as well known to many outside the UK, does great in a role that I hope (and am sure he does too) parallels how he would love to continue to rally against any oppressive establishment if given the position and choices.

And it's an ironic pleasure to see John Hurt, once so unkindly treated by Big Brother in 1984, becoming Big Brother in this tale of totalitarianism, anarchy and, well, fireworks.

People have complained about the ideology here and many have said that the Wachowskis try to have their bread and eat it but I thought that everything was very well done, many interesting and frightening comparisons to our society were made and I appreciated the fact that when order becomes SO repressive as to be harmful then chaos must be used to get things back to a starting point for . . . a new order once more. And I LOVED the mask.

It's a great movie with some fine moments but I can see why people expecting a standard action movie would be disappointed. For me, the food for thought was just as enjoyable as the "whoah, cool" knife moments.

Robert Englund plays the main bad guy, a good ole Southerner helping his townsfolk enjoy their "jubilee celebrations" with the help of some home cookin' from Lin Shaye and willing victims in the shape of sidetracked teens.

There's plenty of nudity and crazy gore and it's all very tongue in cheek. Some of the sex scenes have amusing punchlines and most of the gore is ridiculously over the top.

Add some fun song lyrics, running gags about bestiality and a brisk pace in between the disappearance of each character (yeah, it's one of those movies where people disappear one by one without raising too much suspicion) and you have a fun movie for fans of horror that doesn't take itself too seriously.

A bunch of people in a bar are slightly distressed when a blood-covered, shotgun-wielding "hero" bursts in and warns them all about ravenous, speedy creatures travelling not far behind him.

The patrons are rather disbelieving until one creature gets inside and proceeds to try and eat as many people as it can.

This film starts off quickly and doesn't really let up for it's duration. It's a lot of fun and I loved the mix of humour and nasty gore moments (the brief bios of each person were particularly enjoyable). The editing was a little bit choppy at times but everything else was well done. I'd happily recommend this to any horror fan and was glad to see it at last.

What to say about a movie being hailed by many as "the best comedy of the year" ? Well, first of all, the trailer had most of the best bits in it. It's a common enough disappointment but considering the amount of situations that Cohen gets his character into I was expecting a LOT more.

Sure, there are many laughs to be had (especially from the speedy replies of some salesmen who know the best "pussy magnet" cars and the best guns to defend against Jews) but they weren't as thick and fast as I had hoped.

Another thing I had issue with was the fact that the movie seemed to regress us all by a hundred years or so. Are we all supposed to be amused by a chained, trained bear ? Didn't they stop that kind of "entertainment" years ago.

I was unhappy with a movie that could have been clever and hilarious but ended up often being simply exploitative and aiming for the easiest targets (not without laughs but not the best it could have been).

Far from the best film of the year, although Cohen is indeed a wonderful, dedicated comic actor.

Absolutely fantastic.

Those first 20 minutes were just breathtakingly entertaining and, of course, the film couldn't keep that pace up for the next 2 hours. However, for the most part, it almost made it. Some great humour, some nice nods to the future character that Bond became, some brilliant stunts and vicious fight sequences.

My only two complaints were that Bond seemed far too easily fooled on a couple of occasions (but, of course, that was the point . . . he had to learn) and that the ending seemed to appear and then fade and then appear again. By the last 15 minutes I was thinking of Return Of The King and wondering if Campbell had wagered with Jackson that he could cram more endings in. Not quite the best Bond film ever made but straight into the top tier.

Oh. My. God. This movie is about as funny as the time I caught my nutsack in my zipper and then had to "back the train up the tracks". It's like someone giving you syphilis, crabs and athlete's foot all at the same time. I was in physical pain watching this trash.

Vin Diesel shows that he can't do comedy either, he really IS a one trick pony and that's Riddick, as far as I'm concerned. Gags are either far too obvious, far too unfunny (oh, wait, it's FUNNY because it's VIN DIESEL beside some kids, hmmm) or not pursued to a decent conclusion/punchline. Heck, even Kindergarten Cop had a bit more humour in it than just Arnie beside some kids, AND it had a better thriller subplot too. I NEVER want to see this again. EVER.

Freddy was new back then, he was fresh and dark and scary. In fact, you don't actually see a lot of him throughout this movie. The film was borne out of an idea that Wes Craven had after he heard some disturbing news article about a number of Japanese students (I believe) who had all died in their sleep. It also goes back to the old tale of the man dreaming that he was being sent to the guillotine, being tapped on the neck by someone and dying instantly. The flaw there, of course, is that if he died instantly then nobody would know what he was dreaming about.

Anyway, back to the plot. Burnt, and dead, child molester Freddy Krueger returns to pick off the children on Elm Street, all of them being somehow related to the vigilante group who set fire to him and killed him DEAD. How does he get the kids ? In their dreams. He attacks them while they sleep and if he gets you then you die. That's it. It's a great concept and Craven works well with it.

BUT the movie has two major flaws.. Craven's penchant for booby traps which provides us with a finale that veers from the suspenseful to the laughable. The other is Heather "put me in a paper bag and I'd be trapped by my limited acting skills" Langenkamp. Lots of genre fans love her, I am not one of them. Luckily, her acting is compensated slightly by a good turn from Johnny Depp and a great role for the ever-dependable John Saxon (now THERE'S a genre star). Even the girl that plays Tina does really well with her limited screen time. Throw in a fun, small role for Lin Shaye (known to many as that old crazy woman from There's Something About Mary but she's been a great genre star, appearing in the likes of Critters, 2001 Maniacs and Dead End) and you have a good time for horror lovers.

For giving birth to a new slasher icon and franchise and for having many great moments, despite it's flaws, it deserves it's rating.

An interesting, and sadly overlooked, entry in the franchise, this is of importance to genre fans who want to see the ideas in Scream before they became Scream. Craven uses this movie to explore the boundaries between reality and fiction and to subvert many of the horror clichés while at the same time using them to get classic scares. He also manages, impressively, to get Freddy back to being a genuinely scary figure. This is helped by Freddy receiving a makeover that makes him look even more evil than he ever did before (in fact, this and the "devil" Freddy look from FvJ are probably his scariest incarnations).

Langenkamp does slightly better here, playing a version of herself, but I still wish she'd never burdened the entire series with her presence. She's a great gal and does well to revisit a character she could have ditched a long time ago but there are many better actresses out there. It has to be said that everyone (Langenkamp, Englund, Saxon and even Craven, although he's the least of them,) does well as they bravely portray versions of themselves. And Lin Shaye is back in a minor role, although she may be the only one returning from the first movie NOT to be playing themselves.

This movie, more than any other in the entire series, has intelligence, a great storyline and moments that offer something to really disturb most viewers (parents may feel especially unnerved with some scenes). It also has a number of great callbacks to the first movie and some nice references to classic "horror" stories, Handsel And Gretel being the most noticeable. The second best entry in the series and well worth giving another chance to if you disliked it the first time because it was "too different".

My friend's badgering proved to be almost worth my time as I watched this sweet movie, starring Edward G. Robinson in a fantastically uncharacteristic role.

He plays a father and a farmer, trying to raise his daughter well, help his community and still get enough laid aside for himself so that he can one day own the shed of his dreams.

The small Norwegian community is very much like a close-knit Amish community and nobody is a stranger here, or at least nobody stays a stranger for more than 5 minutes.

This film is about the kids though (the "tender grapes" I believe the title refers to) and a couple of winning performances take you from beginning to end with a smile on your face as the young boy and girl we spend the most time with alternate between sugary-sweet and realistically insolent.

Is it cult? Is it any good? Many fans would give a resounding yes as an answer to one or both of those questions. I do too.

A fantastic performance from Bruce Campbell, superbly supported by Ossie Davis (R.I.P.), holds this film together. Flying beetles, a mummy sucking souls, the King, a black JFK, it all sounds like kooky, camp fun but what really sets this film in your memories is the emotional core.

It's about taking one last stand, it's about the fleeting moments of happiness we look back on in our old age and either regret because we made mistakes afterwards or regret because we can't have them back, it's about finding strength when you've spent so long accepting your fragility and, in a way, it's about the endurance of legends (or heroes, if you prefer). I may be reading too much into it but I think this movie DOES have all that and more. I challenge you to watch it and tell me different.