Reviews

... but so talentless!!

They sucked when they were young, they suck now.

This movie is irritating, badly made on a technical level, hasn't a story, über-bad acting, is silly beyond belief and so politically correct it makes you want to vomit.

Maybe some day they will be able to 'act' in a good movie, but I don't think we'll live to see that day!

Worst thing I can say about this : I thought Britney Spears' Crossroads was better and less irritating. How about that?

Avoid this at all cost.

I bought this movie, because the company released it on DVD in a totally different way than it should be. The title was changed in "The Dog Killer" and everything was made to look as if this were to be a psychological, dark and tense thriller about a couple whose dog is run over and the guy who did it was going to pay for it, kind of Fatal Attraction or something like that.

Instead, we have some kind of character study (maybe like some of Robert Altman's movies). The movie begins with Tom and Perri losing their driver by a hit-and-runner who is tricked by Tom in believing they have met some time ago. A drunken Henry, who killed the dog, is then thrown out of the car by Tom who then proceeds to...

The image stops with Henry lying on the ground and from a distance the car with Tom standing still. Then we cut away and the character study starts. It isn't a revenge thriller anymore, but we get to learn the different characters. Tom and Perri, Henry and his wife (who's quite unhappy with their marriage), Perri's co-worker (who has the hots for her, but is still in a relationship with Laine, a friend) and the cop who's out to investigate. The plot about the dog killer who's about to pay for his crimes takes a backseat and we learn about these people. It actually becomes almost redundant if Tom actually ran over Henry in the end or if it were someone else. It just isn't the main importance for the director.

An amusing movie which puts a lot of things in a short running time, this surely isn't bad, but it was just that I expected something totally different from what I've seen.

So let us conclude : this isn't a thriller, this is tragic comedy/drama about people whose life gets turned upside down after a traumatic event triggered it all (the dog getting killed of course).

Maybe in the US of A, other things are important, but in Europe, "acting", "realism" and "moving" are terms that usually are applied when we speak of a quality show.

In 7th Heaven, the acting is horrible, no real people would act like this (maybe only morons) and the situations are sometimes so sentimental and petty, it makes me embarrassed.

I can understand for these people to perform in this, they are bad actors, except for Catherine Hicks, she used to be someone with movies like "Child's Play" on her CV. That little blond guy plays, sorry to say, one of the most irritating characters ever! I mean, who would like to be a friend of him?

Conclusion : this show is horrible and for people who read Dutch : "de stroop druipt er echt vanaf, zo onnozel"

This is, like Full House, a show about a divorced man who lives with his daughters and his father and encounters all kind of funny situations.

HAHAHA, I'm laughing already!!

Now for how this show turns out in reality : this is the kind of moralistic show without any decent funny situations that I really can't watch without getting frustrated. I know that not every show can be like The Simpsons or Married With Children, but couldn't they do better than re-using the "Full House" format? I mean, Bob Saget plays the exact same role!!! And he and the rest of the actors are as funny as in that previous show : totally not. This is not the way it goes in real families. Or is the American lifestyle that hypocrite and unrealistic?

It stuns me that this kind of tripe still gets made when much better shows like "Grounded For Life" shows how it should be done. But no!! Let's make another Full House, because people liked it so much!! Well, watching this junk embarrasses me, completely. Acting, directing, writing,... all for nothing I can say. I hope this show will appear in the garbage bin very soon!!

I'm not a enthusiast of romantic movies, but even I can see when a romantic movie is good or when it's a loser.

this one is way beyond a loser because of 1 thing : everything in this movie (let it be the story, the acting, the images) feel so forced and clichéd that it becomes more of a parody of a romantic movie than a romantic movie on its own. What Richard Gere did in this piece of junk, I don't know!! Last night I was thinking how The Mothman Prohpecies could be better, but I was only thinking how this movie could have been ever made!!

Seriously, Joan Chen, who appeared in Twin Peaks, shouldn't be allowed to direct or use a camera. Romantic movies should be intimate, not ridiculous like this piece of absolute crap. Avoid at all cost!!

As being an adaption of a comic, I cannot judge if the movie is faithful to it. But as the movie on its own, it certainly is amusing. It's quite hard (and gory) for being a big screen movie, and I like that. Bad guys are hard, merciless people who need to be treated the same way as they do to others, they need to be punished. So then it's normally that this movie isn't going to be for kids.

While the action is quite good, there isn't an original story of Oscar-winning acting, though Lundgren and the rest of the cast do not fail, certainly not in comparison with other performances in action movies. The settings of the movie are equal to the action : dark and grim, just what it needs.

Of course, you know from the beginning that The Punisher and the inspector will live on until the end, but even this predictability doesn't prevent you from having fun with this.

This is entertainment as I like it : it's fast, it's full of action and it's not to complicated. Everyone likes a beautiful, moving movie in a while, but not all the time and that's when this kind of flick comes to mind. Grab a beer with some friends and enjoy it.

7/10

When I picked up this movie, it sure had a cool cover. And it was a second-hand cassette that I could buy for a price the same as renting it. So I thought that I could never be screwed buying it. I was quite wrong, I must say.

To begin with something positive, the idea of the movie is quite good. A society of students uses their computer skills to kill off degenerates in the society. For me, that's an idea that have could been used to make an entertaining movie. But director Andy Anderson has chosen the very wrong way and tried to make a mixture between SF and some kind of buddy comedy. The 2 main characters (John Davies & Lauren Lane) try to be funny, but they don't succeed, resulting in a irritated viewer. Also, a young Lou Diamond Phillips in the first 5 minutes of this film. The budget is also very low, but that didn't bother me.

I will even say that many low budget movies are better then those big budget special effects movies Hollywood likes to churn out. But again, the idea of this movie was good enough to make a great movie, but no cigar. Anderson would later make the great Detention (if you believe the comments this movie gets on IMDB), but this sure isn't a great debut for him.

Was this movie made by someone like Jim Wynorski (who made entertaining movies of The Lost Island and Chopping Mall), it would have be nice, easy entertainment. Had David Cronenberg been the director, he would have made a neat, little but intelligent SF/horror flick with some shocking effects. But Andy Anderson made it and this is the result. And you already know what I think about it.

Recently the first season of this show has started on the Belgian quality network.

I say quality network because this show is quality. The voices and characters are funny, the idea of a man who has a human relation with God and the devil (God and the devil are shown as 2 ordinary guys doing their job) is very funny.

I have read how the show has been cancelled very quick in the USA. The show certainly isn't blasfemous, it's very lighthearted. It sadly shows how quality programs aren't always recognized. And that's a pity.

yes, but don't expect a masterpiece. like most italian zombie flicks, everything is bad here (the makeup for the faces are just halloween masks, the gore isn't as good as it could be, the acting and story... euh, there isn't much to none) but like many bad italian zombie flicks, it's pretty entertaining and interesting.

I am a big fan of horror movies and if you are, then you actually can't ignore the Hellraiser series. The original (which was based on the novel of the director, Clive Barker) was an original and frightening tale about hell, demons and the confrontation with these things by people. After this, there was a sequel made, which stood up fairly against the original, but didn't have the same quality, but it kept the same atmosphere and grim look of the original. The third and forth edition were actually Pinhead-based slashers. These movies were entertaining on their own (everybody likes to see a slasher movie once in a while), but it was obvious that these movies didn't reach the same level of quality as the 2 first. Well, the first thing you say then when you see that there is a fifth installment in the making "How more downhill can you go if they went already pretty far??"

This is what a lot of people said if you read the reviews on this page, but i'm glad to say that they are quite wrong. A lot of people seem to have a problem with the fact that during this movie, there are very little scenes with the Cenobites and , of course, Pinhead. These people seem to forget that in the original the actual screen time for these Cenobites is also quite short, 10-15 minutes. In this movie, you have quite the same amount of time, only there are other Cenobites here then in the previous 4 (only Pinhead returns, for 2-3 minutes, but these minutes are quite effective).

This movie (and his director) also wants to take the known elements (Lemarchand's configuration, Cenobites,...) and use it to make a more psychological horror movie. OK, maybe this doesn't succeed in every way, but it takes courage to try to make something different and , especially, again taking the level of quality back to the level set by the first 2. Also, this doesn't succeed (the atmosphere of the first 2 is never matched), but if your honest, you can give Hellraiser : Inferno the number 3 because it is actually the 3rd best of the series.

I can assure you : the movie stands very good on it's own and it contains solid performances from the cast, not exceptional but good enough. The story itself builds up quite nicely and the gore is better and more frightening then in most horror flicks these days. And the idea of the movie (Lemarchand's configuration takes the person who opens it to his own personal hell) is not that bad.

You can't go wrong with this. And for the ones who still think that the 3rd and 4th installment are better, they can wait for number 6, which i think will pick up the line of number 4, acting like 5 doesn't exist. And that's something that Scott Derrickson's brave attempt here doesn't deserve.

This movie has a cult following, people who praise this into heaven and keep on preaching about the phenomenal ending. Well, i've watched it and i'm not that convinced. But i had fun.

First, let me put your attention on the positive things : the movie wasn't boring to watch and the ending was cool and (even if you had read about it) surprising, even when the ending was over way to soon (you know what i mean when you see it). The background on Angela was also interesting (surely the idea, the execution had to deal with bad acting - i will deal with this later on). And we all damn know that we don't have to expect an Oscar-worthy movie when you're going to see a slasher movie.

But now, oh yes, the negative side : the acting was for the most part (99,5%) bad, bad in a way you even not see anymore these days. I mean, unconvincing and wooden to perfection!!! Fortunately, this makes you eager to see a lot of people getting butchered in horrible ways. But there was very little slasher in this slasher movie. There was totally no suspense or anything like that, you just sit down and watch it and accept it. No scary parts, no gruesome parts, no moving parts, nothing!!! Technically, it wasn't that great either, but luckily this kind of movie doesn't need much of technical quality. And of course, sometimes the movie was plain silly and unlogical and unconvincing, but hey, that's a merit that lot of slasher movies have.

What maybe deserves a special note, is that of course al these children here are at maximum 15-16 years old, what gives it a special feel sometimes. I don't know why it does, but at least it's better then a "summer camp slasher movie where all people are 21 years or older", like 'Friday the 13th'. But that movie was better in all the other departments.

If you add the positive and negative things, you might say that this movie isn't worth your time. And i have rated it 2/10. But even then i say : go rent it, because it occupies your time better then other movies. And the ending is still special. But don't expect much!

Abre Los Ojos was a great film, with solid performances, haunting atmospherics and a unexpected, original ending. Vanilla Sky is the remake, a film that tries to copy Abre Los Ojos and fails rather miserably.

In fact, you can say it very simple : if you have only watched Vanilla Sky, than you're in for a movie that reaches some nice intellectual heights for an American movie with an original ending. But, if you see this movie and then see the original (or if you had already seen that one), Vanilla Sky suddenly becomes a quite lame movie. Which is a shame actually, because I like Tom Cruise and certainly because he has given the attention to Amenabar he deserves. Cruise has always been to me one of better actors in America. But Cruise should have known that the quality of the original could never have been injected in the remake. There are a lot of things which make the original better, but now I'm going to give the 3 main points why this movie is way underneath the original :

1)the performances : how hard Cruise tries, he never puts as much tragedy and quality in his role as Eduardo Noriega. But this goes for every actor here (also Cruz, who had a more sharp, vivid character in the original)

2)the approach : the original is more scary, leaves more to the imagination of the audience and has a better ending (yes, vanilla sky manages to remove some of the intensity of the original ending!!)

3)the music!!! : although the songs on their own are good (2 songs from my fave band REM), the music is just totally inappropriate and actually ruins some of the scenes. you know what i'm talking about when you can compare the 2 movies

therefore 1 advice : just go see Abre Los Ojos and wait until Vanilla Sky comes on television, late at night. Ironically, that's what the special featurette on the VHS edition suggests!!!

where "Requiem for a Dream" was the best movie in the category "drug movies", i think that this one certainly can competitor with other movies for best "post-war drama".

not that this is a perfect movie. it is still a low budget movie, a very low budget movie in fact, but that gives this movie just that specific feel and gritty look. really nothing is uplifting here. it's a story about a man who has experienced Vietnam, where he was tortured and went berserk. now, back home, where he lives with his wife and his deformed son, thanks to the fact that he has been in touch with Agent Orange, he just cannot get his life back on the rails and this movie portrays one day where everything seems to get as worse as it can be. we follow him from the morning, where he has again a terrible nightmare about Vietnam (he has hallucinations and flashbacks throughout the day) until the evening, where the film ends in a shocking way.

the acting is maybe not always top notch, but every character in this movie feels totally believable. the special effects and gore are low budget, but again believable and effective. maybe that's why the Troma people decided to pick this movie up and started to sell this movie as a Troma movie. or maybe they were looking for at least 1 movie so that they could say "hey, we are also producing serious flicks!!" you can say what you want, but i think it was great to give this movie a chance, it deserves it.

not a commercial movie, no, a very dark, convincing story about a man who lives a life we all want to avoid. this is not going to appeal to every person, but please, give it a shot. when you do so, you're in for a movie experience you will remember.

quoted as an erotic drama, i found this actually a funny film. i don't doubt it has some sort of unraveling about this famous character in history, but Nick Mancuso acts in such a way that you just can't stop to gniffle and smile. sorry to say to the people who think this is acted seriously, but he reminded me of a 18th century Al Bundy!!!

but therefore this film is guaranteed to have you hooked for it's time.

tastes differ, that's one thing that is quite sure. but, once in a while, there is a movie which stands up and should be appreciated by ANY taste, nonetheless which this taste is. Requiem for a dream is such a movie.

although the plot might not be very advanced (the movie handles the lives of 4 people who are affected by addictions and loneliness and are eventually totally bereft of their humanity), the rest of this movie is quite superb above many other movies. First, the music. Almost every 5 min, a scene is accompanied by a piece of music (by Clint Mansell and the Cronos Quartet) and NEVER is the music unappropiate. In fact, the music is even that good, that it is actually worhtwhile to buy the soundtrack. Second, the acting is genuine, never forced, always convincing. Ellen Burstyn's acting scene, when she confesses to her son how lonely she is, is so touching, really unbelievable. The direction, with beautiful, sliding shots, split screens and hallucinating takes of the downward spiral of the 4 main characters, gives you enough information on how shitty their lives are and simultaniously keeps you glued to the screen. Shocked and intriged, not much films succeed in this.

As a reaction to a reviewer which stated that Trainspotting is better than this movie because T. shows the good signs and bad signs of drug use, you are completely wrong!!! T. is a buddy movie, where the subject of drugs is taken as a side story development (first, i really liked T. , but the purpose of this movie, unlike R., is not to shock its audience, but to amuse and along the way show what drugs can do). In R., the downward spiral after the addictions in general have kicked in. Therefore, R. is most of the times a shocking film, but with also many beautiful scenes where the main characters try to keep their humanity, before totally collapsing (the scene where Jennifer Connely and Jared Leto at the end of the movie are talking to each other over the phone is truly moving!).

I think this is one of those movies which have to be seen. NO words can describe the true power of this motion picture. For me, everything is perfect. Even when i don't know, i think the coffee for the actors and filming crew was perfect. as my title reads, i think this is the best movie of the 10 last years (yes, i have seen The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Existenz,......). Never has a movie succeeded in gripping me, changing me and fascinating me for many days after i have seen it.

Therefore : watch Aronofsky's further projects, this man is the future of "Quality American Cinema"!!!

From his first movie "Bad Taste" (which i have also seen) until his last for the moment "Lord of the Rings" Peter Jackson has a certain style of moviemaking, which make his films quite inventive (even with LOTR, which is not so easy because big budgets many times limit the freedom for directors) but also very entertaining. for his first and this one, "Braindead" (one of the best horror films since the beginning of filmmaking), he also displays a sick and unpolitically correct sense of humour, which boosts this film and THE reason why this movie would be mediocre in the hands of some other directors.

although the film is certainly the goriest of all times (and this means "buckets-of-blood-and-intestines" gory), it is presented in such a comic way that you just can't avoid of having a smile on your face for the whole duration. but, something i have almost nowhere read, is that also in non-gory scenes, Peter Jackson(with his fantastic camerawork and script) there is a lot of humour and amusement to be seen.

although i can really enjoy a quality film and can be very critical about films in more technical ways (acting, lighting,...), i also can't resist MOVIES THAT ARE INDEFENSABLE AND ONLY HAVE THE PURPOSE TO AMUSE YOU. i mean, who can have anything against a work of pure genius like this, where Peter Jackson goes all the way, with no compromises? such sheer enthusiasm should be rewarded, and you can't criticise Peter Jackson for having a lack of enthusiasm, because it takes a lot of courage to make 3 movies covering one of the largest and most detailed books on this planet!! with these movies, Peter Jackson will finally get what he deserves, recognition. and so, a lot of people will discover the little gems he has been making before. and this gem should be seen by all!

P.S. : here in Belgium (and rest of Europe), the film exists as "Braindead", otherwise "Dead Alive", only thing i can say is, be sure that you see this movie in it's full gory glory, because otherwise you will be very disappointed, this movie in its R-rated version is like seeing "There's something about Mary", but in a version where the funny scenes have been removed. such things are bummer!!

although jess franco has a name in horror circles and i haven't seen any of his films yet except this one, i would say franco sure hasn't anything to offer

this movie was boring, never got real sleazy enough and the gore was pretty tame, except for 1 or 2 scenes, it was more a dull movie where 2 or 3 gore scenes were put in just not to make the whole movie really boring!!! the acting was non-talented (i think telly savalas died of shame for being in this piece of trash) and the opening movie song keeps on coming back in the movie and sounds like antything Britney Spears would sing, it's like Hellraiser 6 with a soundtrack by Boyzone, it has that effect

the movie also never becomes scaring, there are none of franco's known camera work, it could have easily been made by a obscure Italian director or a Georgian pharmaceutical, the movie never separates itself from other Eurotrash movies. at least, New York Ripper had real interesting gore scenes and that special Fulci touch, but it seems to me this hasn't that Franco touch, whatever it might be

i think Franco was in a depression when he made this. everything about this movie plain sucks, from the lame gore scenes (exception of 1 gore scene) to the boring lesbian scenes

one to avoid, for better gore, watch Braindead, for better sleaze, watch a porn movie, for better film, watch many other movies!!