Change Your Image
bigbenjr48
I Have Reached My Horror Board Milestone - 2/15/2015. And just in time!
I must be the luckiest horror boarder in the world!
Not that it matters, but today is my IMDb birthday.
My IMDb account just turned the unlucky number 13 today; and what a fitting end for me since this board is scheduled to be nuked.
Miniscule as it is, I feel like the luckiest horror boarder alive today.
Since I was always primarily a Horror Boarder, I feel luckier than most to face this approaching doom, since I now possess the most evil, feared, unluckiest and recognizable number known to horror and all of Mankind.
Glad to have known all you all.
See you all unknowingly in real life, or knowingly in other forums/boards
Reviews
It (2017)
"IT" Wasn't What I Expected
I despised the made-for-TV movie, and this theatrical version only fared slightly better. Here is how I summed up this one by character portrayal:
1.) The naive Beverly Marsh from the mini-series was portrayed more like the naive Beverly Marsh from the novel. But the Beverly Marsh from this updated-retelling was portrayed like a nymph who knew more about her sexuality than she was suppose to know. Her father (stepfather in the novel) was portrayed in a way to have us suspect that Beverly kept his bed warm at night. But thankfully, at least they included the scene with Beverly and the blood-spraying bathroom sink.
2.) Ben Hanscom was portrayed accurately (save for substituting his love of "Highway Patrol" for "Boy-Bands"; which was an awkward change, but no big deal. He was just the right size as portrayed in the novel, and bullied by the Bowers gang in the same way. But the problem I had was the missing encounter with "The Mummy" (who was "IT"). This was instead substituted for a basement encounter with a headless corpse. But overall, I'd say Ben Hanscom was more on the mark.
3.) Although Bill Denbrough had the stutter down-pat, the person portraying him was just too darn tall. This was one of the same problems I had with the TV version. In fact, most of these actors were too tall. He was also too demanding that they help him find his brothers killer, as if they had no choice in the matter. In the novel he was more begging/pleading for help. Bill's father was more of a grouch in this than he was in the novel. There should have been a tad more screen time for him to show his softer side.
4.) Richie Tozier was the same jokster as portrayed in the novel. Even though they showed the statue of "Paul Bunyan", they never showed his encounter with it when "IT" possessed it (tongue- twister). Richie instead had no personal encounter with "IT" until later (in the novel, Richie dismissed his encounter with Paul Bunyan as a bad dream). The only problem I had with Richie was that he spoke so fast that I couldn't understand much of what he was saying most of the time. And there were times all of them spoke fast. It was as if they were speed-reading their lines.
5.) Stan Uris had little to do in the novel just as he had little to do in the TV movie, and he also had little to do in this version; so his character was spot-on. He was more intellectually aware of what was happening and how impossible this all was. His mind could never come to grips with how something so unreal could be so real. Although they showed the standpipe in this movie, they never showed Stan's encounter with "The Dead Kids" when he ventured inside of it. Also, they didn't touch on his love of bird-watching (birds became his power of escaping "IT").
6.) Michael Hanlon's character was completely skewed up in this film. I can't begin to tell you how much they skewed up every detail of his being and his place in the Losers Club. For those of you who read the novel, you'll know exactly what I mean. What was up with that step-daddy? Where was his real daddy? What was up with that Sheep- farm? Where did that come from? Mike's role was so minuscule that his character was almost useless being there. And that's a shame since he was a major character in the novel. All he did was follow them around with little to say.
7.) Eddie Kaspbrak was another speed talker who I could barely understand at times. But at least they had his "size/height" correct. His fear of all viruses, diseases and bacteria was just as funny as in the novel, and his mother was near perfect. And thank goodness his encounter with the Leaper was included...just not his original way of escaping.
8.) Pennywise. Well, Scooby-Doo has a new voice if they ever need one. But I still liked this portrayal a lot more than Tim's (I know that's blasphemous for those who never read the novel and only saw the movie). I still had the same problem with "It" being a Clown for 90 percent of the film like in the 90's TV movie. In the novel, "It" only morphed into Pennywise when he wanted to attract children. He mostly became your worst fear in the novel. In both movies he mostly killed as a Clown.
In conclusion:
Beverly: too tall. Too sexual a persona. No Mother. Talks to fast. Bad portrayal.
Ben: No encounter with "The Mummy". Portrayed well.
Bill: Too tall. Well portrayed.
Richie: No "Paul Bunyon" encounter. No "Teenage Werewolf" encounter. Talks too fast. Still aptly portrayed.
Stan: No "Dead Boys" encounter. Portrayed well since his character was small in the novel.
Michael: Horrible. No father. No Mother. No encounter with "Giant Bird". Not enough dialogue to judge portrayal.
Eddie: Portrayed good.
I'll end by saying; the Losers Club entered the sewer via the Barrens, NOT the house on Neibolt Street (as shown in this movie). Their point of entry was from a sewer-cover in the Barrens where they played. And oh boy, did entering the sewer from that damn house suck up everything for me.
I'll give it a 6/10. But 6/10 ain't all that bad, because the TV movie is still worse, Imo.
World War Z (2013)
Tolerable
I have never read the novel based upon this film adaptation, and I am glad that I didn't. Because usually I am a huge complainer when it comes to novel/author-accuracy. I tend to get P.O'ed when certain scenes/events from a novel are omitted that I hold dear in my heart, and P.O'ed when things that never occurred in a novel are include in film adaptations. It's like painting a mustache on a Rembrandt.
Okay, I ain't really all snobbish like that.
I'll probably never read the novel because Zombie novels don't interest me much anyway. The closest thing to a Zombie novel I've read is some Stephen King novel about cellphones. But I kinda liked WWZ...a little. However, there were several things I didn't agree with. Like Brad Pitt bouncing around from infected-place to infected-place and being the only one not getting bit while hundreds around him are not so lucky. I thought wrapping the magazine around his arm for bite-protection was clever. I thought infecting yourself with a deadly disease in order to make oneself undesirable/undetectable was clever. But still, although ingenious, this last one left me feeling a bit cheated.
While it wasn't the best Zombie film in the world, it certainly had some scenes that raised an eyebrow (the Zombies piling up to climb walls, for instance). And I can't say that it was boring. So it gets a 5/10 from me for at least for being something I may want to rewatch in the next 10 years or so.
Midnight Offerings (1981)
Melissa Sue Shines Through, In This 80's TV Witches Brew
Here, we have a tale of two teen Witches. One good, one evil.
The Good Witch is Robin Prentiss, (played by Mary Beth McDonough....whom you may better know as the star of the horror film Mortuary (1983)....also from The Waltons TV series) has just arrived in a small town with her Pops, where both want to start a new life. But doggone if things don't go wrong on her first day of school when the captain of the football team wants to hookup with the new hot chick...who just happens to be the boyfriend of that other Witch.
The Evil Witch is Vivian Sotherland, (played by Melissa Sue Anderson....whom you may better know as the star of the horror film Happy Birthday To Me (1981)....also from Little House On The Prairie TV series) don't cotton to new girls being hotter than she is, and also hates being dumped and replaced before 5th period. So what's an evil hot 80's chick to do? Kill her, that's what.
Decided to rewatch this old, but not bad, made-for-TV horror movie of yesteryear (Think ABC, CBS, NBC movie of the week, if you're old like me). 70's/80's cars, big hair, bell-bottoms, tight gym shorts, telephones with a rotary-dial...you dig. Melissa Sue Anderson's 'evil Witch' easily stole the show since her 'vulgar-display-of-power' was always active in the film. She was always casting some sort of spell that resulted in campy, cheesy special effects. But not to be outdone, Mary Beth McDonough's good Witch also stole a few scenes. She was a natural at freaking-out during supernatural or phenomenon-assaults that came out of nowhere. Being the less powerful Witch, she was only able to repel/deflect these attacks, but not launch one. This forces her to seek the help of an older Witch who convinces her that practice makes perfect.
This movie actually sounds better than it is. But that don't mean you won't enjoy this time-capsule. Old-school and dated as it is, it still fits in snugly alongside other made-for-TV horror flicks such as Satan's School For Girls and The Car....although it definitely wasn't 'Salem's Lot' caliber. The best parts of the movie are the scenes that feature the evil Melissa Sue Anderson. That evil, pouty frown and sneer she keeps on her face throughout the film was all kinds of creepy, cute and classic. Also, she's got this cool, dark Gothy bedroom where she chants to Satan, make potions, cast spells and sends curses to anyone who gets in her way of getting her boyfriend back (most of her curses were sent by remote control fashion from this room, BTW). What more could I ask for in a Witch movie? Except for the black cat and black Raven she had at her disposal.
7/10 from me.
It Follows (2014)
Give Me Some Of That "Follow" Sex
I was impressed.
There hasn't been a horror film that's been able to cast this sort of spell on me in several years, And not in several recent years either. I can't began to describe the feeling of foreboding that this film repeatedly raped me with during almost every scene. Several times, I found myself on the edge of my seat even before there was real reason to do so. But accompanying this feeling of foreboding was a depression that I was unable to rid myself of. And never before has any cheaply budgeted, independent horror film done such a thing to me.
This horror film gave me more goosebumps than actual frights....which was somehow worse. Even though the plot explains itself early on in the film (which should have spoiled it), it still could not stop the chill that kept surging through me with each predictable scene. I knew what was coming long before I even saw it, and knew which character it was coming for. And already knowing still offered me little comfort. Being prepared for what is already self-evident means nothing with this horror film. All that mattered was the POV of the character in peril...this is all we were allowed to see...which was more than enough to pleasantly chill.
Anyone who thinks this horror film is tame, I won't argue with you. It's not big-budget Hollywood. This was a good idea made with a small budget. And it worked...for me anyways. Which is a rare happening for myself.
I give it a 9/10
The Bay (2012)
Stay Away From The Bay
The Bay seemed like a combination of Found-Footage and Documentary all rolled into one. Interesting. This I kinda liked. But I still didn't like the way I was fooled into thinking I was about to watch a horror film (based on how it was advertised in clips, teasers and previews). As it turns out, this was more like a "what-if-scenario". Or (more boldly) a propaganda movie funded by the likes of Peta or Green Peace and associates.
Water is initially to blame. Then later, what is 'in' the water is finally pinpointed as the cause of death. But their findings and discoveries are too little, too late. Apparently Chicken doo-doo and nuclear waste have fornicated and offspring a nasty deadly parasite that eats the innards of its host. And boy what fun it has feasting. The fish of the Bay consume this tasty parasite first and quickly die, but this draws little attention or panic initially, until people start eating and drinking it secondly. And it don't take long for locals to realize that Alka-seltzer and Pepto-Bismol won't cure the indigestion, so (what else?) they flee to the hospital in droves...where they drop dead in numbers.
There was also this nonsensical, back-and-forth communication (via Skype) between the local hospital and the CDC (Centers For Disease Control) that only wasted more time investigating this outbreak and not really taking it seriously until it was too late.
This movie could have worked much better if the parasites that crawled up peoples asses turned them into Zombies or some other unmentionable Monstrosity that could have at least produced a new horror sub-genre. But instead, this movie (Shamelessly) purposely had its own Green-Party-Type agenda that (subliminally) wants to recruit a new generation of voters, lobbyist to fight for their cause. All these parasites did was turn them into bawling babies who ran to the hospital and die in the waiting-room while waiting to be seen by a doctor. And this was very boring to watch. And very much proves my point that we should contact our local Congressman to stop this madness before it starts.
I still give this movie much props for not having the traditional "shaky-cam" that most found-footage films usually have (for that "so-called" realism-feel). But that credit is only enough to raise my rating to a 4/10. Because it damn near got a 3.
The Babadook (2014)
A Good Drama, But A Bad Horror
I understand that people have different tastes in movies, I have seen this difference in the horror genre more so than any other. But I've gotta say, The Babadook has got to be the worst piece of crap that I have seen in years.
It seems to be the type of film that only horror-snobs could love....and endure.
Since I'm working more and posting less on here, I have seen very few reviews of this movie that seem to be positive. And a scant few negative. I have also seen posters who are sick and tired of even hearing about the movie. This is why I had to see for myself what the fuss was all about.
This movie did not scare, frighten or chill me one single bit. And isn't that the basic reason for a horror film? Isn't that (ultimately) what a frigging' horror movie is suppose to do?
I will never accept psychosomatic, post-traumatic, paranoid-schizophrenic, delusional, post-menopausal disorders as horror movies unless someone is actually killed/slashed as a result. And the only death in this film was the much talked-about (but unseen) death of papa-do-little in a car accident.
And I wanted to kill that kid. If he were my kid I'd be facing first degree murder charges that gets reduced by reason of insanity. I saw more than half-a-dozen reasons that would warrant me ramming my foot in this kids ass. And for that reason, this kid has my props for being a very gifted actor. And the mother was in denial of this little bastard, despite being fully aware of (and also witnessing) many of his destructive actions. Also, she was sexually repressed, post-menopausal and depressed. Watching her as she frantically masturbated turned me on so much that I wanted to jump through the flat-screen TV and give her the beaver-banging that she so desperately craved (and wasn't there an awkward moment when that kid made some sort of sexual advance on her?).
When she finally tried to kill the little bastard, I cheered. "Get that little S.O.B!." I shouted.
This movie was well made, but stupid.
The mother reads a fairytale book about The Babadook. Soon after, the kid starts seeing (and is terrified by) this monster that his mother cannot see. The mother puts him on sleeping-tranquilizers. The tranquilizers work and the kid stops seeing The Babadook. Now the mother only sees The Babadook and the kid doesn't. The kid knows what his mother is seeing (even though he can no longer see) and tries to help.
The Babadook is actually the Father/Husband. They both are simultaneously mourning and swapping delusions. They both wish him back, and have both manifested him in a fk'ed up way. The manifestation of him as evil (I suppose) represents how not letting go is tearing them both apart (booooooring!).
Who cares if my Sigmund Freud psychology is wrong, the movie still sucked as a horror. Had she taken the same drug prescribed for her son then she may have also been cured of her hallucinations as he apparently was. This speaks a lot for prescription drugs (perhaps this film was a subliminal product-placement for pharmaceuticals).
This movie wasn't a horror, it was a movie about coping with the loss of a loved-one.
As a horror, I give it a 2/10, because a horror it ain't.
As a drama, it deserves an 8/10, because, in all fairness, it was good for that category.
But I will never call nor accept this as a true, straight horror film.
The Happening (2008)
What's Happening?
Don't expect to see Rerun, Raj and Dwayne hanging out at Shirleys diner.
I'm glad I heard the trashing of this film before I saw it, because I was able to go into it with low expectations. And this is the reason I found this film to be a slight enjoyment.
Moonwalking Madness, is what I would rename this film. This film was one big joke from start to finish. And by "joke" I mean funny as hell. Suicide has never been so funny to me until this film came along. You've got to be crazy to take this film completely serious. And you have no funny-bone if you can keep a straight face while viewing it.
Billie Jean is not my lover (moonwalk), and then *BLAMMO*.
Apparently, defenseless Vegetation (of all things) has decided to (for whatever reason) join forces in a Jihad against all of mankind. A Daffodil and an Oak Tree had obviously flipped a coin and decided to launch their first attack in the upper New England states, which put my mind at ease since I'm a Southerner. "The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind". I mean, literally....it was blowin' in the wind. It appears that the wind is an ally in this terrorist attack. I mean, what better way for toxic "plant-farts" to travel from point-A to point-B? Once a human gets a whiff of this fragrance, they become tranced. They take four or five steps backwards, do the hokey-pokey, turn themselves around and look around for something deadly to end their lives.....that's what its all about!!
"Hey, lookie there....a John Deere lawnmower. Lemmi crank her up and crawl under it....see if the blades are sharp enough for the lawn" or "That thar hand grenade looks awful damn delicious." or "I hope you left a bullet in that chamber for me, hon."
Mark Wahlberg stars, and is intentionally unconvincing as a high-school science teacher, appearing to look only slightly older than the students he teaches. He lives a few states over from the "plant-farts", but not for long, as the winds-of-change are quickly headed his direction. John Leguizamo also stars, playing an even more intentionally unconvincing mathematics teacher, however he does improve his performance during emotional moments. He travels with his 8 year old daughter who (thankfully) barely spoke throughout most of the film.
This is not quite a review, just my observation with rambling included. I am confused. Is this actually what Shyamalan was aiming for? Or was this humor just unintentional? Whatever his intention, I didn't care, because I was too busy having fun watching it. The suicides are completely hilarious, which wasn't a bad thing since nearly each suicide died with a different method....well....except for the people who were gathered together. If someone in a group had a gun, they'd all share the gun....each biting a bullet until there were no more bullets left. If someone jumped off a building, everyone around would think it was an excellent idea. So, to answer your mothers old question: "Sure mom, if Billy jumped off a bridge, I'd be close enough behind him to see his butt crack."
The problems I had with this film were major, but the humor made up for it. Like how Wahlberg and company never got infected, but others around him were offing themselves in herds. And like how the wind always seemed to blow in someone else's face even though Wahlberg sometimes stood only a few yards away.
Every now and then, they'd happen across a TV where the news is on, and there'd be some guy talking about this Happening, or trying to figure out the origin of it.....which I saw as a direct rip-off of G.A Romero's Night Of The Living Dead.
But this is all just my observation and opinion. You don't have to buy it. Just buy the movie and see for yourself.
7/10
I Saw What You Did (1965)
Pre Crank Yankers.....Pre When A Stranger Calls....Pre Teens Play.
Fun flick I saw as a kid. Never discussed around these parts, and I suspect no one has seen it under the age of 30.
Pre-Crank-Yankers, A couple of cute, bored, suburbanite teenage girls play on the telephone, dialing numbers at random for fun.
"I Saw What You Did.....And I Know Who You Are.", they whisper into the mouth-piece. And the reaction they receive is usually a hang-up or a chastising.
Slumber-Party giggles ensue each time.
But eventually (call it a stroke of luck) they would dial the number of a guy who had murdered his wife just hours before.
"I Saw What You Did.....And I Know Who You Are."
Stunned, the guy holds them on the phone awhile, questioning them. He can't believe that someone had witnessed this when there was no one around to see. And the girls, thrilled that someone actually humors them, provides detailed, accurate information that convinces him that they actually saw him murder his wife. And now he is determined to murder them.
I saw this film as a pre-teen (some....30 years ago) but I recently happened across it at a flea-market that has a collection of ancient VHS and Beta tapes that no one (except me) goes anywhere near. And I was delighted to be reunited. This old gem (without a box-cover) was littered amongst the stack. 75 cents each. Great buy for an underrated classic.
This film was remade, I recall, but I wasn't interested in seeing it. This is the first movie I'd ever seen where the "telephone" played a major roll in a film. "When A Stranger Calls" was second for me. And I think "I Saw What You Did" was better.
I give it an 8/10.
Scream (1996)
My Love/Hate Relationship With Scream
I grew up in the 70's and 80's with nothing but cheesy slashers. I hate the snappy and intellectual dialogue that slasher films have these days. "Scream" is an example of what I dislike about horror these days. Now don't get me wrong, Scream is refreshingly original. I only have a problem with it being a new "trend" that will live on forever and the slasher of yesterday will only be remembered as a passing fad. I hate it that they warn you about the "Rules you shouldn't break" or else you will die. How dare they know these rules. I want my teenagers to be dumb as hell and unsuspecting of the horror that lies ahead. I don't want them trying to follow the "rules". The teenagers of Scream (and other 90's/05 slashers) are portrayed as "smarter" than their 70's-80's counterparts. I want to go back to the days when twelve teenagers didn't realize anything strange was happening until only two of them are left, and the bodies of their girlfriends and buddies start falling out of trees, and out of closets.
Scream made me literally scream, even though I still sorta liked it. It's just that I don't want parody-slasher such as Scream becoming the norm.
The good times are gone. I'm an old-timer in my 30's. I guess the reason most youngsters are not in pain over this new breed of horror taking over is because there is not much nostalgia for the old. Nothing can compare to growing up in the 70's/80's and seeing the trailer for a Friday The 13th or The Howling or Slumber Party Massacre. I could actually deal with the way they make slashers these days if at least two or three directors would defect from the pack and start making slashers in true 70's/80's fashion. That way the playing field of slasher films would be even, and this new generation of slasher-fans can keep their "Dawson's Creek" dialogue and the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" actors that they love so much, and we fans of old-school slashers can go back to the way a slasher was intended.
I long for the unknown actor who has never appeared on a sit-com or TV drama to star in a cheesy horror. A character who would never take notes from previous slasher movies in order to stay alive. I would love to re-visit that dumb blond who rejects the smart nerd for the dumb jock, only to get killed while in the missionary position. The old man with the dirty dog who warns the kids of danger. The Deputy who pays the teens a warning-visit at the beginning of the film but doesn't show up again until the bodies are cold. And finally, the bloody finger that twitches from the corpse with an ax in his back as the paramedics are zipping him up in a body-bag.
Those were the good old days.
I give Scream an 8/10
Yes, I'm sure my rating surprises you. I can't deny that Scream was a good movie. My anger lashes out only at this new trend that Scream has started. I just hope that it hasn't completely destroyed the slasher of old.
Children of the Corn (1984)
Sarah Connor - Vs - Satan
Certainly one of the better adaptations of a Stephen King tale, Children Of The Corn, for me, was a goosebump film. But all the more chilling was an unseen, Evil Force who a group of murderous children happily calls "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" (Rows, meaning rows of corn in a corn-field) The image you get of this "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" character is simply Satan with a new nick-name. And why old Lucifer has chosen to possess a billion ears of corn in Nebraska {instead of the John Deere tractor sitting alongside of it} is beyond me. Whatever the reason, the fact that he's somewhere within that cornfield gave me the chills throughout this film. More chills than watching these children go on a killing rampage throughout the small town. Anyone over the age of 17 was quickly laid to rest at the beginning of the film, and any kid about to turn 18 happily sacrificed themselves to "He Who Walks Behind The Rows".
The film stars Peter Horton and Linda (Terminator 1 and 2's) Hamilton. By accident, they enter this small town and become the towns only two grown-ups. Once spotted, they are quickly labeled "Outlanders" and are pursued throughout the remainder of the film until they are finally caught, bound and prepared for sacrifice.
I love this film. Its had a special place in my heart for years. There is not a boring moment in this film that would put you to sleep. There are many jolts, winces and frights. And even though the "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" fella never shows his face, you will definitely feel it's presence. Trust me. Just knowing that he's somewhere in the midst of that cornfield will be enough to creep you out.
I give this gem a 9/10
They Live (1988)
Piper and Keith work as a team
I remember going to see this film back in my early twenties. I never caught the promos, read the reviews or watched the trailers, but I knew it was another Carpenter vehicle because a few friends informed me. And since I was a fan of Carpenter, I was happy to be the first in line at the ticket booth when this film opened in my home-town. But I went thinking THEY LIVE was going to be a horror film. I was very disappointed when I first caught sight of the aliens and wanted to leave the theater, but since I had purchased my $3.50 ticket, and my $5.00 tub of buttered popcorn (and also I noticed Keith David, one of my favorite actors co-starring in it) I decided to sit through it.
All disappointment left when Keith finally teamed up with Piper to combat those butt-ugly aliens. The action was almost non-stop from that point till the very end. And I left the theater amazed at Roddy Piper's (a pro wrestler) acting skills. I don't know if he had ever acted before, but he seemed like a darn good natural. Keith David's great acting skills came as no surprise to me since I was already a fan of his work in John Carpenters re-make masterpiece "THE THING" (I'd gone to see this at the theaters as well). But that's another review that I'll tackle at a later date.
My vote for "They Live" is 8/10
Darkness Falls (2003)
The Tooth Ache
The idea to use the Tooth Fairy as a slasher sounded like a good idea at first.
Until I saw the movie!
There are only two scenes that I enjoyed in this entire film. The first fifteen minutes, and the final ten minutes. Everything in between is a bunch of garbage.
The saying goes (in this movie), whenever a child looses his last baby-tooth, the evil Tooth-Fairy will come for you (or something to that effect). But there are only two individuals that this Tooth Fairy is after. I mean, are they the only two people in the world who has lost their last baby-tooth? People lose their last Baby-Tooth every day, but it is never explained in this movie why this Tooth-Fairy hasn't paid deadly visits to others throughout the world. For some reason she is obsessed with only these two.
The little kid, who this Tooth-Fairy is after at the beginning, is just as boring as the little kid whom he tries to help after becoming an adult. Personally, I don't think they should make horror films that are rated either PG or PG-13. What sort of audience are they trying to appeal to when they green-light a slasher with zero gore? I've seen more blood from a paper-cut than in PG horrors.
PG only works for horror films that have high-profile stars and Oscar dreams. Clearly the only goal of this PG horror was to attract children and depart them from their lunch-money by turning a childhood memory into a monster. It only sounded like a good idea, but the finished product gave me a tooth-ache.
Darkness Falls should have been a Made-For-TV movie and rated TV-14
Considering how cheap the budget is for made-for-TV movies, Darkness Falls would have fit right in. I probably would've accepted it, or had more respect for it, and given it a much higher rating. It probably would have been considered groundbreaking for a television horror movie. People might have been praising this film and comparing it alongside other made-for-TV horrors such as 'Salem's Lot, Satan's School For Girls and Trilogy Of Terror. But because it was a theatrical release costing as much as 8 bucks to see, most have trashed it.
You don't expect the same from Television as you would from a major theatrical release. You just don't rate them on the same level. You don't rate a childs finger-painting alongside great masterpieces....you rate it alongside the finger-paintings of other children. I rate television movies (which I rarely watch) differently than I would a major motion picture. I would have loved Darkness Falls if it had been a TV-movie. But I hate it since I had to pay 8 bucks for something that should have been a SCI-FI, USA or an ABC movie of the week.
As a theatrical movie, I rated this film a 2/10 because it was lacking in everything except acting and atmosphere. A good idea done completely wrong and not worth the cash I had to pay to see it.
Had it been a made-for-TV movie, I would have given it at least a 7/10 because it was (again) lacking in everything except acting and atmosphere. A good idea done right by television standards, and well worth watching for free.
Darkness Falls felt like a Tales From The Crypt or an R.L. Stein's: Goosebumps episode. And if you rate it along those lines, then it would have been good, and very much talked about.
I gave this film a 2/10.
A point for the only two good scenes in this film. The beginning and the end. But those two scenes are not worth the quarter that the Tooth Fairy leaves beneath your child's pillow.
Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
Horror - V - Cop Drama
The Hellraiser movies are films that I should have watched in order of release. But I didn't. After seeing the first Hellraiser, I allowed many years to pass before I finally watched another. As you already know, most franchise Horror movies play like soap-operas. The film will end with a question mark, then pick up right up where it left off in the sequel. The second one I saw was Hellraiser: Bloodline. I thought it was cool. But then I kicked myself and decided to go back and see these movies in order.
Then I got to Hellraiser: Inferno.
Even though Pinhead's presence was lacking in this particular Hellraiser (he made a brief five second appearance at the beginning, then appeared again during the final ten minutes of the film) I still thought it was a very cool film. This wasn't your typical, run-of-the-mill Hellraiser vehicle. Halfway through, I believe I figured out what they did to make it so different.
Its almost as if they used a cop-drama screenplay, rewrote it slightly, and included Pinhead and friends. While watching the film, every once in a while I would actually forget it was Hellraiser. But then I would jerk back to reality when I saw the occasional appearance of those two horny Cenobite women. The film is narrated by it's main character, and I though it was funny that not one time does his "narration" speak about the horror that he is going through. It only speaks on his life in general. And this is also something that will make you forget that this is a horror, until......BAM, gallons of blood pours from beneath a door.......BAM, out pops a Cenobite with a tongue as long my arm.
Dramatic pauses are so much different than the comic-relief pauses that we get in horror these days. I believe the dramatic pauses are better. I can't explain it other than telling you to imagine you are watching Harrison Ford in "WITNESS", and suddenly Pinhead makes an appearance while he's churning butter.
Hellraiser: Inferno was a different film. As with Hellraiser: Hell On Earth, Inferno stands alone and apart from the others in the series. I can't believe I actually liked a Hellraiser film where the main character (PINHEAD) played a ten minute supporting role. Such a thing could never be convincingly pulled off with Michael Myers or Jason in a Friday The 13th. Can you imagine Jason showing up to kill only in the last ten minutes of a 13th?? Just try it, and watch the outrage.
I give this film 7/10