Reviews

This is a tough one for me. I saw UJ on my already small computer screen with bad sound and a YouTube sized window so I think I got far from the whole experience. I had a great time watching it on this small screen format and bet the experience watching it on DVD on my my 32" TV, and a lot better sound will certainly enhance the experience. UJ definitely had better fights. Real hard gritty, old school style Seagal Aikido fights. Better than the fights in Exit Wounds and I haven't seen Seagal fight this much and with such style since Fire Down Below. BOTB had very entertaining Fu-Whire work and a bit better pacing. but then again I watched UJ on a tiny, tiny window. Perhaps the camera work should have shocked less during the actions scenes and a few less close ups, but it's Seagal alright, doing all his own old school kind of fighting with bone crunching, Aikido throws and wristlocks. There are a few wide shots of the fighting so one can see that he still is very fast, and the fights were done for real. Mostly it was medium sized shots so no editing tricks here. Not just the magic of editing. He even pushes people around like in his old days before punching them out. Now the story in BOTO was a slightly better end more emotionally involving. The story here were the simplest possible, but then again it only worked in favor of the movie. The plot is very brave for daring to be this simplistic. But it's professionally told. One doesn't really care this time who Seagal beets up to a bloody pulp. Seagal just wants to kill anyone who comes his way. I don't think I have ever seen Seagal this mean spirited before. Not even in Out For Justice, because in that movie he had more of a reason to be brutal. In UJ the audience doesn't hate the bad guys with a vengeance, as they do in many of the classic Steven Seagal revenge flicks. But Seagal does. It is good to see Seagal skip the self righteous preachiness of his older movies. In this one he's just a bad mother... Who cleans up the neighborhood for no higher cause than to get his revenge. And he's not to particular with who gets hurt in the proses. As he says, he has no care for if he lives or dies.

BOTB had a lot of doubles for Seagal even if he also did a lot of his own fighting, and he was voice dubbed for a lot of scenes. The Fu-Whire work were very entertaining and the action scenes over the top fun. BOTB had more humor than UJ, but UJ had Seagals own old school gritty style. The acting in both movies were pretty much OK. UJ had better acting overall. The cinematography was slightly better in BOBT and more style too burn with the camera work. UJ also had good cinematography. Better than in Mercenary where some of the indoor scenes were to dark. There is a lot of that kind of photography in UJ also but this time it's better done. UJ is gritty and almost documentary like in its style. Very laid back and it only capture its action straight on, without a lot of stylized camera angels or camera movements. The editing is a bit sloppy in UJ though as it was in Mercenary. Perhaps Faunt need to plan his shots in advance a bit more careful. But then again they had a crazy shooting schedule, only 20 days including the shooting of the action. It takes some craftsmanship to make something like this fairly high quality looking production. BOTB had top notch production qualities and craftsmanship in the technical department. A bit to wild in its style but made for great mindless entertainment.

OK, this is a tough decision. Both BOTB and UJ are for me Seagals best movies since Fire Down Below, and definitely better than his other STVs. I'm no big fan of Exit Wounds. For me both BOTB and UJ are way better. Into The Sun is slightly behind these two STV productions. There's no obvious winner between these two. But I have to declare UJ the winner of these two late Seagal flicks.

Intensity(1997) Staring John C. McGinley as the killer and Molly Parker as the terrorized girl. Haute tension(2003) and Intensity are both based on a Dean Koontz novel. It's basically the same story. Intensity is just so much better executed in every way. Better performances all-around and much more suspenseful but with less gore. Better shot and without the stupid plot twist at the end that Haute tension had. John C. McGinley gives a truly frightening performance as the serial killer. Great cameo by Piper Laurie.

It's very, very good. One of the most suspenseful movies I've ever seen. And it doesn't let you out of it's grip even once for more than over it's 3 hour run. And it also being quite unknown for such a quality show makes it even more interesting and rewarding to watch. Almost better than all the great Stephen King mini series put together, and I'm a big, big fan of all the Stephen King miniseries. I think it's the realism of this movie that makes it so great and it's well drawn characters. Haute tension's got noting on the edge of the seat tension of Intensity. I probably would have liked Haute tension more if I had not seen this one first. Now Haute tension seems so very inferior compared to Intensity.

I'm really confused by how such a great movie like Intensity has managed to stay so under the radar of the horror community.

As of now there's no DVD release for this one. Which is a big shame when it comes to such a masterclass example of a suspenseful horror-thriller. This one really deserves the DVD treatment to give it some much deserved glory. I want to see a fully loaded 2 disk set with Special Features like a director commentary, deleted scenes, behind the camera documentaries and all that jazz.

Until a DVD comes along, go out and find a VHS copy. You will find it most rewarding.

It's bad no doubt about it. But it's not as bad as people say. It's far from the worst movie ever made. It's however bad in a good way. I've never seen such an entertaining bad movie as HOTD. Most really bad movies are extremely low budgeted and mostly just boring. HOTD however has got a fast pacing and a crazy visual style to it like no other bad movie has ever had before. The sets are equally comic. Like they were leftovers from an old Ed Wood movie.

The visuals mostly make no sense at all. But they ads to the unintentional comedy and has some crazy matrix like zombie action together with insert shots from the video game.

The zombies are of the fast running kind and their makeup is hilarious. Not to forget the rave music throughout the whole movie and the rave party invaded by a horde of the living dead. It certainly is the most entertaining bad movie I've ever seen.

House of The Dead is the worst of the movies made by Uwe Boll that I've seen of so far. But it is also his most entertaining one. The whole movies is fast paced throughout. His other efforts are mostly very slow-paced between the hilarious scenes of action that's a trademark of Uwe Boll.

The photography is unexpectedly good looking. Uwes strong point has always been that he's a good technician. He just doesn't know how to use the visuals to make any kind of sense. It only ads to the comical effect.

If one watches Uwe Bolls latest efforts one can clearly see that he has improved a lot as a filmmaker over the years. He still has a long way to go. But it seems like he continues to learn by his mistakes and improve on his faults. And that is something the man deserves some credit for. Most people never does. It will surely be very interesting to see how his movies in the years to come will turn out.

I'm not sure how to grade this movie because it entertained me a lot but for all the wrong reason.

I love Session 9. I consider it to be the best horror movie made so far, this side of the new millennium. I never been so creeped out watching a movie home alone. It's very rare to see such fine performances by actors in horror movies. I think that's another reason why I'm so found of Session 9. This is very much a horror movie for adults. Not much violence and the pacing is slowly moving forward. Not like many of todays action oriented horror movies. There's no horny teens around either. Something that I found very refreshing to see. There should be more horror movies made directly targeted for a grown up audience. This movie reminds me a bit of Shining but more gritty and much more low-key in character. There's no humor or self awareness in this one. Session 9 is as serious as the grave. The whole feel of the movie is very eerie and really got under my skin. One thing that makes this film so original is that as a viewer one is never sure of what kind of horror movie it is. One is never really sure what kind of movie one is watching at all. This made Session 9 very unsettling. Making it much less predictable. What this film mostly got in common with Shining is that the set is the main character. Affecting the actions of the human characters of the story. You'll know what I mean if you have seen it.

The extra scenes on the DVD that were cut out should have stayed in I think. Those scenes would have added another layer to this already multi layered psychological little gem of a horror movie. The scenes that were cut out was removed from the finished film because the test audience found the subplot they involved confusing. Another evidence that test screening should not always dictate the finished cut. And this is not your ordinary horror film for the general audience. I hope that they one day release a directors cut version with the scenes cut out put back in again. But it was very interesting watching them on the DVD and see how they would have added to the story. However the movie is great as it is.

Very rewarding and original vampire movie. Nice performances, tightly directed, sparingly but exiting scenes of action, moody, beautiful photography, low-key and dreamy atmosphere, romantic fairytale-like story, great synthesizer score by Tangerine Dream. And the lovely and hauntingly beautiful Jenny Wright.

Near Dark could shortly be described as an urban-vampire-western version of The Hitcher(1986), with a downplayed Romeo and Julia theme. Not surprisingly Eric Red was involved in the writing of both these two movies.

On the negative side. The midsection slightly drags along to much and doesn't move the story forward. Then suddenly, like the filmmakers were in a big hurry to wrap-up the story. The movie makes a huge leap forward to the last action filled, third act. This made the movie feel slightly out of sync at times.

Near Dark isn't very suspenseful. But that is of less importance and I didn't miss that much at all. Instead the movie had a fantastic dreamy and strangely romantic quality to itself. The movie also makes one feel the zen-like melancholia of how it must be like, wandering as an outsider, forever at night. Leaves one thinking a longtime after the end credits has rolled by. About what was shown up there on the big screen.

I love this film. I've seen it many, many times. It's so unusual to see an American film about ordinary working-class people. Without portraying them as losers. In Hollywood movies the main characters are always rich even if they're supposed to represent standard middle-class people. They always live in either huge villas or very expensive apartments in trendy areas. Another horror film I like is Session 9. It's also about working-class people and the characters are not portrayed as losers in that one either, just because they're not rich. Only realistically portrayed as ordinary, everyday people. I find this a big problem in American cinema that they almost never portray real people. People that are not extremely successful career wise nor have a huge bank account. If people in American movies are not very wealthy they're portrayed as either miserable losers or as just plain bums. Like there's no people in between living in America. What else is really refreshing about Stir Of Echoes is to see other kinds of urban American environments, that is not featuring bums, gangsters, drug addicts nor upper-class architects, Manhattan people. Fantastically realistic production design and photography. It's also unusual to see such realistically portrayed everyday people. Fantastic down to earth performances by all the actors. It's very rare to see such fine performances by actors in horror movies. I think that's another reason I'm also so found of Session 9. The script of Stir Of Echoes is very well written by David Koep. Dialog feels naturalistic and never draws attention to itself. The movie is also featuring some very good camera work and skillfully directed scenes of suspense. The commentary on the DVD by David Koep must be one of the best DVD commentaries out there. Informative and entertaining and gives great insight to how the film was made. Very much in the same class as of DVD commentaries delivered by John Carpenter. The king of commentary directors.

I would also like to take the opportunity to recommend David Koeps feature film debut as a director, The Trigger Affect. Another thriller with very well drawn characters and a careful set up of story elements before the dramatic scenes of suspense sets off.

I think this is a pretty good movie. There is not much gore in it, and sometimes the humor gets a bit too silly, but I still enjoyed it. There's more to Argento than just gory murder scenes. It's actually slightly more suspenseful as a whole than most Argento flicks, in a lighthearted and cheerful kind of way, and it's still has some pretty nice visuals. For being a made for TV movie, it's got a lot of style, with some nice camera work, and like the old Hitchcock movies, it has a lot of humor in it, and a lot of references to a lot of Hitchcock's films. After all, the movie is a homage to the old master of suspense, Sir Alfred Hitchcock. The movie is more like an old fashioned thriller with some of Argentos own unusual style. It was shot on 35 mm film. Sometimes it has the look of a TV movie, but with a lot of cinematic flair still there, and I was surprised of how much of the old Argnto trademarks that was still left in. Surprisingly, the picture's got a lot of mild nudity. The plot resembles a lot of Hitchcock's Rear Window and is about a film student who is a Peeping Tom who cant restrain himself from spying on his sexy neighbor and he gets in a lot of trouble for it.

I thought it was a nice change to this time see Argento experiment with a different kind of a movie, and the script moves forward in a much more straightforward manner than any film he's done before.

If you can live without the excessive gore, and are up for an unusually lighthearted Argento movie, mixed with some of his old visual style, then it's definitely worth a watch.