Reviews written by registered user
|42 reviews in total|
This movie started something big, something REALLY big. Countless movies have been inspired by this film, as well as sequels from the original director. Flesh-eating zombies, hungry for the living. What a concept! In the 1960's, there wasn't much explicit content in films. Leave it to Psycho (suspense), Night of the Living Dead (gore), The Wild Bunch (violence), and Carnival of Souls (terror) to get the "Horror Machine" rolling. Make sure to check out Dawn of the Dead, Romero's alliance with Italian horror maestro Dario Argento, to create a sequel that has become one of the most celebrated zombie/horror movies ever made. A remake of Night of the Living Dead was done in 1990, and it celebrates the original with color and much more gore.
Scanners is a non-stop entertaining ride into the wonderful world of sci-fi/horror. This movie went beyond my expectations, and it is still just as cool as it was when it was first released. The action, violence, and fast-paced plot keep you very interested throughout the whole movie. There are a number of sequels and spin-offs (Scannercop anyone?) but they all fail to live up to the original. David Cronenberg has directed some of the strangest movies ever, including Videodrome and The Fly remake. With Scanners, he has achieved a masterpiece in horror movie history. Do yourself a favor and rent this movie when you have time, you'll be sorry if you don't.
After hearing countless people tell me how crappy this movie is, and after reading tons of reviews that make it sound totally unbearable, I decided to watch it myself. You know what? They are all wrong. Most of the movie is at LEAST average direct-to-video work. Of course it isn't as good as the original, but this movie was just as gory, more action-packed, and had some very funny moments (they watched Mexican porno for a VERY long time in that motel room). I was not disappointed watching this movie, because I didn't take it seriously. I suggest you relax and give it a try, you'll laugh at how funny they tried to make this a good movie.
This move has it all! Action, chicks, guns, gore, and vampires. A fantastic blend of horror and humor, all wrapped up in a Tarantino storyline. This is one of those movies that you tell your friends about, and then you watch it with them. Here in the late 90's, horror movies seem to be taking a turn for the worst, having Kevin Williamson-trendy-horror-pretty-boy-Party of Five with a stabbing-type films flooding the theaters and all the 13-year olds that watch them. Forget that crap, go for the true grit, the spice of Hollywood.
I must admit that I did enjoy this remake. It's basically the same movie, so what's not to like? Sure, some people love the original so much it's hard to let go. I am a huge fan of remake films, as long as they're true to the original. For example, I enjoyed Tom Savini's 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead more than the original, and I also liked the 1992 version of Dracula better than any previous effort. It's not that the originals weren't good films, but I was more entertained watching the more modern versions. Some films, I agree should not be touched, such as The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Films as powerful as those could not possibly be improved, let alone matched in a more modern portrayal. Psycho is a film that can be redone in every decade, as it truly tests the passage of time in its magnificence. I do like the original, and I believe it is a classic. However, I appreciate what Gus Van Sant has done for us horror fans, and I would never condemn it because it didn't live up to SOME people's expectations. I don't have anyone else think for me, I suggest you watch it and make up your own mind.
This film is actually quite good. Without much of a budget at all, Wes Craven managed to capture sheer terror on tape. Some people claim this movie is almost a snuff film, disgusting, worthless, you name it. Obviously, if you say something like that you are not a horror movie fan. How could anyone take this film THAT seriously? I mean, those cops are too damn stupid to be realistic. The banjo music during the torture scenes? Come on people, this movie is simply that.....A MOVIE. Yes, it is disturbing and violent. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE! I mean, if you didn't laugh when the mom bit off Weasel's......well, you know. This is a movie worth owning, you sure as hell won't ever see it on TV!
Videodrome is weird, that mush is certain. The scary part of it isn't really the movie itself, but the NIGHTMARES it gives you. I have had the most messed up dreams after watching this movie, I simply cannot explain them all. All the imagery and content of Videodrome seems to affect my subconcious mind, almost like I actually grew a tumor after watching it. I see hallucinations, and I'm compelled to watch it more and more.......Cronenberg, what have you done to me? O-B-L-I-V-I-O-N
The Frighteners is one of the best horror movies of the 90's, combining genuine scares with humor in all the right places. It's a shame that some people won't give this movie a chance because I think they would really like it. You have to give credit to Jeffrey Combs for his portrayal as Dammers, true fans of horror classics such as Re-Animator, Bride of Re-Animator, Castle Freak and From Beyond will definitely appreciate him. This movie was a welcome change of pace, and I surely hope more films are made like it. Forget Scream, people....if you want humor/horror stick with the demented Peter Jackson. You won't be disappointed, I know I'm not.
I first saw this movie as Creepers, the heavily cut American version of Phenomena. After watching the newly available uncut version I feel I have seen a full film. There are 28 additional minutes of footage found in the uncut original version, but almost all of it is dialogue that makes the first half sluggishly drag on without much happening. The second half, however, kept me very interested. Some say this movie is very predictable, and I have to agree. The plot is set up for you to expect certain things, and those things do happen, although not in the way you anticipated. It is hard to explain what I mean, but people who have seen this will probably understand. I really do like this movie, it seems very similar to Suspiria in style. That movie also had a slow start, but picked up towards the end. You can't really question a movie like Phenomena, it just unfolds before your eyes. Many people won't get it, and that's fine; Argento films aren't for everyone.
I may be the only person that feels this way, but Seven is a pretty lame movie. When I pay to watch an R rated suspense/thriller movie, I want my blood, guts, and action. This movie provided me with almost none of the above, with the exception of like three (come on, only three?) bloody dead people. OK, OK, the drug dealer on the bed was the best part. But the movie is SO SLOW and BORING. Sure, Morgan Freeman does a great job acting, but all the biblical psychobabble in the world doesn't make up for NOT SHOWING THE KILLER KILLING PEOPLE. I don't want to go off on a rant here, but having 2 cops walk around in the rain merely going into apartments for nearly two hours bores me to death. The ending was cool, but hardly makes up for this sad attempt. You want disturbing? You want a REALISTIC portrayal of violence in the mind of a serial killer? Forget watching Seven, watch Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. I dare you to watch both these movies and say Seven is better. On second thought, most of you wouldn't watch Henry because it's TOO real. You LIKE this watered-down mainstream pretty-boy nonsense. Oh, if you couldn't tell, I didn't like this movie.
|Page 1 of 5:||    |