Reviews written by registered user
Eamonn_green

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]
85 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
A great psychological horror, 18 October 2010
10/10

This is a great film. The techniques used by the director and camera people have the desired effect. This is the quality of filming that the makers of The Blair Witch Project should have been aiming for.

What makes this film a masterpiece is the balance of techniques used. Suspense is used at the correct times and the timing of the stingers in this film is immense. Also the sounds used in the film sends one's imagination wild. When a film can get inside your imagination there are no limits or boundaries to how much that film can terrify you.

The cinematographer deserves applause also as the lighting in this film creates a lot of suspense and sets the audience up for many frightening stingers.

This is what Drag Me To Hell could have been and what Blair Witch should have been. To summarise this is a must see for horror fans especially fans of the Fourth Kind which is similar in quality and similar filming techniques are used. This hellish psychological horror shows The Exorcist and films like it for the mediocre drivel that they are.

As scary and enjoyable as the first one!, 10 May 2004

Right I know a lot of people don't agree but in my opinion it was.

A lot of people didn't like the fact that Michael raped Jamie in this film(neither did I in fact) but there were reasons for it. For a start it meant a family member for Michael to pursue. Also it made Jamie more vulnerable for the too short time she was on screen and this directly made Michael scarier as we knew what he had done. This should have made us think how evil is he? Is he so evil that he would do anything and everything that is so evily unthinkable?

Also I like the score that is basically the first one on a different instrument. Halloween 4 tried to do that but didn't succeed as well as this film.

I liked the Thorn link. It links back to the Samhain theme. It should remind us that Halloween is an Irish festival and not a night about some mass murderer. Also to me it made Michael more powerful and scary.

Any Pleasence's and Wilbur's performances were the best in this movie but Pleasence is the best in this film. Pity it was his last.

Anyway some scenes were unforgetable because of how scary they were(the first scene that was reminiscent of the first one and the telliscope scene). Anyway I think this film is the best Halloween along with the first one. I recommend this to all slasher fans.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
It's bad and it's not scary, 1 November 2003

The film had a good premise- a good caring father turns into a homicidal maniac once he gets snowed into a hotel. How could you go wrong? Well the fact that a horror film should be scary and this wasn't. No good suspense created. No well timed startle shocks and no freaky things. Kubrick's direction was bad. Nicholson, Duvall and Lloyd's performances are all terrible. Well Lloyd has an excuse- Kubrick didn't let him know that he was acting in a horror film! The Red Rum scene could have worked well if Kubrick had told Lloyd he was in a horror and if the letters weren't messed up. And how come "The Shining" was only touched upon? Anyway read the book skip the film.

Ed Gein (2000)
Bad, 4 September 2003

If you're going to make a biopic on Ed Gein what genre should it be? Horror obviously as if you had experienced something like Ed's grisly crimes it would have scared you. It would scarred you emotionally and mentally.

So Chuck Parello decides not to scare the life out of us he decides to make a drama. He tries to get us inside Ed's mind to see his thoughts. He tries and fails. He gives us a small clue to why Ed was so messed up. Even in doing that certain scenes are laughable at best.

He does give us a few awkward scenes but not an adequate amount.

What is the deal with the funeral scenes? It does not add anything to the film and plus we already know who is in the coffins so what is the point?

Why didn't they show far more of what happened in the farmhouse and the cellar? Why didn't they show what Ed did with the bodies? Why didn't they show what Ed was thinking and what it was doing to him? Though this is probably what Parello tried to do with the funeral scenes but it, like the rest of the film, was a failure. Why didn't they show what the real Ed Gein was like? This film could have went a lot deeper into Ed's mind and scared the life out of us all. 2 out of 10.

Better than any other film inspired by Ed Gein. A classic., 4 September 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***



May contain spoilers

This film is about a group of teens visiting graves to make sure their grandparent's grave hasn't been robbed as there have been grave robbings in that part of rural Texas. They unfortunately take a turn for the worst when they run into the Sawyer family.

This is one of the best horrors of the 70's if not of all time. Why? Lets go through the good points:

Some of the props are real. The skeletons are real. I bet you didn't think them bones were real when watching. It shocked me a little to learn that.

Another reason that this movie is so good is Marylin Burns. She was really cut and bleeding very badly(remember that scene where she was covered in blood? It was hers!). Even after enduring that she manages to put in one of the best performances I've seen. She gets whacked over the head in one scene. She edged the actor to hit her harder. It's a crying shame that she didn't have a better career.

I liked the scene with all the dead people at the start. It's pretty disturbing and gory but stick it out. Apart from that there is virtually no gore at all.

I also liked Gunnar Hansen's performance as Leatherface. I also liked the way Leatherface acted. The way he was with the chainsaw. I wish he was a bit more like Ed Gein but I'm not complaining. A great scene is where he is licking his lips will send a shudder down everyone's back.

I liked the jump scenes. They were well timed, well directed and not over the top.

Another thing I like is the look. It gives it a nice but creepy realistic feel.

I like the fact that the girls in this movie are really hot!

It may not scare you too much but believe me no true horror fan can be without this classic. 9 out of 10

The Ring (2002)
This was meant to be scary?, 1 March 2003

This is a US remake of a Japanese remake of a Korean remake of a Korean TV movie based on a novel called Ringu.

Right 4 perfectly healthy teenagers die on the same night after watching a weird videotape with a ring on it. A journalist who is an aunt of one of the teenagers who died investigates it, finds the videotape and watches it. Then she receives a weird phone call.

This wasn't as scary as people made it out to be. Seriously there were a few jump scenes but nothing that would keep you from sleeping.

The best performance is from the sexy Naomi Watts (Children of the Corn 4) who plays Rachel Keller the journalist. Her acting was outstanding though Martin Henderson's (that dumb aussie soap Home and Away) and Brian Cox's (Manhunter: Red Dragon) performances were also notable.

If this film wasn't cleverly made I would have crucified it and made it out to be terrible.

It has a good plot twist but that doesn't make great horror. 6 out of 10.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
S***e film, 15 February 2003

Right a pagan community in the middle of nowhere that make human sacrifices, surely a premise for a great horror film? Apparently not. Here is a list of reasons why it's a bad film: 1. A good horror film usually has startle shocks. There are none in this film has none, why? 2. If a horror film has no startle shocks then it should have moments of sheer terror. Guess what? This film has none! 3. What's with all the sex? Theres too much! 4. Nothing happens until the end of the film. 5. Thrillers are meant to be exciting, this is boring! 6. Great acting performances, not! 7. Those flesh coloured suits are really fake! 8. S*** dialogue. Not a great film don't watch this. If you want to see a scary film with pagans watch Children of the Corn. 1 out of 10.

Alien (1979)
Disturbing (may contain spoilers), 15 February 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Jesus this was scary. Scarier than any other horror films about aliens. This was really disturbing. I tried not to think of it after I saw it but I lost sleep over this. This team find alien eggs. Then an egg is disturbed and the aliens start killing everybody. The aliens are really scary and real looking. Jesus there is a really scary scene where an alien pops out of a mans stomach. If you think The Thing (1982) or Signs (2002) is scary then watch this. No don't it might scare you to death! 8 out of 10.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Pure s***, 13 February 2003

Here is a list of reasons of why the film is so bad: 1. Ignores parts 4-6 yet it references them, why? 2. It continues a series which is not as good without Donald Plesence but he is dead so why make it? 3. It tries to kill off Michael which would have meant the great Halloween series ending in a shit film. 4. Where are the startle shocks the made the Halloween films so scary? 5. In fact where are the scary parts? 6. Why the small body count? OK the first one had a small body count but it had startle shocks and tension to make up for it. 7. Speaking of tension is there any in this film? 8. Michael Myers has believed to have been dead for 20 years? Did they not hear about Halloween being banned in Haddonfield? Oh that's right this film ignores that. Even still did they not see him walking out of the fire? 9. S*** directing, who is Steve Miner anyway? 10. Tries to be Halloween with the girl looking out the window in class and the "everyone's entitled to one good scare" but it fails miserably. 11. Terrible acting with Jamie Lee's worst performance. 12. The title even gives it away that it's a bad movie. What is wrong with Halloween 7? No it has to be Halloween H20. 13. Previous Halloween films had pretty actresses. What happened did they all fall off the ugly tree? 14. A little bit of a Samhain theme might have saved this film but the only thing this film has to do with Halloween is the title and date. 15. Even the Season of the Witch fits in to the series better than this. Watch 1-3 and you'll see this fits in quite well. This doesn't fit in quite as well. 16. The Shape isn't used to good effect. This was the worst Halloween. Season of the Witch is a great horror film, fits in to the series but people say it's the worst because it doesn't follow up the storyline. If you think H3: SOTW is the worst, watch this. In fact don't just take my word for it. H20 is the worst. 3 out of 10.

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
I hate the Exorcist, 7 December 2002

Crap plot. A girl is possessed by a demon and needs an exorcism. Oh no! I'm too scared! It starts off in some country in the middle east, what relevance is this too the rest of the movie? What was the point of that scene? This film is vile, disgusting, anti catholic filth. I don't know how anyone can watch this! It's not scary in fact it's terribly boring. I couldn't wait for the end of the film so I turned it off. Nothing could have saved this terrible film. 0 out of 10.


Page 1 of 9:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [Next]