Reviews written by registered user
fygall

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

9 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Brilliance, 18 February 2008
10/10

At last, vampire fans have a movie worthy to the genre. We've had so many mediocre twists on the vamp tale since the last good one - Interview With The Vampire - and this one was a long time coming. OK, so the acting wont get any Oscars but its still good, what you'd expect from the likes of Hartnett, George, etc... Surprisingly the thing that took this to the next level compared with the rest was the sheer brutality of it, it was almost shocking. I love horrors, especially if it contains suspense, which this did. You really felt you were with the surviving party of townsfolk and felt totally unsafe. It was also thrilling to see an ending that was successful and doomed at the same time. Well done guys and thank you.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
A unique take on the mocumentary-esquire. Very enjoyable., 25 March 2008
9/10

There have been a few movies made over the last few years that have tried (and failed) to take the title off Blair Witch for a documentary style thriller/horror etc... This one might just nab it and take the crown. Blair Witch Project was so successful because it was new, unique and bloody scary. Others that followed (The Last Broadcast, Amercian Crime, etc) have failed because they haven't given anything new to what we've already seen, apart from a different storyline and worse acting. What Cloverfield does is take this genre and mix it with big Hollywood effects, and when you watch these big expensive effects through the lens of an ordinary home cam-corder it looks bloody real. Throw in some talented unknowns to the cast and make sure the plot-line never goes without a thrill for the duration and you got yourself a winner. I literally had to come up for air when it ended. I like J.J. Abrams, he tries to give us something we haven't seen before and keeps the suspense along with the thrills. Take "Lost" for instance, it might get you tearing your hair out for an answer but you keep watching! Cracking movie!!

Day of the Dead (2008) (V)
103 out of 177 people found the following review useful:
Wait for Diary of the Dead, 17 February 2008
1/10

The director surely mustn't of been a big fan of this genre when he signed up for it. I just don't understand how somebody who has achieved the status of becoming a film director could end up spoiling a movie that could of been so good!

OK, so i guess he wanted to take a different approach to the Zombie movie. Maybe add to Zach Schnyder's good effort with DAWN. But to make Zombies able to leap 20ft and walk on walls and ceilings. I mean really!!! What were you thinking?!?! You've well and truly messed up big time and done nothing for you career. I apologise for sounding a bit harsh but millions of fans of this DEAD franchise expected a lot better to say the least. I was gutted from the first twenty minutes. The casting was way bad too. Who in their right mind would have Mena Suvari as an Army Corporal?? Ving Rhames does his best. Make up and special effects were extremely mediocre as well.

My advice, wait for Diary of the Dead. And see how a zombie flick is supposed to be made.

Drive (2011/I)
0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Arty Farty sucks me right in, 8 October 2011

I hear people say this is a David Lynch rip off, or just an arty farty movie. So what if it is "arty farty"? I'm glad it is, it absorbed my attention from the start. Yes, it's slow pacing, but you don't realise that till afterwards, the killer soundtrack helps you along and is crucial to the film. Gosling is his usual reliable self and credit to the Director for his approach - he created mountains from hills. There's nothing remarkably original about the storyline but the cast, cinematography and direction have produced, by far, one of the best movies of 2011. I do believe that are far too many "art" films out there, for want of a better word, but "Drive" reminds us of why these kinds of movie's are being attempted. Let's face it, there are way too many z-list actioners being made but we don't criticise Rambo for it. I can imagine for anyone below the age of 28 feeling bored and clueless by "Drive" but for those slightly older and younger than 50 should appreciate the 80's audience this aims at, maybe not deliberately, but definitely leaned towards. A grand film that deserves your silence, concentration and time.

Icon (2005) (TV)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Good TV Movie, Horrible adaptation, 22 March 2008
4/10

I just finished reading Forsyth's novel 'Icon'. I thought it was one of the most in depth, detailed, and page-turning books I ever read, definitely in my top 10. I acquired a DVD version of the book starring Mr. Swayze. OK, let me first point out that to fit a decent adaptation of the novel into 2.5 hours film time would of been impossible, so I understand the teams reason to sway from the book version and differ. However, when I say "differ" what I really should say is "take the characters from the book, add a few, leave a few out, take away the book's plot, add a modern new plot, add Frederick Forsyth's name in there somewhere". Im not saying this was a bad picture, far from it, some of the effects were top notch and the acting wasn't half bad. The story sucked and didn't rely on logic or reality. Forsyth's novel was so good and real and altered the facts of reality instead of exaggerating them.. This could of been so much more if it had taken its time and been made into say a 10 part series. If you haven't read the book then expect a decent TV movie with a good acting cast, if you have read the book then try and forget it when watching this.

Phantoms (1998)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Quite good, reminds me of The Blob, 18 February 2008
6/10

I was in two minds about this flick. I thought the spooky, mysterious 1st half of the film was fantastic. It reminded me of playing Resident Evil or Silent Hill alone with the lights out. You never knew what was going to happen, the eerie silence as Affleck and co search the seemingly derelict town. Then they go and goof it up with the Army coming in and that big fat monster thing. Tho I thought adding Peter O'Toole to the cast was pretty shrewd. All in all I thoroughly enjoyed the first half of the movie and was mildly entertained by the second half. Worth it for horror fans.

It was a good idea and could of been so much more!!!

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Should of brought back Gans!, 12 May 2013
1/10

I'll be perfectly honest - this is only half a review. As I only managed to watch half the movie... before switching to something far more entertaining... like... The News!!!

Where do I start? I thought the first movie was quite good. Christophe Gans took what he did with House of Voices to a higher level with the first Silent Hill movie. It was never going to win any Oscars but it retained the creepy horror/suspense/mystery that made the video games so popular (notably Silent Hill 2). All in all an enjoyable romp.

So why try and fix what's not broken?

Michael J. Basset has managed to make (first half at least) one of the worst movies in cinema history. I'm not kidding. Silent Hill: Revelation is pitiful in almost every way. The acting is garbage. I don't say this lightly. Sean Bean, Carrie-Anne Moss, Kit Harrington, Debra Unger, Malcolm McDowell can all act... well maybe not Malcolm McDowell. But here it's as if there's been zero preparation and they'd just turned up and read from the script for the first time - and a terrible script at that. Special FX is well below par and used far too much. Why cant producers and directors understand that CGI can never, and will never, be scary! And it looks pants any day of the week compared to prop-work. The make-up effects used for the actual props, such as monster's masks, etc. look like something done for a Power Rangers baddie!

How can people allow movies like this to be actually made? How can any self-respecting Director actually turn out this kind of drivel?

The likes of Paul W.S. Anderson often makes drivel, but entertaining drivel to say the least. This is just plain old senseless drivel garbage at its most stinkiness!

Solaris (2002)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Ultra cool sci-fi splendour, 18 February 2008
10/10

Im giving this a 10/10 because this movie is right up my street. Solaris oozes coolness. Its a visually beautiful movie with great acting from Clooney, Davies, etc... I'd put this film in the same league as Vanilla Sky, not everyones cup of tea but definitely my drink of choice. The plot line stays simple throughout and the film uses it visuals to keep the story where its going. Its basically a love story in outer space - but its really nowhere near that cheesy! Although some might say it's nothing special I really think it takes a lot of input and effort to achieve a film of this calibre. For instance the quality of acting is heavily relied on unlike some Hollywood blockbusters these days that count on huge special effects and CGI to get the audience in. The soundtrack NEEDS to be spot on, that mellow psychedelic ambiance is perfect here. The visual effects must stay with reality, not too much CGI, which spoils so many films of late, stick to the basics of actual set design and real props instead of computer generated ones, it does this so well. And most importantly the Direction, Steven Soderbegh delivers!!! Watch this alone, without interruption, I mean really watch it - You'll love it.

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Horrifically Brilliant!!!, 22 March 2008
10/10

Stephen King's name is added to the credits somewhere along the line but I truly believe this shows Kubrick's genius in changing the ending. Iv'e seen the King approved version of The Shining, and it sucks, big time. King is supposed to be the master of horror but have you actually read one of his books? I have and I think he's only given that title due to talented directors converting his stories. Kubrick took a decent novel, not too scary and transformed it into a visually terrifying piece of filmaking. Casting is 10/10, who else than Nicholson to portray the mad caretaker, the role was made for him. I reckon Kubrick read the book and pictured our Jack from the start. The ending played a big part in why this movie became legendary, if the hotel had blown up as it did in Kings book it would of neglected the cold atmospheric winter the characters were in a bit I think, instead Big Stan kept to the shivering cold theme that he started with and made the bloke freeze to death. Kubrick kept the story within the realms of reality, i.e. we never get to see Doc's imaginary friend, etc.. In the straight to video version (King approved) I'd say its rated as a PG-13, it just isn't scary. I advise you watch the crap the King approved version with Rebecca de Mornay and then watch the true Kubrick masterpiece to see the difference and understand what I mean about King not being that true horror genius as he is so usually tagged. The title should go to Kubrick, he has horror vision, horror story-telling and is basically effin brilliant!!!