claptonisgod53 Reviews

Alien³ (1992)

Beggars Can't Be Choosers

[7/10 · 25 January 2009]

Alien 3 gets put down a lot of the fans of the Alien series. I think this is mainly due to the depressing opening and sad ending. I myself love Alien 3 for that reason.

To simply put: beggars can't be choosers. Whenever I watch a movie, I watch it with an open mind as to what the atmosphere will resemble and how the movie will play out. I don't go in expecting a movie to be one particular way, which may be why I like so many movies.

Alien 3 takes place after Aliens left off. The surviving members of the squad in the previous film (while asleep) crash into a distant planet. No one survives except for Riply. The planet turns out to be one big prison for serial murderers and rapist, which may be another reason why the film is so reviled. You can count the number of likable characters on one hand.

Sigourny Weaver (who helped quite a bit in the production of the film) plays Riply better than any other film in the entire series. She is developed as a strong character surrounded by men who would like to do nothing but rape and kill her... that is until she earns their respect.

Of course, an Alien was what caused the ships crash landing. Therefore, an Alien is loose on the prison planet. The Alien in Alien 3 looks absolutely terrible. While some of it is done with excellent puppet work, there are multiple shots of the Alien done with some poorly done CGI. This not only took me out of the movie; It was downright distracting. It was obvious they were aware of this behind the scenes, as the movie is filled with more alien POV shots than you can shake a stick at. The action scenes themselves aren't that spectacular either, although there are still quite a few suspenseful scenes.

The movie also relies heavily on the gross-out factor. This is a good thing and a bad thing. I know that the movie wouldn't be as enjoyable if it had less gore than what it had, but just the fact that it needed it wasn't a good thing either.

To simply put: I can understand the hatred that revolves around this movie, but it's still not the worst in the series. The movie is also very good as a stand alone movie. Great performances all around.

The movie falls flat when it comes to being uplifting and creating likable characters, but it still gets a recommendation.

28 Days Later (2002)

Brought Back a Genre

[7/10 · 19 January 2009]

George Romero shocked the world in 1968 with his film, Night of the Living Dead. It shocked audiences of all ages, disgusted the world, and even helped create the MPAA rating system. It is hard to watch any zombie movie without thinking about Night of the Living Dead.

I myself would have to say that 28 Days Later is the most influential zombie movie since Night of the Living Dead. It might be risky to say that for two reasons: It is hard to compete with a classic, and the zombies in 28 Days aren't truly "zombies." Let's put that argument aside.

28 Days Later is about an infection that almost completely wipes out England. The film follows around a man named Jim (Cillian Murphy) who wakes up in a hospital to empty England. He soon meets up with several other survivors as they try to survive in the zombie infected world.

After several of the survivors incidentally get wiped out by the infection, the two surviving members of the group meet up in an army base with a squad of army men. This is where the movie truly began to fall for me. It started out almost perfect, but then we had to be introduced to an entirely new location, which ruined the originality of the first two-thirds of the movie. I didn't like the army scenes and thought that they not only ripped off George Romero's 1985 film, Day of the Dead, but they dragged my interest away from the true problem.

Putting the final piece of the film aside, 28 Days Later has a number of suspenseful and enjoyable scenes which never fail to keep the viewer hooked. However, most of the movie felt like a build-up that ended in disappointment.

What the movie DOES accomplish is the fact that it has a good cast, not a GREAT cast but a good cast. It was also able to create a whole different kind of zombie film (running zombies). The zombies in 28 Days may be nothing more than infected people, but they are still zombies when it comes to how they're shot. The Dawn of the Dead remake, as well as several other 28 Days Later rip-offs have taken the idea of running zombies of off this film.

Another thing that 28 Days Later manages to do is to entertain, which is one of the key points in making a good movie.

Twilight (I) (2008)

The worst script I have ever seen on film.

[1/10 · 6 January 2009]

"How Old Are You?" "17" "How long?" "A While" "What are you?" "A vampire... are you afraid?" "...No"

This is the perfect example of how the script is layed out in Twilight. If a script's IQ is judged by how many words are in a sentence, this movie would be mentally unfit to be in public. This movie is truly poorly written. I wouldn't mind the movie as much if it didn't have such poor dialog. Since this is a dialog driven movie, I expect a good script, but it was god-awful. This movie hardly had any good vampire action. Hell, the vampires didn't even have any fangs.

I realize that the books are well written and popular, but the company who produced Twilight better get a better writer. Otherwise the franchise will fall extremely flat, and all the teenagers watching the movies will wake up... very soon.

Super Mario Bros. (1985 Video Game)

The Best Video Game Ever Made

[10/10 · 28 December 2008]

Bar none, Super Mario Brothers is the most purely enjoyable game of all time. Why? simply because you can play it for years on end and never get tired of it. Sure, it may not have the most in depth storyline or gaming options, but that just makes the game better. There's nothing to worry about except for beating bad guys and racing against the clock. Even the gameplay is perfect. Never once have I ever hit a glitch that ruined the gameplay.

This game is truly a classic from all of our childhoods that made gaming fun. Screw GTA, Halo, Guitar Hero, and Pokemon... nothing will ever beat Super Mario Brothers... old school.

The Caged Girl? (2008 Video)

Although it's extremely low budget, still fun and well made.

[7/10 · 27 November 2008]

Directed by the youtube icons Shawn and MJ, this movie is very well made in terms of interesting characters and music. The music in this movie is superb and very well done. The humor element is extremely present in this movie, which is a plus.

The movie also had amazing performances by every single person in the three person cast. MJ played a very funny psychopath, similar to chop-top from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Shawn played a women very well, and Joe Frantz played a Kurt Russel type of character.

Overall, even though this movie was short and didn't really contain much development, is a fun way to spend a half an hour.

Check out my Youtube page: HorrorReviews123

Scarecrows (1988)

Atmospehre and scares make up for lack of plot

[6/10 · 16 November 2008]

The plot in Scarecrows is extremely generic, cardboard, and simple. If you want a movie that will have you thinking for hours on end, the Scarecrows will not suite you fine at all, period. However, if you are a person who would rather watch a movie for the sheer atmosphere, then you have found a nice little gem.

Scarecrows is far from perfect, the plot is extended out to nothing, which takes away any chance of this movie being gripping at all. The characters are also paper-thin, and have no personality whatsoever. The actors were also pretty bland. The script was poorly written, and extremely forgettable.

The only redeeming aspect is the fact that this movie has a great amount of sheer atmosphere, and the fact that the scarecrows are extremely creepy. If it wern't for the terror in the atmosphere of the film, then this movie would resemble a 1980s House of the Dead.

If you want a creepy movie with a plot that you don't really have to get into, then Scarecrows will fit you.

Recommended to B-Movie enthusiast only.

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Surprisingly Good Film!

[7/10 · 21 October 2008]

Jeepers Creepers is a somewhat well known horror movie released in the 21st century. This movie was released a little while into the 21st century. This movie is definitely one of the better horror offerings given to us from the new era of film. One reason is simply because it manages to be somewhat different. The idea is nothing new, but I like the way it was executed. It introduced us to a very cool horror villain without having a pointless back story on it. The acting is also solid, the creepy tone is there, and the amazing feeling of terror is there throughout the entire film.

The movie starts off with a regular looking brother and sister on a trip. This starts adding depth into the characters, but before long, the siblings' car gets attacked by an oversided truck. This leads to a very good opening car chase.

This car chase uses plenty of Hitchcock style shots, which I thought was great. It is also followed by a very creepy scene where we see the villain dumping some dead bodies down into an abandoned church. This movie relies on this type of creepy atmosphere rather than gore or gross out scenes, although there are quite a few of those, too.

This development in plot would lead to a chain of duologue scenes, which are actually pretty well done.

As the movie movies on, the characters get even more developed, and it becomes easy to get involved with the movie this way. The viewer will continue to have that uncertain atmosphere along with the duologue, but that is the magic of Jeepers Creepers. Then; just when the viewer can't take it any more, we get introduced to a very fun action scene involving a decapitation. This scene marks as the halfway mark of the movie, which is where the frightening element ends and the fun begins.

In my opinion, the first half of the movie worked better because it felt somewhat real. We've all had arguments with our siblings, we've all been lost on a country road; and the way the story is developed, the idea of a maniac chasing you down seemed somewhat believable. Well, after the movie begins with its second half, we learn more about this maniac. The story then begins to drag on a little to far, but since the movie turned into a fun action movie, I'll let this slide.

I had fun as the movie progressed, and I began to feel more and more for the characters. This is VERY rare for any horror movie to come out after the year 1995, so I was highly impressed and amazed at this. The entire movie is very well set up, very well shot, and very well acted. Definitely a recommended movie.

This movie DOES contain several problems, though. First off, I thought that the movie ended way too abruptly. I haven't heard a lot of people say this, but I simply think that the ending of this movie was rushed, and could have been executed better, but ever film has its flaws.

I also thought that the CGI effects where downright terrible, but hey, what do you expect.

Overall, I liked this movie, it's definitely worth a rent, if not a buy.

FOR IN DEPTH HORROR REVIEWS CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL HORRORREVIEWS123

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

So bad it's good!

[4/10 · 17 October 2008]

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning is always considered to be the worst in the entire series simply due to the lack of the main villain, Jason Voorhees. I don't mind the fact that Jason sits this movie out, and I think that it's ridiculous how many people get worked up over a silly little plot twist like that. However, Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning is a VERY bad movie none the less, but that is the light and magic of it.

The movie starts off with a dream sequence of the returning character from the previous film (Tommy Jarvis). I thought that this was the only scene in the entire movie that supplied any suspense at all. We are then introduced to the characters. Basically, ever actor in this movie did an absolutely terrible job. Every line delivered was very laughable, and for that reason, this has to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen in my entire life. Just the fact that this movie was meant to be frightening is strange to me.

Die hard fans of the series will not like this movie for the unintended humor and the lack of Jason, but anybody looking for any small glimmer of entertainment value can appreciate Friday the 13th Part V for what it is; an absolutely terrible piece of crap.

FOR IN DEPTH HORROR REVIEWS, CHECK OUT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL: HORRORRREVIEWS123.

Friday the 13th: The New Blood (1988)

Has some ideas, but the film in a hole doesn't work.

[7/10 · 17 October 2008]

Often considered to be "Carrie vs. Jason", Friday the 13th Part 7: The New Blood may very well be considered one of the most popular in the series. It is however, looked down upon by hardcore fans of the series, and I can somewhat see why.

A New Blood introduced an extremely cheesy supernatural aspect behind the main heroine character. This can be looked at through several different view points; while one person can see this as an opportunity to develop a character, another person would see this as a cheap way to kill of Jason. I personally think that this supernatural "Carrie" element added onto the main character, which is a good idea considering that sympathetic characters have never been Friday the 13th's positive points.

Another factor of the movie that is commonly looked down on is the fact that this movie is virtually lacking in any gore at all. A New Blood was attacked by the censor boards more than any other film in the entire series, which was the films biggest downfall. Almost all the gore in this movie was taken out. Not only does this take away from the film, but it just makes the viewer feel sad and annoyed that the great gore effects that where there before have been taken away. No uncut copy of A New Blood ever has (or will) be released.

Overall, this movie had some interesting ideas when it comes to character development and storyline, but overall, it is nothing but Part 6 done over again. It is recommended, but I doubt anybody who can be considered die hard fans would think much of it.

A pretty mediocre edition into the series.

1408 (2007)

Good adaption of the short story!

[7/10 · 6 October 2008]

The main purpose of taking a story to be portrayed on a film is so that the audience can see the directors perspective. Some movies stay true to the book, while others veer from the book completely. I have not read Stephen King's short story "1408", but I was still impressed with the movie. What I really liked was the fact that this movie was able to do was stretch out a short story to a full length film. For a PG-13 film, this movie delivers higher than expected.

1408 is an overall good pop-corn horror flick. It supplies a decent amount of jumps and scares, while maintaining a chilling atmosphere.

What I thought was outstanding was the lead performance by John Cusack. He was able to make this movie something somewhat believable, rather than just have a guy talk to himself for an hour and a half. Since no other character received more than 15 minutes of screen time, it was good to see that he was able to make up for the small amount of characters with his one performance.

Overall, 1408 is a very fun way to kill an hour and a half. It is surprisingly effective, chilling, and it supplies a good amount of good entertainment, which is something that most modern horror films aren't able to do. Don't be turned off by the PG-13 rating, it's a good film.

Zombie (1979)

Zombie: A gore-hound's wet dream.

[7/10 · 5 October 2008]

Zombie was the start to the European zombie craze of the late 70s and early 80s. While Zombie (correctly named Zombi 2) is a clear and complete cash-in of the success of George A. Romero's Dawn Of The Dead, it is still a comparable film.

When I first seen this film, I hated it straight away. I thought that it was a poor film which never picked up pace until about 75 minutes in. Sure, there may have been several moments here and there, but that didn't help at all. Well, when going back and seeing the movie now, I think of the pacing as a positive. On repeated viewings, the viewer knows what's coming, so therefore it keeps the viewer interested all the way through. Zombie is just one of those films which continues to get better and better every time you see it. This is helped by great island location shots, great (realalistic) gore effects, and well designed zombies.

Zombie is definitely a great film if you would like to see some AMAZING off the hook gore, good zombie action, and some very nice skin diving.

Highly recommended film.

For more in depth reviews, check out my youtube channel horrorreviews123.

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

Underrated

[8/10 · 26 September 2008]

Halloween 4 is the most underrated sequel in the Halloween series. It is without a doubt the next sequel along with Halloween 4. What I loved about Halloween 4 is how it paid enough tribute to the original while still making the film new and different.

Halloween 4 goes back to Haddonfeild continuing the storyline from Halloween 2. Halloween 4 introduces us to Jamie Loyd, who is the daughter of Laurie Strode. Laurie Strode died in a car accident, and now Jamie Loyd is living with a foster family. She begins to be haunted by the presence of her uncle. Is it all her imagination, or is Michael really back? Well, Michael is back. He awoke from a coma that he was but in back in 1978. Dr. Loomis also survived the terrible Hospital fire (go figure). Donald Pleasense is back in his role as Dr. Loomis, and lives up to his past reputation in the role he will always be remembered for.

The cast is unbelievably good. The characters are ones we can somewhat relate to and enjoy seeing battle Myers. This is very rare for the slasher genre, which makes this movie VERY solid.

The directing is also unbelievably amazing. I wasn't expecting the director to do such a good job recreating that atmosphere and suspense that the original introduced and delivered. The tension and build up of the Michael Myers character is back, which I felt like was lost in Halloween 2.

Halloween 4 also has a list of plenty of fairly graphic, well done kills.

Halloween 4 is a definite plus to the Halloween series. While Halloween 2 and 3 may have been good, Halloween 4 would be the last above average film in the series. As far as I'm concerned, the Halloween series ends on Part 4. Oh, and speaking of endings, Halloween 4 has one that you will never forget.

Highly recommended

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)

The Series Begins To Become A Mess

[3/10 · 24 September 2008]

I look at Halloween 5 as the first unacceptable film in the Halloween series. Halloween 3 could have been better, but Halloween 2 and 4 were amazing sequels with the first film being a horror classic. As anybody reading this knows, the Halloween series is about the harsh serial killer, Michael Myers (aka The BoogyMan). As the series ran on, the movies began to tell about Michael's past life, revealing that Laurie Strode is Michael's sister, and so on. Halloween 5 really moves into Michael's motivation as a killer, but this is where the series really began to fail.

The whole creepy feeling about Michael Myers is the fact that he could be anybody, anywhere. As we seen in the first film, he came from a normal suburban family. He came from this to a serial killer with a very large body count on Haddonfeild Records. This is what made him mysterious, but Halloween 5 and 6 ruined this with a new side-plot which ruined the series all together.

Halloween 5 introduces the idea that Michael Myers has come from a cult known as the Thorn. While this is more looked at in the next film, Halloween 6, Halloween 5 begins to introduce this. I think that this supernatural side of Michael is nothing but a pathetic attempt to cash in. It advances nothing in the storyline except more sequels in a franchise that is still carrying on to this day.

Halloween 5 also suffers from being a poor film altogether. In Halloween 4, the film makers gave us a fairly likable cast as well as a talented cast. In Halloween 5, this is hardly the case. The cast of characters in Halloween 5 could very well be the most annoying in the entire series, which provides no tension in the decent kill scenes. I was hoping that some characters would get killed off earlier, because they literally took me out of the entire film. The script is also very poorly written.

The only pros in this film are the performance given by Donald Pleasense and that atmosphere at times, but this didn't help the overall experience at all.

Certain times throughout film history, it has been obvious when filmmakers make attempts to cash off of many, many films. Halloween 5 is one of those cases. Nothing but greed here.

Psycho II (1983)

Ranks #1 in the "Better Than You'd Expect" Category

[8/10 · 19 September 2008]

Psycho 2 is the sequel to the classic Psycho (1960). I originally thought that I would hate Psycho 2, which is why I was slow about seeing it at first. I didn't want it to ruin the first Psycho for me, so instead of buying this film, I rented it. I was pleasantly surprised with this movie, and really thought that it paid a very debt to the original. Making a passable sequel to a movie that was 23 years old at the time wouldn't be remotely easy, but I think that this movie passed very easily.

Alfred Hitchcock, who directed the original Psycho, was dead by 1983, but I think he would have approved Psycho 2. It was directed in a very good way. It blended great moments of psychological horror and suspense with 80s slasher elements. Psycho 2 has a great deal of suspenseful scenes and scares, and for that I give much credit. I also liked the way the writer was able to make Norman be the good guy of the movie, yet somehow make him scary. Psycho 2 does a very good job of showing what it is like to see a person slowly go insane. With Anthony Perkins in the Norman Bates role, you simply can't go wrong. The rest of the cast, including returning actress Vera Miles.

Psycho 2 also had a twist ending that I was CLUELESS about. If you enjoy murder mysteries with a very good twist ending, Psycho 2 will not be one that you easily forget. Psycho 2 doesn't feel like a 100% true horror movie, nor does it feel 100% like original, but it is still a very good film that I highly recommend to lovers of the original.

Scream (1996)

Scream: A Parody Of The Slasher Film

[7/10 · 18 September 2008]

Scream is always wrongfully called a horror movie. To be 100% truthful, Scream isn't a horror film by any means. Some Contemparary horror audiences might find Scream to be terrifying, but true horror fans can find the gimmicks and little laughs to make the film entertaining. Scream is not entertaining by the horror standard at all. I first seen Scream when I was fairly new to the horror genre, and I didn't find it to be suspenseful or scary by any means. It didn't even get to the graphic scenes until the very end. I couldn't exactly appreciate what this film was until I searched further in the horror genre, then I re-watched Scream, and found all of the parody moments.

Scream was directed by Wes Craven, who is mainly known for directed A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and several exploitation films from the 70s (Last House on the Left (1972); Hills Have Eyes (1976)). However, Wes directed Scream several years after directed A New Nightmare, which would be the final installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series. A New Nightmare basically took place in the real world outside the movies with the actors playing themselves. Scream basically works in the same way. It parodies the films that inspired it. For me, this film is a first rate comedy. I'm sure that some people will find this film to be absolutely terrifying in the last half an hour, but others will just find it to be guilty fun. Which category do you fall into? Well, when I referenced Last House on the Left (1972), did you know what film I was talking about? If so, this will seem like a pure comedy to you.

While Scream IS a comedy, it still supplies some fun graphic scenes near the end of the film as well as some decent performances by the cast. The twist at the end was expected looking at the rest of the film, but was still nice to see.

Psycho III (1986)

Psycho Meets The 80s In A Full Blown Manner

[7/10 · 17 September 2008]

In my view, the first three Psycho films can only be compared to the Godfather trilogy; The first one is amazing, the second one is almost as good, and the third one isn't near as good but still enjoyable. Psycho 3 starts off as a full blown rehash of the first film, but after seeing the ending of Psycho 2, that is not a bad thing at all. Psycho 3 could somewhat be looked at as a rehash of the first film, but it still works out well as a sequel. Of course, Norman Bates is back to the way he was in the first film, which sets up Psycho 3 in a very good way. It really gets inside Norman's psychopathic mind, which is why Psycho 3 has a noticeably darker tone than the other two films. This isn't a terrible aspect by any means. I thought that it added a whole new dimension to the film without being nothing but a repeat of the previous sequels. Psycho 3 also adds plenty of teenage slasher aspects and a very large amount of gore, which also added to the movie in a very good way.

Psycho 3 is directed by Anthony Perkins, who also played as Norman Bates in all 4 original Psycho films (not counting the remake directed by Gus Van Zant). Anthony Perkins gives out many Hitchcock style images that are more of homages than anything. The biggest homage that Anthony Perkins delivered the audience was the scene outside the ice box with the dead body inside. The police officer is reaching for some ice, and suddenly we see that the ice is bloody. This resembles a pure Hitchcock trait, which I really liked to see in a sequel to the master's masterpiece.

I also felt that the performances from the entire cast did an excellent job, especially for the period and genre of the film. Psycho 3 has very solid character chemistry and a very solid cast, which I also thought helped the film out in a great deal. Duane Duke is a character that I really loved to hate. Several other aspects about the cast made me love this film for what it is.

The negative aspects of this film include the loss of power on repeated viewings and the brief moments of cheese. I also felt that the ending didn't deliver spot on as the previous two films did. Whatever the case may be, Psycho 3 is still an excellent watch. It may not by any means be as good as the previous two films, but still a good sequel.

Recommended.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Influence; Atmospehre; Romero

[9/10 · 16 September 2008]

Influence; Atmospehre; Romero. Three things required to make an amazing film. Night of the Living Dead is without a doubt the first stereotypical zombie film which would influence so many films to come after it. Night of the Living Dead was an extremely controversial film that was put down by critics, but looked at very fondly as a cult classic, and a fantastic piece of violent social commentary. The social commentary in this film is very present, and can be looked at differently by different people.

Night Of The Living Dead is actually a basic 50s science fiction movie in the style of The Last Man On Earth (1963) Starring Vincent Price. Many look past the fact that Night of the Living Dead is based on the same novel as The Last Man On Earth; "I Am Legend", which was recently adapted again into another movie of the same name. Night of the Living Dead balanced the 50s sci-fi theme along with modern (for the time) violence. The violence may look cheesy or tame compared to movies to come out half a decade later, but is still disturbing looking at the way this film is shot. Night of the Living Dead uses the Black and White format better than any other film I have ever seen. The black and white format adds a dark, grainy look to the film which adds a good, unsettling feeling. In my view, Night of the Living Dead may not be the goriest zombie film ever made, but is still the scariest. The dark atmosphere done by director George A. Romero is excellent, and beats anything else done in the genre.

The cast is also outstanding. The movie provides some very good performances all around. The character chemistry is outstanding. A large part of the movie is simply character arguments, yet that is the fun of this film. The fun in this film comes from the great directing, which makes the viewer feel like they are in the arguments themselves. The realism of this film is almost frightening in itself. I seen this movie before having any knowledge that it was a classic, and boy was I impressed.

Night of the Living Dead has done many things. It lit the match and set the fire for the zombie genre, it set plenty of interesting ground rules, established Romero as a great director, and started off one of the great trilogys of all time. Night of the Living Dead will impress any horror fan looking for a fright fest, rather than a gorefest. Night of the Living Dead may be violently tame compared to the sequels, but contains some very dark and disturbing atmospehre. The down beat ending is also unforgettable.

Halloween (1978)

Influenced by Giallos, Influenced Slashers

[10/10 · 12 September 2008]

While many people would say that the slasher genre started with Halloween, I would have to disagree. Halloween didn't start the slasher genre by any means. Halloween mearly set the ground rules for slasher movies to be made in the following decade. Halloween itself was influenced by many films to come before it. To start off with, the whole slasher template was started with the 1960 classic, Psycho. This would soon be followed by many Italian crime films known as "Gialli" films. These Gialli films were the exact definition of a good slasher film. Twitch of the Death Nerve (aka Bay of Blood) directed by Mario Bava influenced the slasher genre to a great extent, which would influence Carpenter to make Halloween.

Halloween is recognized in pop culture very easily. Everyone has heard of Halloween, rather it be due to the very creepy theme music, the Michael Myers mask, the remake, or the countless sequels. After pop culture has turned the image of the film, it is hard to remember what it was originally; The original Halloween had very little gore, if any at all. The movie relied suspense and atmosphere, rather than severe brutality like many other films to follow. John Carpenter used pure talent when it comes to film making, rather than relying on cheap special effects or loud noises.

Another great attribute about Halloween is the strong female characters. In movie after movie we have pathetic female characters with a fairly smart killer. This is the exact opposite here. The female characters in Halloween are well developed and acted out (by Jamie Lee Curtis in particular). Halloween has great performances all around the coating of it. With a strong cast of Jamie Lee Curtis, Donald Pleasense, and Nick Castle, you can't go wrong with the chemistry, the performances, or even the overall look. Halloween is a horror movie where the audience roots for the characters. This aspect would become very well for slasher films to follow, where the audience usually roots and relates with the characters (this is the absolute truth when it came to the 2007 remake directed by Rob Zombie)

All horror fans have seen Halloween, and while it didn't quite START the slasher genre, it still layed down a great set of rules. Halloween is also recognized as one of the most suspenseful, frightening films of all time up there with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and the Exorcist (1973). No one is truly a horror fan until they have experienced Halloween.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Worst of the first 8 films!

[2/10 · 8 September 2008]

This movie, without a doubt, is the worst of the first 8 Friday the 13th films. With this being the 7th sequel, it is expected to be a pretty big let down, especially after seeing the series go downhill after Part 4 (not counting Part 5). Not only is this film not well made or scary; It's not even entertaining! The movie starts out with an opening around New York City. The opening of the movie is actually pretty good, but it just makes the rest of the film seem terrible. We are then deported to Camp Crystal Lake when we see a young couple having sex on a large boat on the lake. Well, what do you know, Jason comes back to life AGAIN in the cheesiest, cheapest way you can imagine. Then the plot evolves, if you can even say this movie has a plot. Jason somehow ends up on a cruise ship that is somehow going from Camp Crystal Lake to New York. This is one part of the movie I couldn't get at all. It is not once mentioned in the series that Camp Crystal Lake is a bay or a river. How could a bout possibly get from a lake in the middle of nowhere to New York. It doesn't make sense to me.

We are then introduced to a group of characters, who are the worst in the entire series. The acting isn't good at all. I expected much better acting considering the budget and the hype this movie had behind it. I think the only thing that made this movie good was the hype. Without the hype, this movie would definitely be considered the worst of all time. If I had to compare this movie with another slasher film, I would have to compare it to a watered down version of Slumber Party Massacre (which was terrible to begin with).

The entire film actually takes place on a cruise ship, rather than New York City. New York isn't actually introduced until the last 15 minutes. This is another part of the movie I couldn't get; When there's a big guy walking down the sidewalk wearing a hockey mask and holding a bloody machete, wouldn't people panic? Guess not. Whatever. Well, because the plot (if you can say this movie has one) moves so slow, I found this movie to be incredibly poor and boring. I actually fell asleep on this movie 5 times.

The only entertaining piece scene in this mess of the movie are the scenes in New York, which I somewhat enjoyed. Either way, those scenes seemed watered out when looking at the entire movie.

Avoid this movie unless you are a completest like me.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Intriuging story with poor acting, annoying characters, and WAY to much CGI.

[3/10 · 6 September 2008]

War of the Worlds is directed by Speilburg, who brought us some of the greatest science-fiction films of all time. ET and Close Encounters are only two of the countless, mind exploring films that he has done. War of the Worlds is one of Speilburgs poorest films in my view. It doesn't capture the imagination, strike the mind, or even provide good entertainment value.

The movie starts by somewhat developing a group of characters. Every character came up as annoying to me (the Mary Ann character in particular). The characters all seemed to be cardboard characters compared to what they could have been, which came off as a disappointment. The acting was also amateur level. Tom Cruise is one of my least favorite actors, so he didn't' impress me here at all.

When the pacing finally gave in and the aliens finally came up, the cgi was extremely overwhelming. I've never been the biggest fan of cgi, and in the 2005 version of War of the Worlds, cgi is abused to the fullest extent. The cgi didn't add anything to the film, and for me, it diminished it.

The middle and the end flowed together, but not very well. It was like a slingshot. The movie started to pull back at the beginning. When it was finally pulled back ready to show us some entertainment, it let go. The movie stopped pretty abruptly, which took even more away from the film to mention.

The only positive point in this movie was the special effects, but that factor didn't add anything to the overall story, so therefore, there was just no film.

The Exorcist (1973)

A Horror Movie That Will Continue To Shock Audiences For Years To Come

[9/10 · 1 September 2008]

I was originally turned off of the Exorcist knowing what it was about. I am an atheist, so I never found the idea of possession to be by any means frightening, so I had no reason to see the Exorcist. Well, I had nothing to do last night, so I decided to try it out. Boy was I mistaken by the fact that it wouldn't scare me. As an atheist, I have to say that a movie that delt with possession scared the crap out of me... wow! The things that frightened me about the movie though, had nothing to do with the possession scenes. I found the subliminal scares to be better. The quiet scenes leading up to the climax are without a doubt the creepiest scenes in the movie, and the 1 second shots of the demon possessing the little girl where without a doubt some of the creepiest scenes I have ever seen.

The special effects, while they steal the show, didn't overall impress me as much as you might expect. They took some of the realism out of the movie for me, but again, I'm atheist. That was to be expected. The special effects themselves are actually VERY good, and still hold up by today's standards.

Everything else: the storyline, the acting, the script; all perfect. The only negative point for me was the fact that pieces of the plot where concentrated on too much, but that goes back to personal preference.

Overall, the Exorcist is a must see for every horror fan. Whether it scares you or not, you will still never forget it.

Dial M for Murder (1954)

A nice look at the justice system with Alfred Hitchcock!

[9/10 · 31 August 2008]

Dial M For Murder is another film done by Hitch in the 50s, so the expectations behind this film immediately became high for me. Hitchcock has yet to fail me with his great murder mystery/suspense films, and Dial M For Murder is no exception to his list of great films.

Like many other Hitchcock films, Dial M is a claustrophobic film. About 90% of it takes place in a single room. Hitch uses every object in the room very well, which continues to keep the movie interesting. Unlike a lot of films of the time (and even today), the movie follows the killer to begin with. The killer reveals his motive and everything else behind the murder of his wife which is to take place later that week. About halfway through the film, you begin to stop trusting the killer, and begin to trust other members of the (very good) cast. This is where Dial M For Murder won me over (although it wasn't done as good as Psycho).

The cast, as said before, is made up of many great actors. Grace Kelly was in her prime, and everybody else had great chemistry with everyone else. The dialouge (as with most Hitchcock films with the exception of Psycho) feels dated, but for the time, the dialouge was handled very well.

The movie, as to be expected, has several great moments of suspense. One scene (which drags out for about 5 minutes) contains unbearable suspense. Hitch does his films so that the viewer can't stand the suspense anymore, yet they can't take their eyes off the screen.

What makes this film a stand out from other Hitchcock films is the twist at the end. No, it isn't a twist like Psycho. It's more of a small twist in the investigation that you wouldn't expect. The twist actually seems small and pointless, but if affected the outcome of the movie in such a good way.

Highly recommended, but only to people who don't mind slightly dated movies.

Rear Window (1954)

One of the few films to get a deserving 10!

[10/10 · 31 August 2008]

After seeing Rear Window, I have to say that it is one of my favorite Hitchcock films. Sure, there was no twist at the end, but I still feel that Rear Window leaves a good thrill aspect on the viewer.

What I think made Rear Window so good is the fact that it takes place in such a claustrophobic setting. Rear Window may very well be the most claustrophobic movie I have ever seen in my life, considering that it takes place all in one room. Hitch also did this with "Dial M For Murder" but I feel that he did an even better job here in Rear Window.

I also like the interesting camera shots in the sense that all the important ones pointing out the window (the important shots) are done from the character's point of view. The characters themselves are very well developed and acted. The chemistry between James Stewert and Grace Kelly are amazing and unforgettable.

The first 3 quarters of this movie plays out more like a murder mystery than a true suspense film, but the last quarter is extremely suspense driven. This is true with most Hitchcock films. The suspense in Rear Window comes from the danger that the main characters outside the window are in, with nothing that the other characters can do about it.

Overall, Rear Window is a must see for every movie fan, and a must own for every Hitch fan.

Psycho (1998)

Entirly Pointless, yet somehow interesting!

[2/10 · 29 August 2008]

The original Psycho may very well be my favorite movie of all time. After I seen the remake, I was surprised, but not pleasantly.

The shot for shot characteristic ruined the experience for me in the sense that I knew what was going to happen at every moment of the film. The movie is by no means convincing in the way it is acted out, and so many epic scenes have been slaughtered.

The only thing that makes this movie good is the very thing that ruined it: the shot for shot characteristic. It is interesting seeing how things would work in the 90s, yet the movie is still very pointless, and does nothing but draw kids away from the classics.

Friday the 13th: Part 3 (1982)

Needs the 3-D format to be good.

[5/10 · 26 August 2008]

Friday the 13th Part 3 was released in the cinema in a 3-D format, but unfortunately, the 3-D version of this film has not been released on home video or DVD officially (at least in America). I found this to be disappointing, especially since this movie seemed very dull without the 3-D effects. This movie seemed very slow paced with plenty of scenes which would have been awesome in 3-D, but not at all interesting in a flat format.

Friday the 13th Part 3 DOES have some very good and violent kills. While the gore effects can't compare to the first film, I really like the pitchfork scenes. Jason does his fair dose of killings in this movie. This movie also has a clausterphoic environment (which makes you wonder why the stupid teenagers never seen Jason... go figure) The claustrophobic effect really helped with the final chase scene (which in my opinion, is the best in the series), and built some atmosphere to the flick.

The thing that really annoys me about Part 3 is the annoying, stereotypical characters that aren't developed at all. This has, however, come to be expected from the series. I liked the side story about the small biker gang stalking the kids, except when looking at it in another way, it was just a gimmick used to fill time. The bikers didn't really take away from the movie, but it definitely didn't add to it.

Overall, check this movie out, but only for the kills and the ability to understand the later films in the series.