Reviews written by registered user

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

8 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
An amazing feat in intelligent film-making, 8 January 2008

From the beginning to the very end credits i was mesmerised by the sheer magnetism of the power that this film expresses. It doesn't patronise it's viewers by giving them traditional Hollywood antics. This movie hold a mirror up to the audience and shows how life is really like. It's gritty realism adds to the intense impact. It's an astonishing unrepeatable epic that's elegant and literate to a point where it becomes an intensely personal meditation on the nature of heroism and moral choice, rendered on the kind of rich, dreamlike cinematic canvas that only Hollywood can realise. This film touches us so deeply, the catharsis has a power that few, if any, other moments in film history can match.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
As far as remakes go. Conparison between the original and the remake, 30 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Note i am not just reviewing the movie, but am comparing this remake to the original.

I'll start by noting the plot outline. For those familiar with the original 'The Hills Have Eyes'. You will notice a slight difference to the plot. The main 'good guys' characters are, from what i remember, just new generation copies of the characters from the original. These characters are a family, from what i gather, a father, his two daughters and son, all I'm guessing 17 or above? One of the daughters is married to this other man and they a small baby. I think they are all in the same position as they were in the original. This family take a trip to California and decide to take a trip through a hilly desert landscape. On the original, a plane flying close over-head startles them and they run off course and crash. However, on this one an anonymous figure catches them with road spikes and throws them off courseand they eventually crash. Their Axel is broken and they are forced to wait, the Dad and the guy married to one of the daughters goes off for help. However they all realise that they are not alone and some radiation caused mutant cannibals are watching and waiting to prey on the family. Fans of the original are probably saying to themselves "Mutants??", yep that's right! The new addition to this tale is that the angry cannibals (on the original they were just angry inbreds) are all mutated because of the nuclear missiles fired at the mines where they were stationed and now they are not only hungry, but they are angry!

The mutation storyline is actually not so bad a road to go down, as other than that the movie is basically a carbon copy of the original except extremely blood soaked and MTV music video style. The mutation storyline allows the director to take us on another part of journey which the original couldn't take us to. This is a nuclear testing bomb site where most of the gratuitous violence takes place and the cannibals are situated. The question is, is that new place needed? Well not really. In fact the whole mutation isn't needed but as far as a remake should go, it should make a few twists on the original otherwise it would be just pointless.

For fans of the original cannibals of the movie. You'll remember the good old fun Pluto, the scary and evil Jupiter and the classic Mars, who brought the hilariously campy quote "I'll come back for ya later girlie". Well you don't get this in the remake. In fact the cannibals aren't even developed at all. On the original we went from the perspective of the family to the cannibals. Which was what made the characters so great as we got to see them in action and some of the scenes involving the cannibals were actually quite creepy. On this movie the original favourites are back. Yet they are not back in action. Pluto looks ridiculous as his prosthetic filled radiation mutated face looks just plain awful. He also doesn't talk, he just groans and he is really not the great Pluto we remember. But as disappointed as i was about Pluto, i was the most disappointed with Mars. Where was that cool looking afro thing he had going in the original?? He also attempts the original quotes but looses all their power by saying all the quotes as if he was the cookie monster. And if you want to witness the terrifying Jupiter, well you wont witness much as the main cannibal doesn't really do anything and has about 1 minute of pretty pointless screen time.

As for which is scarier? The original. By far. The original looked cheap and was cheap, which was great as the filmmakers didn't go for gore and over the top death scenes, which in the remake are so badly done it's even more laughable than the original. The mutants aren't as cool or as scary as the original cannibals. The mutants just look silly and goofy. Not that the ones in the original weren't. They just looked better and had more character, which made them scarier.

The greatness of the original wasn't the gore. Yet these filmmakers thought it was and just tried to get the highest body count possible and the most blood spray.

Now time for the Spoiler!!

In the original the ending was Abrupt. It ended on the image of one of the characters, unneeded, continually stabbing one of the cannibals. Which gives us a feeling of "The savaged become the savages". Yet on this film we route for the characters to brutally murder the mutants and they all hug at the end as if "we brutally murdered these mutants. Hurrah!". Whoever thought that, that! was the better ending isn't really that smart.

As far as remakes go The Hills Have Eyes remake isn't so bad. 6.0/10 is a reasonable score for a remake. As a stand alone film i would probably give it a bit more, say 6.5/10. Yet since this is just a worse version of a movie that i would give a good 7.5/10. Than i have to knock of a few just because they did ruin the movie.

When watching a remake, i shouldn't be thinking "wow i wish i was watching the original instead".

Jarhead (2005)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Nothing special at all!, 5 March 2006

This is a movie trying to prove a point but instead just making a plain and simple commercial war film that isn't pleasing to the eye at all. It also includes dismal acting from the cast and terrible performances. Good cinematography though. A very big copy of Kubrick's masterpiece "Full Metal Jacket", it tries to say it isn't but it literally stole everything from it. Its apparently nothing like the real war from what I've been told. Not too good at all really i cant really think of good bits about it.

If you want to see Jake Gylnheal in an understating film proving the world his weak acting and a badly copied copy of every major cinematic war film. Than this is the film for you. Overrated by people who think its funny and cool, when its not.

Rocky IV (1985)
2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Horrible!, 24 February 2006

I had recently watched the previous 3 Rocky films before viewing this one so i had an open mind on what i should get from this. The other 3 were pretty much good films that were very enjoyable. This was absurd! everyone fights sloppy. The film doesn't get much of a storyline thats in any form good. The film just consists of high budget but sloppy unrealistic fights, new extremely campy but more retro theme songs and outrageously corny scenes that sometimes make you want to just turn it off. In the jumbled up plot a man called Ivan Drago, a huge big built Russian (and yes this film is very anti-Russian). Apollo Creed does a boxing match against Drago and loses miserably, in fact causing him to die. After that its a load of clips of Rocky driving a car or training with a stupid campy theme tune in the background. It is however hard not to get caught up in the final battle and Sly Stallone does some of his best acting. But the film is horribly made and is a disgrace. But it isn't all that bad because the 5th Rocky instalment is even more appalling

41 out of 74 people found the following review useful:
Underrated cult classic, 19 January 2006

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a horrific realistic, and a genuinely terrifying film. This second is a strange (even stranger than the original) very sick ( a man forces a woman to wear her friends face??) and very budget blown (the appearance of Dennis Hopper).

We have Leather Face, Drayton (from the original we new him as old man) and Chop Top who is a new addition to the family who is (although probably the most deranged) a kind of funny and lovable character, he is very similar to the hitchhiker from the original except a Vietnam steel plated and (oddly) pale white skin colour.

A radio DJ (Stretch) gets prank called by two irritating gun ho kids in a car speeding down the motorway, but one of these prank calls just happen to be made at a wrong time as the two are chased by Leather Face in a opposite car and funnily enough kills them by chainsaw and its all been recorded on a live radio station. This makes Stretch closer to Lefty (dennis hopper) who is a family member of Franklyn (weelchair victim) in the original massacre wanting to hunt down the maniacs for revenge. The appearance of this recorded footage brings Lefty closer to catching the maniacs who is now out for Stretch for making the recording. The plot proceeds on to Stretch being held captive in the theme park style underground layer of the maniacs and Lefty roaring through chopping the place down with his chainsaw.

This is higher budget, meaning its got loads more action and the set pieces are even creepier and outstandingly made. The acting is pretty good as this time they had the money to buy proper actors. Although its unrealistic (living in an underground theme park layer filled with over 100 bodies used as props, people being chased in their car by a guy standing on top of his truck with a chainsaw on a bridge, the final battle between Dennis Hopper and Leather Face using chainsaws)its still a cult classic and very well directed. The original is superior but the second instalment is by far not a disappointment, more of a higher budget fun thrill ride with jumps, scares and even some funny parts which are hard not to laugh. The bad parts are the rushed beginning which we don't really know a thing about Lefty or why he's so mad and the fact that Leather Face now has feelings and becomes a little bit puffy at times. Apart from that all this "this is one of the stupidest films ever" nonsense is, quite plainly nonsense.

Better than the other instalments and the remake, not better than the original.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Nicely done, 31 December 2005

This is one of the best classic horror movies I've ever seen. It was made in the 70's but its been digitally remastered very well on the DVD. The story goes that a horrific phenomenon is happening where the dead are getting back up and killing the living. (also known as zombies, fans of the Resident Evil games and other of George Romero's films will get the story well)A group of two SWAT members and two news channel workers are chased down by a hoard of zombies and take refuge in a mall empty of all people but filled with zombies. Gradually each member gets to no the mall very well often going out and taking out more zombies of getting more objects from the abandoned shops. As their survival seams more likely then another problem will get in their way.

If you've seen the remake of Dawn Of the Dead then you should get the story more as they are based around the same idea but there's different goings on. Unlike the remake this film has a proper beginning which gets us to know and like each character so we are on their side.

This has hilarious comedy moments and often happy music to accompany it showing the audience that its okay to laugh, although the film does keep its scare factor in touch with very tense moments and bits that will make you cringe. Each character is perfect and George E. Romero keeps us glued to the screen by adding in more peril each time (one of these includes a shocking and nerve recking experience when a group of over 20 war crazed bikers ride in and plan to take over the mall by use of murder). There is a good amount of violence in this film and is probably not for anyone afraid of horror films or people afraid of violence on film.

This is definitely an amazing horror film and a great adventure which you could save for a rainy day to make the time fly by or at night to make it more scary.

Hellraiser (1987)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not that great, 16 November 2005

Not That Good I wasn't really looking forward to seeing this film, expecting to see a cheesy violent and stupid old horror film. I had a nice surprise realising that this is in fact an intelligently made horror film. I've seen my fair share of horror films in my time and i know what I'm talking about when i say this one is very unique. The atmosphere is very creepy, the famous 'cenobyte' demons are very original and give a nice chill to the film.

However the acting was very trashy, the cenobytes only appear in the film for about 10 minutes and near the end. Instead we get this stupid storyline at during the bulk of the film about a man asking his wife to kill people for him so he will become whole again. This part is stupid because its appalling to watch the very fake kills and the stupendous acting.

I was glad that this film was intelligent and not cheesy. But it was not a great film altogether. The best bits were all near the end.

I rated it 4. I gave it that because of its creepy atmosphere and some nice original villains. I didn't rate it higher because most of the film was (altough clever) very hard to keep focus on the film (i nearly stopped watching it because it was so trashy)

A great movie, 9 November 2005

I saw this film, and from the moment i started watching. To the moment i stopped i was dazzled and amazed by the extremely great performances by Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman and its storyline which is either sad tense unnerving or very funny. The film contains many wonderful or dangerous characters and holds a few violent scenes of brutal beatings and harrowing views of prison life. The film lives up to its name and well deserves the awards given to it and is a film and can be viewed over and over again without any of the films dazzling magic wearing off. One of my favourite movies of all time, although i think number 2 in the top 250 is a bit extreme, i still thing it well deserves a good place at number 5 at least.

For any movie lover this film should almost definitely satisfy you and will show you that it is worth all the hype.