Steevh Reviews

Survival of the Dead (2009)

Just bloody great.

[10/10 · 15 March 2010]

Nobody reads long reviews here, and nobody's ever got a job through writing a witty or insightful thing on IMDb. So, what is there to say about Survival? It's fantastic! Very funny, very clever, very gory. A great plot, which is significantly different to what Romero has given us before, populated with characters I actually wanted to spend time with. An audacious plot-twist partway through spins several of the characters on their heads and the zombies continue to bleakly follow what they did in life- a Romero staple, here shown more vividly than ever before.

It looks beautiful, is jam-packed with splashy grue, made me laugh like a drain in parts and inhale sharply in others, and whether or not you liked Diary (I did) I strongly advise you to see it.

Oh, and the score is magnificent. Best one since Day.

Now please, George, can we have a third film set in this "new" continuity- preferably following the remaining characters from Survival to wherever they end up next?

Beyond Re-Animator (2003)

Brian Yuzna... A Pox on Thee!

[1/10 · 28 December 2003]

Well, I'd waited a long time for this. With retrospect, however, I really shouldn't have worked myself up into quite so much of a lather. Brian Yuzna has never, with the possible exception of 'Return of the Living Dead 3', made a decent movie. Always he has hung on the coat tails of the infinitely more talented Stuart Gordon, directing poorly imagined, diluted versions of what his mentor may have done. 'Bride' was no exception, and neither's this.

Everything about 'Beyond' is wrong, and cheap, and lazy, and a waste of time. Coming so quickly on the heels of the similarly Euro-funded 'Dagon', 'Beyond ReAnimator' really does show up Yuzna's ineptitude as a filmmaker. Where 'Dagon' was fresh and exciting and chock full of dark visual delights, 'Beyond' flounders in a sea of half-hearted production values, lame plotting, 'acting' that is really just reading words aloud and mostly hitting marks, underused and unimaginitve effects works and so many other needlessly depressing things that it casts a big black cloud over my head just writing them in a review of what should have been one of the most appreciated horror movies of the year. Seriously, this movie really got me down. That we could be made to wait thirteen years for a third film and then be faced with this entry-level piece of drivel... Argh! Why were they so shy to do one before this? Don't tell me they were waiting for Yuzna!

Jeff Combs as Herbert West is always going to be one of horror's great characters, but he deserves better than this. If anyone puts up the money for a further installment, let's hope that they do so only on the proviso that Brian Yuzna is kept away from it at all costs.

Deeply depressing, dull and pointless. Not a decent effect, funny line or memorable scene in the whole thing. And my copy of the DVD was buggered too, skipping and stalling. Shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Best of the year?

[10/10 · 14 November 2003]

As a long-time fan of the original, I fully expected to hate this with the vehemence with which I hated the last 'remake' they made- the appallingly titled and just plain dreadful 'TCM-The Next Generation'.

Instead I walked out of the cinema elated that I'd seen, for the first time since 'Blair Witch' four years ago, a movie that had actually scared the hell out of me.

The Hooper original was one of the first modern horror movies I saw, way back in about 1985 which, along with American Werewolf, first turned me on to the genre. Long have I championed it's cause to those who haven't seen it and heavy do my shelves groan under the weight of Chainsaw-related stuff. Well, a few videos, some DVDs, some books and a dusty Leatherface model anyway. This new one though... wow! Like some skewed night-terror version of familiar events we've experienced a hundred times, the 2003 TCM twists off the established track and takes us places we would rather not go. The controversial face-reveal, the unexpected demise of the hitcher, the dust-dry bright Texan farmhouse of the original replaced by the dripping, dark, underground slaughterhouse, the lack of a dinner scene, the nods to 'Psycho', the revenge-fuelled climax that distracts from the movie's core, only to disarm us against the knockout final jump scene... it was all pitch-perfect. Loved the Leatherface backstory, not because it gave him "depth" or "justification" but because it felt so *wrong* and once again served to create unease in a film where the unease is piled on thicker than headcheese.

I could go on. It has some flaws. That fat geek from that movie website turning up as a severed head was unnecessary and weak and merely serves to fuel his alarming ego. It suffers from the lack of an unsympathetic disabled character- a brave move in '73 conspicuous by its abcense in these politically correct days. The leads were too Hollywoody and maybe Mr. Face's mask wasn't *quite* as effective as the original. Maybe the labrynthian plot distracted from the slimline, no-nonsense linear nature of the original, but hell, I don't care. It gets a perfect ten from me and I demand a sequel. Best horror movie of the year and for several years.

Dog Soldiers (2002)

Probably the greatest werewolf movie ever made

[10/10 · 22 April 2003]

... and coming from a dyed-in-the-wool 'American Werewolf' fan of eighteen long years, that's saying something.

Top notch stuff. Killingly funny, great performances, mad effects that hit the spot and just enough hard-lad machismo to guarantee a good night in, Dog Soldiers delievers in all areas. It's scary as hell, funny as feck and never lets up the pace for a minute. Full marks to all involved. Sequel! Sequel!

Wendigo (2001)

Original, disturbing and intriguing, Wendi delivers.

[10/10 · 22 April 2003]

One of the most truly affecting horror movies of recent years, this little, relatively unknown, Canadian film never dissappoints. There is an atmosphere of 'Fargo' and 'Deliverence' about it- which can only be a good thing- and the underlying point; that of the bizarre unpredictbility and persistence of life and myth, is expertly explored.

I really can't think of a single bad thing to say about this film. Okay, some may find it a little slow and the effects work a little, I don't know- what's the word?- unconvincing? But as with all the best movies of this type, it's not that you are fooled into believing what you see, but the sheer audacity of the image that impresses. The Wendigo, when seen, is disturbing precisely because it couldn't possibly exist, and yet does, not because it's the greatest monster costume ever built.

Thanks to Larry Fessenden for the best ninety minutes or so I've enjoyed for a long, long while. Find it and watch it. Now.

The Last Broadcast (1998)

Dreadful, Dreary and Dull

[5 July 2001]

I can't believe some people were honestly claiming this was the "superior precursor to Blair Witch". It's utter, utter, pants. It bears no relation to BWP whatsoever- beyond the conceit of the 'mockumentary'. Saddled with a clumsy structure alluding to be a finished documentary, its leaden voiceover, by the man with the most boring voice in the world, will have you hurling stick-men at the screen, and where as the infinitely superior BWP created a narrative momentum that kept you glued to the seat, 'Last Broadcast' never once tries to involve the audience emotionally. Truly appalling, TLB is a faked documentary into the deaths of some cable tv presenters, camping in the Pine Barrens in search of "the Jersey Devil"- rather than just showing us the footage (which was the genius of Blair Witch) this continually pulls you out of the video clips and into voiceover and "new" interview footage- completlely and utterly destroying any tension or anxiety. To be even "cleverer", the film purports to be an attempt to clear the name of the "psychic?/psycho?" who was convicted of their murders- and then, in it's closing sequences (and no, I'm not going to spoil it for you) changes its mind and becomes something else entirely. I really can't tell you how bad it is in its final minutes without spoiling the film for those who may want to see it- but safe to say that any audience expectations are well and truly crushed by the alarming idiocy of the filmmakers. There isn't a single scary or exciting moment in the whole thing, and you are left thinking this: Imagine if 'The Curse of the Blair Witch', Sci-Fi Channel documentary that accompanied the first film, had been all BWP's producers made. Imagine if they'd never made the actual Blair Witch Project- and *that* had been hyped to death on the Internet and shoved into cinemas. Without the actual dynamic, terrifying and incredibly clever movie itself, the phenomenon would never have happened. That's what we have here- a lousy mockumentary that found a wide release based solely on the success of a movie with similar ideas- that just did them so much better. Ugh. I feel, not cheated exactly, but somewhat annoyed- not with the movie itself, but with the fools who lauded this tripe to the skies and seemed to revel in the mere coincidence that it "came before BWP"- as if that means anything at all.

Steev

Ringu (1998)

The Emporer's New Scare

[1/10 · 7 May 2001]

I have to add a dissenting voice here, and state that 'Ring' is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the poorest excuses for a horror film I've ever had the displeasure of seeing.

Slow, meandering, lacking wholly in suspense of terror, this amateurish effort smacks of being rushed to completion before anyone had a chance to take a long hard look at the structure and say "er, no".

That it has been lauded so highly by critics and non-genre audiences alerts us to two things. That critics are desperate to get their names on posters for the next underground hit and that audiences should see more horror films.

The idea is nice, though the urban myth angle strains against the blatant techno-supernatural guff of a "cursed video tape". However, the hour and a half of plodding investigation into Sadako's origins just irritates, largely due to an unlikeable cast and hopeless dialogue. The fact that it's so badly lit (having no lights is not "artistic" or "moody", it's just unwatchable) and poorly filmed (editing? pacing? hello?) doesn't help either. Better suited to a format like a mid-season X-Files episode, here the format is stretched to breaking over the running time. When the two protagonists find the well and try to empty it with small buckets, all sympathy drains and you just want them dead as soon as possible for their contrived stupidity.

The fact that the film has a much talked-about "big scare" is nothing but another "urban myth". Poorly staged, the sequence involving Sadako's crawling from the TV set is hokey, laughable and a great big fat let-down. The film also betrays it's desperation when the 'ghost' of one of the main characters reappears, with a bag on his head no less, to *point* to the final plot twist. "Just get it the hell over with" he seems to be saying. The audience I saw this with agreed with him.

Can Japanese cinema do anything except recreate moments from Western successes? Not going by what's on offer here. See 'Videodrome', 'Candyman' and, since it's been mentioned heavily in the advertising, 'Blair Witch'- all of which deliver. 'Ring' doesn't. Doesn't even come close. To hell with it, and 'Ring 2'.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)

Roll on number three

[10/10 · 31 October 2000]

After reading some of the reviews here, I have a desire to thump everyone over the head with a copy of a real "book of shadows", until they get the point. This is *not* a sequel to The Blair Witch Project, inasmuch as the original mockumentary, 'The Curse of the Blair Witch' wasn't a sequel either. It's a kind of companion piece, another take on the story, yet more layers of myth adding to the text. This is a dramatisation of what might have happened in Burkittsville after the release of the first movie. If you took the first movie too seriously. And were of unsound mind, and under the influence. It's also a dramatisation of what might have happened if the Blair Witch was real. The fact that it's both those things things at once may just subtly point to the film's inherent cleverness.

Okay, it's not wholly frightening. It has its moments- and some of the imagery is genuinely disturbing- but it lacks the kinetic drive of the original. By distancing itself from the hand-held nightmarishness of *that footage* it's placed in safer, more audience-friendly, territory. Never trying to convince the viewer it's at all real, it forgoes the sweaty menace that BWP had and instead tries to scare with more conventional Hollywood tactics. Fine. I have no problem with that- to try and pull the same trick off twice would have been foolish. Unfortunately, rather than coming across as a poor Blair Witch clone (like Last Broadcast, for instance) it opens itself up for comparison to all the glammy glitzy horror movies currently haemorrhaging out of the studios. However, it stands up pretty well, and is certainly more entertaining than most. It's also far smarter than all the 'Scream' and 'I Know...' movies put together, and actually gives you something to talk about when you leave the cinema.

So- is it worth seeing? Oh yes. Go with no preconceptions other than you are about to see something that relates to a movie, and more importantly, a *phenomenon*, that we all found inescapable last year, and then enjoy it for that. Or not, as the case may be.

One final word: Kim Director. Hubba hubba.

Steev

Angel of the Night (1998)

What are you waiting for? SEE THIS MOVIE!

[10/10 · 4 April 2000]

I also saw this at 'Dead By Dawn', and was blown away.

Briefly: Woman inherits house, reputedly the last resting place of the dreaded Rico Mortiz- a priest who got bitten and was cursed with vampirism. On her first night there, she and some friends find the skeleton of a huge bat, and a book of her family history. As the tale unfolds, we see in flashback how the curse grew, and how it affects her now.

It really couldn't be more entertaining if it tried, and seems to have something for everyone. Okay, it's another vampire movie, and as such, says and shows absolutely nothing new or innovative- but everything is done with such style and charisma that I found myself completely ignoring all that and just hanging on and enjoying the ride. The pacing is breakneck, the script is hilarious- but played mostly, wonderfully, straight- the actors know their jobs and do them well, and the effects are over-the-top and fabulous. All this is overseen by the assured, surprising direction of Shaky Gonzales- a man of whom you will be hearing a lot more from.

It looks like it cost four times what it did. It's shiny and gorgeous and you will fall in love with it. Go and find it before all your friends- and gloat later at your leisure.

An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Fabulous Moon Rising

[10/10 · 20 March 2000]

This is it. This is the one. The one film that is guaranteed to get me every time, and the single most important film I saw in my adolescence. As a child, the Star Wars trilogy got me interested in film, as a teenager it was American Werewolf that cemented that interest and turned it into a passion.

And there is so much here to enjoy. Landis very, very carefully tells an affecting, amusing and at times terrifying story of an American abroad, backpacking across Europe with his best friend, who gets bitten by an English werewolf. In the aftermath of this, he finds tragedy, love, and then sprouts hair and fangs and eats people. It's beautifully written, expertly performed, and features some of the best effects-work ever put on film.

Nothing about American Werewolf is wrong, or misjudged. The story unravels at exactly the right pace, and along the way it becomes the most quotable horror movie ever made. It's also one of the best, and certainly my favourite.

As an adult, I have yet to see another film that gives me as much pleasure- continually- as this. Unforgettable.

Steev

Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987–1994)

Let's see what's out there- erm... bugger all

[7 October 1999]

Immensely tedious spin-off from the original television series, featuring a bunch of politically-correct boring people cruising through space and isolated from reality.

Everything about the series is bland: from the characters to the designs to the actualisation of the effects work. Immensely, immensely dull, it pushes its horrible pc message down the viewers' throats each week, surrounded in a bitter pill of techno-babble guff. Terrible soap opera-esque storylines, laughable aliens (generally American bit-part actors with chocolate bars stuck to their heads) and set designs that eschew the 'submarine claustrophobia' of the original series, and instead go for a look reminiscent of a hotel lobby- plush carpets and wood panelling. Ooh, how dramatic.

Meaningless bilge that should be consigned to the rubbish-bin of TV history. And still a million times better than any Trek that has come after it.

Ghostwatch (1992 TV Movie)

Pipes In The Glory Hole

[10/10 · 1 September 1999]

Quite simply, the most frightening television programme ever broadcast, 'Ghost Watch' pushed the edges of 'acceptability' so far that we'll probably never get the chance to see it again.

The one and only time this has been shown, anywhere in the world, I believe, was on Halloween 1992. The UK listings magazine 'Radio Times' printed it's cast, crew and writer- yet it was promoted as a 'documentary'. And the British public, suitably suckered, fell for the joke in their millions.

In much the same way that Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' and latterly 'The Blair Witch Project' caused audiences to question their sense of reality, so 'Ghost Watch', for one wonderful October night, made screaming believers of us all. The conceit is simple- TV heavyweight Michael Parkinson hosts an evening of programmes purporting to investigate the supernatural. There are mediums in the studio, debate, and most importantly, a 'live' investigation into one of Britain's "most haunted" houses.

The casting is intelligent and spot-on; Parkinson adds gravitas, and the 'light-entertainment' faces of Sarah Greene, Craig Charles and Mike Smith just-about convince you that whatever happens, it's going to be treated in a nice, family-orientated, jokey manner. Just what you'd expect from Auntie Beeb.

And then it begins.

Writer Stephen Volk uses every gruelling modern horror cliche in the book- possessions, telekenesis, speaking-in-tongues, self-flagellation, child-abuse, things *almost* seen, satanic animals, suicide, - but, robbed of their comfortable 'Poltergeist'/'Amityville Horror' contexts, and placed into what was until a few minutes ago an edgy, but amusing 'documentary', they take on whole new levels of terror. And 'Ghost Watch' is very, very scary.

I really don't want to ruin this for anyone who hasn't seen it- but suffice to say Expect The Unexpected. Moments of extreme horror are slipped in, almost subliminally, and the cumulative effect is of a long, terrifying journey to a place you really don't want to go.

Of course the ending is silly- it has to be, to relieve the tension, and allow viewers to relax. It was, after all, a drama, a play, a "hoax" if you like. A horror film. And the best one of the 'nineties, if I were forced to make my choice.

Due to the sheer number of complaints, and the suicide of a viewer, the BBC effectively banned it from further screenings, and refused to release it on video. Further, as far as I know, they have not offered it for sale abroad.

The only way any of us are going to see it's like again, is to rely on those who recorded it at the time of broadcast, seven years ago- or hope that some enterprising foreign station buys the rights, and remakes it.

It's a terrible, terrible shame that something as powerful and clever as this should go unseen.

Steev

Salem's Lot (1979– )

You can't go home again...

[5/10 · 31 August 1999]

At the beginning, Ben Mears returns home to the small Maine town of Salem's Lot only to discover that the comfortable location of his childhood has become a feeding ground for vampires. Ben Mears was not the only one to return to Salem's Lot- I just rewatched this for the first time in over fifteen years, after having recently read the novel... and Mr. Mears, you are not alone in your horror and disappointment.

It's hard to honestly comment on this without mentioning how far it differs from the book- and such comments are largely unfair. A book is a book, and a TV mini-series is something else entirely- but even so...

As a fourteen year old, 'Salem's Lot' held enough scares and truly creepy bits to make me eagre to see it again. As an adult, its shortcomings were so painfully and laughably obvious that it became nothing short of torture. for a start, all the substance of King's novel has been diluted or removed completely. Salem's Lot isn't a lovingly rendered honest portrayl of small town life- it's a bland canvass populated by a small number of uninteresting people. Too many of the book's characters are merged, and as a result, whole sub plots are excised, and all the colour drains away. The death of the town, in the novel, is horrible- a culling of the people that honestly frightens the reader. Here... well, there aren't enough people for it really to matter- and towards the end, it seems only Ben Mears and his close friends are in any way affected by the vampire plague.

One of the novel's central images- the terrifying Marsten House is reduced to a feintly dubious looking mansion, no scarier than any of the others in the town- and most ridiculously, it's interior resembles something from a fairground. Some kind of 'haunted house' experience, as hokey and cliched as can be. The house of the novel was riddled with evil- and while in disrepair, was liveable enough for Mears to consider renting it for his stay. If he'd have rented the house of the TV show, he'd have spent three years renovating before it was off the condemned list. For most of the show, though, the house is out of the picture, and, baring a line or two, receives very little comment.

The biggest mistake of all comes with the depiction of Barlow himself- ironically the scariest aspect of my viewing as a child. Reggie Nalder looks terrifying, and my problem is not with the makeup- which is great- but with his bestial nature. This stupid thing was behind the assault? Don't make me laugh- it's an animal. And that changes the whole emphasis of the story.

If any of King's stories need remaking (and please god not as another miniseries, but as a big, scary movie) then this is it. But please- whoever gets the job... read the book before you start.

Steev

Schindler's List (1993)

Black and White- yet no Grey.

[3/10 · 13 August 1999]

I'm going to have to agree with a previous comment that 'people only liked this because it was seen as unwise' to objectively comment. This was a 'cause movie'- and as such is no better, or no worse, than the others. Like 'Amistad' that followed it, it's plodding, pretentious and badly shot. The black and white cinematography lends nothing to it except the illusion of reality; which it isn't: it's a film. It's a story. Not a documentary. It's a constructed series of events, with 'characters' and a 'narrative' and a 'script'. The fact that the holocaust-survivors laud it as 'how it was' is the ultimate expression of its failure. The novel left you thankful that you weren't there, but never once made you feel like you were. Spielberg's film tricks you into imagining that it shows how terrible the holocaust was- it doesn't. And can't.

Many have stated that they 'understand' the events of Hitler's Germany through the movie. By giving them this false 'understanding'; Spielberg has cheapened it, and made it more comfortable than it should be. Subjectively, for many, this grants them leave to display false, *constructed*, grief for something that no amount of 'grieving' can in any way come to terms with.

As a film; a piece of fictionalised narrative, it suffers from hammy performances... most obviously the ridiculous Ralph Fiennes with his sitcom nazi- a safe, comfortable idea; neatly slotting him into the 'bad guys' package that drama utilises, but 'real life' finds no easy place for.

A film shot in black and white that regrettably uses these absolutes in its storytelling. An effective parable? Perhaps. But a worrying one.

Steev

Progeny (1998)

Erm...

[3/10 · 12 August 1999]

... Brian? what the hell were you *on* when you signed to do this?

I saw this recently at a festival, and it was greeted by howling laughter throughout. By the time the credits rolled, tears were streaming down the faces of many of the audience.

The plot is a clunky melding of 'E.R.' and 'The X-Files'; as cynically aimed at the TV audience as is possible to get without being sued. The sequences involving the abductions are hilarious- both Yuzna's staging of the 'floating from the bed' and 'Screaming Mad George's pathetic plastic aliens drew gales of disbelieving, derisive laughter.

Limp, camp and stupid. My only hope is that it was an aberration- As awful as 'Return of the Living Dead 3' was good.

Steev

Two Orphan Vampires (1997)

In the Quiet Night...

[10/10 · 12 August 1999]

Now *this* is the film that separates the men from the boys. If it's in-yer-face sex and horror you want; then I suggest you bugger off now, because Jean Rollin has concocted something very very different... And are you man enough to take it?

Rollin's filmic obsession with vampires- and let's face it, with erotic young women- has never looked this beautiful. Like many films to come out of Europe, this eschews huge action and movement in favour of stillness and thought. It's beautiful to look at, and within the frame Rollin has trapped a whole other world- a vivid, colourful world of rich tones and contrasts, waif-like vampires and deep brown earth. Like some kind of comfortable dream on a hot Summer's evening, 'Two Orphan Vampires' slides from plot point to plot point at its own leisure. At times there's not a lot going on; but there's always something to look at.

Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the film, is the way in which Rollin makes the tiny budget work to his advantage. We meet a vampire queen, a ghoul and a werewolf. But we are only *told* this is what they are- they appear outwardly 'normal'... and although it's a cliche to say 'our imaginations do the rest', here it is so true. Late in the film there is a scene in which one of the characters explains some of her past; stuff that Hollywood would salivate over. Rollin has her hunched over a table and s-l-o-w-l-y tracks the camera towards her. No fuss, no noise, no elaborately staged flash-backs and set-pieces. Stillness. Quiet. And an otherworldliness that will leave you changed. It's like looking at a painting that illustrates a poem you strongly admire, and finding the artist has got it just 'right'. 'Two Orphan Vampires' is a tribute to the enduring presence of Jean Rollin- a writer/director of integrity, vision and wit.

Steev

Day of the Dead (1985)

Romero Doesn't Wrap It Up. Thank God.

[10/10 · 10 August 1999]

Sorry to break a few hearts here, but 'Day...' is by far my favourite of Uncle George's Apocalypse trilogy. 'Night', while solid and scary still, suffers from over-exposure and familiarity through the hordes of slack rip-offs- and 'Dawn' I've never liked; overlong, washed-out cinematography and an allusion to the inhumanity of Man that is nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is.

With 'Day of the Dead', Romero- forced to cut swathes from his rambling screenplay by budgetry constraints forced upon him- accidentally finds the elements that together will make one of the most intelligent, convincing and above all frightening movies of the 'eighties.

To ignore the gore for a second; it's the characters that really impress. No one lets the side down, and the ensemble cast totally convince as the Last Survivors of Mankind. Trapped in their bunker, surrounded by the useless toys of warfare, finally beaten by their own dead; Lori Cardille, Joe Pilato and Terry Alexander should be applauded for the performances here- 'Day' is quite the most exceptionally acted film I've seen in a long while. There is an immense amount of tension- and most of it comes from the relationships between the characters... it's almost as if the living dead are secondary. Trust humanity to spend it's last days arguing.

Romero's script- with all it's enforced lean structure, and claustrophobic dialogue really impresses. He originally wrote it big; almost epic. God alone knows how that would have turned out; but I get the feeling that Romero needed the strict editing the budget refusals gave him. As it stands, 'Day' has no pretensions above its station; and while it makes some very pertinent points about Man and his stupidity- it never once tries to provide answers. In the original screenplay, the zombie-plague was more-or-less over, and the dead were the new underclass... in their place, a part of society, categorized. We didn't need to see that in 1985, and we don't now. This neatly ends the trilogy, and leaves the audience as horrified, and questioning as they were when it began. And why should it be otherwise? To ask for an 'ending', a neat 'wrapping up' would undermine everything Romero strove to put on screen through three decades of the dead. Please George, we need no 'Twilight...'

Those wanting bloody mayhem will find it here too- and it's rarely been done with more panache. 'Day of the Dead' is almost the perfect horror film; and horribly under-rated.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Oh-my-god It's incredible...

[10/10 · 21 July 1999]

CLICK! (Disengage critical faculties) Ah, that's better. 'The Phantom Menace' is quite possibly my fourth favourite film of all time. Utterly stunning from the first moment, it rockets along, continually showing you things you never thought you'd ever see. The most fun I've had in a cinema for sixteen years- and yes, the last best time was 'Return of the Jedi'.

There really is nothing wrong with this; it's exciting, funny, frequently astonishing, and has a twisty-turny plot that manages to tell a decent story, while at the same time setting up five more movies. Not a bad trick, if you can do it.

I honestly can't remember the last time I was this impressed with a movie.

CLICK! (Engaging critical faculties) Okay- so it's a wee bit overlong, and some of the Coruscant/ Jedi Council stuff is plodding- but structurally it's vital for the saga, so we'll forgive that. The yoda puppet, on the other hand, is awful. In 'Empire' Yoda was a character- it didn't matter that he was a rubber muppet, he was *real*. Here, he's plastic, unconvincing and has lost much of what made him so powerful in the first place, including his sense of humour. He doesn't even sound right- not just the voice, but the dialogue is wrong: it's cod-Yoda.

The much maligned gungans, especially Jar Jar, were a joy. Superbly done, and very funny. Loved 'em. Boss Nass, in particular was a character the like of which most films would kill for- simple, striking and unforgettable. Only their big blue balls of -what?- 'light goo'? in the final battle were dubious.. everything else; fine. And the Jar Jar/ 3P0/ R2 sequence involving his tongue, hand and the droids' comments will in years to come be cherished in just the same way as much of the original trilogy are today.

There- I tried to do a critique, and I ended up defending it. It's wonderful; in every possible way.

Candyman (1992)

Adult horror strikes back

[9/10 · 18 May 1999]

Deeply disturbing, intelligently made and without a screaming teen in sight, 'Candyman' is one of the stand-out horror movies of the decade.

To just list all the elements that make this one of the classiest genre efforts of recent years would probably take up most of the thousand words I am allowed here. Suffice to say, it has a genuinely uncomfortable premise, uncompromising execution and a bone jarringly lonely score by Philip Glass. Tony Todd is exceptional as the hollow-voiced titular creature; a lost soul brought to life by the whispers of myth. At once heartbreaking and terrifying this could be the definitive latter day horror movie monster- if it wasn't just that little bit too close to Hellraiser's Pinhead. But, when you have a winning combination of elegance and disgust in a verbose, cultured villain, why alter it too much?

Virginia Madsen convinces totally as Helen; and you can almost see all the cast acting their little socks off so as not to let the side down. So good, in fact, that I'm struggling to find one bad thing to say about it.

I read here, that in the eyes of one viewer, it "dwells on the nastier things in life" and wasn't a "nice film". I can think of no greater compliment for a truly adult horror movie. No dear, you won't find happy teens in pastel t-shirts having slumber parties and discussing trendy scary movies, while some rap star tries to sell records on the soundtrack. This is a grown up film for grown up people. There is a reason horror films are for adults, and that reason is 'Candyman'.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

Number One?

[9/10 · 6 May 1999]

How the hell did this get voted number one in the top 250? Meandering adaptation of a tight little King short. Typically hammy performances and so sugary you could drop it into the world's water system and everyone would go hyper.

It's okay, as adaptations go, but there is soooo much better out there.

Steev

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Oh dear

[3/10 · 28 April 1999]

Only 'Star Trek' could take a concept like this and make it so dull. When you have an invading force of cybernetic zombies attacking a spaceship, you only have to imagine a combination of 'Aliens' and 'Night of the Living Dead' to see how good it could have been. Alas, no. The Cybermen (sorry, Borg) were reduced to ambling, aimless stooges with about as much menace as as they have originality. Meanwhile our cardboard crew were whittling away the running time getting involved in all manner of japes that failed to impress or excite any interest.

Even a 'Hellraiser'ish Queen did nothing to distract from the crushing despair of just having paid another five quid to see a dead turkey plucked repetitively for two hours.

To hell with it. And any further 'Treks'.

New Nightmare (1994)

Most Underrated Horror Movie Of The Decade?

[28 April 1999]

One Line Summary says all, really. Craven begins to play with our heads. After years of producing slickly-made slashers, he decides to add depth, characterisation and real scares in this, one of the most uncomfortable and disturbing movies I've seen for ages. Turning all our preconceptions on end, Freddy is darker, nastier and more powerful than we've ever seen him, and crouches at the heart of this movie like a burned puppeteer, pulling the strings that warp our reality. Genuinely upsetting and hard-to-grasp, 'New Nightmare' is full of the little touches that separate the class from the tat.

Film critics will claim that Craven was just warming up for 'Scream', but genre-fans will recognise the kind of raw energy here that his later film lacked. Before he 'redefined the genre' with a Kevin Williamson script, he signposted the end with the (to date) final Freddy movie. Great direction, great performances, great effects and a great script. Great.

The Brainiac (1962)

Possibly The Best Film Ever Made?

[10/10 · 28 April 1999]

TV comedy has made a lot of mileage out of the movies of 50s and 60s over the last few years. I've lost count of the number of supposedly generic 'B Movie' sketches I've seen on one comedy show or another- usually accompanied by the studio audience laughing so hard that you'd expect a 'Scanners'/'Meaning of Life style' bodily explosion any second.

I wonder what those TV hacks and their zombie audiences would do if confronted with this, a movie that is so magically, unashamedly bad that it covers you in puppy-dog kisses and dares you not to love it.

Quick Synopsis: A couple of hundred years ago an evil baron bloke was executed for being... well, evil. In contemporary Mexicamerica a meteor is lowered gracefully from the studio ceiling and in a puff of smoke turns into the reincarnated Baron: a brain-eating monster from space, who kills people by kissing them with his long forked tongue. In his disguise as the camply menacing Baron Del Terror he then throws dinner parties for his enemies' descendants, occasionally sneaking away to munch on a piece of cerebellum secreted in his cupboard. Involved in all this are a brave hero, his girlfriend, and a mad scientist. Oh, and some comedy cops for light relief- as if this needed any. I won't tell you how it ends, but I guarantee your jaw will be agape. Promise.

Nearly every scene is jam packed with absurdities- from the picture of Neptune on the wall of an office (to denote that astronomers work there) to the hilariously stilted dialogue- translated by someone to whom the English Language is, well, just something that other people speak. I kid you not, if any modern comedian could jam this many fantastic, mad, and stunningly dumb elements into a parody, he'd be a genius. Best of all is the fact that it's all played straight.

Run, do not walk, to your local cinema and demand a late night showing of 'Brainiac'. Invite all your friends, and then slip into delirium.

And then take all your copies of 'Saturday Night Live', and 'Amazon Women On The Moon', and burn them. They serve no purpose: This is the true face of the 'B', and it is far better than you'd ever imagine.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1972 TV Movie)

But there is One Saving Grace...

[9 April 1999]

...And that's an aspect of the set design- one tiny thing, mind you- the background painting of St Paul's Cathedral behind Baker Street, that gives the impression that Holmes lives on a hill overlooking London. It's irrelevant to most people, but for me that's a nugget of accidental genius that sums up how I feel about Holmes... the watchful guardian etc etc.

Apart from that, yes it's crap.