Change Your Image
bondfan27
Reviews
Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1990)
AYAOTD Is A Pure Pop Horror Confection: An Excellent Television Show
During the 90's, the cable television station Nickelodeon hosted a 2-hour Saturday evening program block of half-hour shows known as "Snick" (Saturday Night Nickelodeon). Airing from 8 PM to 10 PM, Snick featured shows geared to a (slightly) older audience in the preteen demographic by airing programs featuring more mature themes then the daytime programs. From season to season most shows risked being moved/canceled in their 8 to 9:30 slots, but the 9:30 slot stayed the same for a record of 5 seasons (from 1991 to 1996). That show was known as "Are You Afraid Of The Dark?" AYAOTD was a program featuring a cast of preteens who called themselves "The Midnight Society", a group of friends who gathered weekly in a forest campfire setting to tell spooky tales of ghosts, goblins, and anything within the supernatural and paranormal realms. A simple introduction into each weekly story began as "submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society, I call this story..." following a title for the episode ("The Tale of the Dead Man's Float", "The Tale of Apartment 214", etc). Seasons to season, members of the society were changed, replaced, but the stories never got stale.
What made AYAOTD revolutionary for its generation was within its story structure: the show avoided criticism that normal sitcoms and shows face because it avoided cliché formatting. The show never lost its spirit because each week featured new characters and scenarios, keeping the show fresh and appealing. It was an "X-Files" or, even closer, "Tales from the Crypt", for a younger audience.
But the show can still be appreciated at an older age: AYAOTD did truly deliver for its genre. To assume the show couldn't deliver scares because it targeted such a young age group is false because the show certainly did. Its demographic allowed more focus on creating natural suspense and fear rather than artificially supplying it in the forms of over-excessive gore, violence, and language. Because the show avoided those clichés, it used strong mood lighting, clever camera-work and omniscient music in order to heighten the tension and fear. AYAOTD's writers were sharp enough to create scary tales that tapped into primal fears and childhood nightmares. The stories covered every type of unnatural force possible but somehow spun them into its own creative style. In its first season alone, AYAOTD covered topics such as clowns, ghosts, possession, vampires, creatures lurking in basements, and things hiding in the dark. It also knew its strengths and weaknesses: it was good at making the things that needed to scary scary, but strong dialogue was an apparent flaw. The acting was at best B-material, but in itself it shows the appeal of AYAOTD: the show was a light horror pop confection that took itself just serious enough to make your pulse race and your breath to shorten.
10 out of 10 is a grade that shouldn't be given out like candy, and I abide by that opinion. In essence, AYAOTD deserves a 10/10 because it accomplishes the primary requirement: to entertain. AYAOTD accomplishes this effortlessly, even in its later seasons, because it applied a format that allowed for fresh new ideas every week, never tiring the storyline or the viewer. AYAOTD told its last tale in 1996 when it was sadly canceled. But its popularity and fan-base was so strong that the show was remade with an all-new cast in the 99-00 season. Sadly, while it sounded like a good idea to bring back such a favored show, it just wasn't the same without the original Midnight Society and was quickly canceled after its first season. AYAOTD is not a television show to scares your pants off if you're above the age of 10, but even if you are older, you can't help but feel your spine tingle at the thought of what may be lurking within each episode. And if that isn't entertainment, I don't know what is.
Jackie Brown (1997)
'Jackie Brown' Will Please Anyone Who Watches Her (It). * * * * (Out Of 4)
Three years after the huge success of the pop-culture phenomenon "Pulp Fiction", Quentin Taratino serves up a quiet little success named "Jackie Brown", which I found, is more pleasing in substance the "Pulp Fiction", and many other films. On a slight homage to blaxploitation films of the 70's, he gives us a drab, seedy region in California, where we meet the most complex and colorful characters, including Ms. Brown. What really hits you hard is the interest in these character, their emotions, their behaviors, their life. It's one amazing film.
The main character, as you already know, is Jackie Brown, a stewardess who works in California. In her mid-40's, Jackie knows a man by the name of Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) who is an illegal gun merchant. Jackie and Ordell are connected to the same bail-bondsman by the name of Max Cherry (Robert Forster in an unbelievable performance). With Ordell's wealth of cash from his sell's, he hires Jackie to import them into California from Mexico (Where her flights come and go). The police however, are catching on to Ordell, and one cop by the name of Ray (Michael Keaton), is on Jackie's trail. Along for the ride is Ordell's ex-con friend Louis (Robert DeNiro) and one of Ordell's stoned-out-of-her-mind girlfriends, Melanie (Bridget Fonda). These six players are all on the trail of Ordell's half a million dollar profit, and like the DVD box exclaims "The only questions are...who's going to get played...and who's going to make the big score?".
Quentin has a habit of resurrecting aging star's careers, such as Travolta's with "Pulp Fiction", but this time around he does it twice, with extraordinary performances from Pam Grier and Robert Forster. There's even a subtle romance between Jackie and Max. Even Ray, the cop, has an eye on Jackie. And it's within these subtle hints of the script that we get into these characters and feel for them. It's amazing what Quentin can do with them, and how each speech between two characters has such immense importance.
What's a great shock is the feel of how the movie takes it's time and does not rush to it's ending. It takes in as much as it wants, and so do we. The film is a long film, about 2 and 1/2 hours long, and yet we don't mind how long it takes, because we're not looking for the end. We're studying each scene with precision, admiring the character development. The ending is a cool, classy, laid-back approach. No startling revelations, but a very satisfying feel.
The soundtrack features the soul and sound of the 70's with featured bands like The Delfonics. The opening and closing will give you a great smile, and it's because of how Quentin chooses his musical arrangements. I could not have been happier to hear the music being played for the ending. I savored every moment of Jackie Brown and you should too.
My Ratings: * * * * (Out Of 4) A+ (A+ Being The Highest, F Being The Lowest) 10 (On the IMDb.Com's scale, 1 being the lowest)
Van Helsing (2004)
Werewolves, Vampires, And Frankenstein! O My! 'Van Helsing' Is A Monsterous-ly Good Time! * * * 1/2 (Out Of 4 Stars)
I remember all the way back to the good ol' days of B&W, where Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney Jr. ruled the horror silver screen. Nowadays, horror has expanded to evil maniacs, crazy monsters, and oddball zombie flicks. It's just not as scary as they 3 originals did it. Thank god that Steven Sommers (Of 'The Mummy' fame) has brought the 3 classic monsters: Drac, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein, back to the silver screen to rule over again. In "Van Helsing" I found myself at awe with the film. Hype has lead it to be this summers first blockbuster. With summer blockbusters you get a great mix of: action, comedy, special effects, and of course, the loose plot. Summer blockbusters were never meant to be analyzed. They were made just to go in, have some popcorn, and come out smiling. "Van Helsing" is the perfect example of a summer blockbuster. Hugh Jackman is charming and exciting as Gabriel Van Helsing, who's life work is to rid the world of monsters. Working for a secret society in Rome, he must travel to Translyvania to fight Dracula. What he comes upon is much more. There he meets more then just one vampire, but three more: Dracula's brides. He also runs into Frankenstein, who we find out was "created by and for evil, but not ruled by it", making the monster a gentle creature who just wants to help Van Helsing. Kate Beckinsale, who was just hot of the success of "Underworld" as a vampire as turned her roles right around, as the beautiful Anna Valerious, the last of the Valerious' who's life's work is to rid the world of Dracula as well. On their way, they run into the Wolfman, who is all special effect, and rightfully so, since it fits. I enjoyed how the transformation of man to wolf starts. Don't expect special effects from the original 'The Wolfman'. And of course, Dracula, played by Richard Roxborough doesn't quite hit the mark on his impression of Dracula (Or Bela). You, willingly or not, will automatically try a comparison to him and Lugosi. Does he top it? No, but he adds a new, more sadistic sense to the image. I did enjoy his performance. The film, a special effects extravaganza, is one of the most impressive works as FX goes. Amazing shots of Rome, Translyvania mountains, and inside masquerades make the locations amazing. The monsters, most of the pure FX are impressive, yet corny. The vampires switch from human-like form to more demon-vampire mode. When they do, they grow giant mouthfuls of fangs, about a foot long each. It looks hokey, but still fun to smile at. Like I was saying it being the perfect summer blockbuster: it's true. Amazing special effects light up and ignite the action throughout the film, the plot acts hokey, dumb, silly, but highly enjoyable, and also it is loose. Very loose. You will question scenes and moments at least more then twice to yourself. I tip my hat to Stephen Sommers, who keeps the film on fire from beginning to end. It also kept my mind spinning from beginning to end as well. Lugosi, Karloff, and Chaney Jr. would be proud.
My Rating: * * * 1/2 (Out Of Four) 8 (Out Of 10 On The IMDB) A- (A+=Highest, F=Lowest)
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
No Matter What You've Heard, You Will Be Moved. * * * * (Out of Four)
In a time of film when the use of graphic or gory violence is used, it's usually unnecessary. Now comes a film which goes against that in all ways. The final hours of Jesus Christ were probably the most horrific for a human to endure and as a viewer, you will feel the same disturbances mentally, however not physically. 'The Passion Of The Christ' is a stunning, moving, and breathless movie. When viewing the film, the idea that Mel Gibson had directed and produced such a film had not crossed my mind. It didn't need to be. When films are supported by who's working on them or starring in them is ok because it aids the film, but when a movie is supported with no aid and able to move you is a greater accomplishment. This is the most recent film I know of that moved me to tears. The controversy surrounding the film is over-hyped; plain and simple: Don't listen to it. Is it graphic? Yes, but necessary. Is it anti-Semitic? No. In the times of Jesus we must realize that most of the world was ruled by the Romans. When people say the Jews killed Jesus is politically incorrect to target them as 'Jew'. The region in which Jesus was persecuted happened to have a majority of Jewish standing, with the Romans controlling them. The people were puppets to the Roman government and in doing so made decisions whether just or not to please the Romans. Aside from that the film stands on storyline only. Acting is a bonus and the cast is stunning (Since the film is spoken in all Latin and Aramaic it keeps the audience in a better feel for the time period). As for comparisons between other films based on the life of Christ, this is the most gritty. As for historically accurate, it's a little off as some characters are questioned to whether or not they were mentioned in the Bible. This shouldn't stop you from seeing such a realistic and powerhouse of a film. If not the most moving in recent history, it is the most memorable
* * * * (Out of Four)
A (A+ Being The Best, F Being The Lowest)
10 (On IMDB's Scale 10 Being The Best, 1 Being The Lowest)
Gosford Park (2001)
A Visit To 'Gosford Park' Is Well Worth It! * * * * (Out Of Four)
Robert Altman's 'Gosford Park' came in shyly to theaters, but left a big impression on Hollywood. To say it's not only the best film of 2001 but it's also one of Robert Altman's best. Perfectly crafted, 'Gosford Park' plays a game on our eyes as well as our minds with the essence of 1930s England. It's Agatha Christie meets Robert Altman in a short summary. But don't just look at it as a murder mystery, because if you do, you miss out on what "Gosford Park" has inside it's walls: Classic pose, creative intricate plot, and a nostalgic look you won't help but love. If you were to see this as your first Altman film, good job, because this film is simply stunning and amazing. The surprise with the film is the all-out British cast, and it's do so rightfully well that you admire it. Maggie Smith, Alan Bates, Emily Watson, Kristin Scott Thomas, Jeremy Northam, Clive Owen, Helen Mirren, Richard E. Grant (Hugh's Brother), Michael Gambon, and Ryan Phillippe are just some of the many cast of the film. The large group may seem like too much for a murder mystery to contain while keeping the flow nice and tight, but that's the joy of the film: it fits naturally, with nothing rushed or overacted. You enter the film knowing nobody, and leave knowing everyone and their dark little secrets. While everyone gets their fare share in the film, the one who steals the show is Maggie Smith as Lady Constance Threntham, an old, wise cracking woman who's out to get her respectable allowance from Sir William McCordle (Another stunning performance from Michael Gambon). Unlike directors who burnout jumping the gun on films, Robert Altman continues to shine, and will keep going. "Gosford Park" is a Disney World in film-making. Once you see it, you'll never want to go.
* * * * (Out Of Four)
A+ (A+ Being The Highest, F Being The Lowest)
10 (On IMDB's Scale Of 1-10)
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The 'Return' For A Third Time Is Long, But Well Enjoyed. * * * (Out Of Four)
How time has passed. Three years ago people were being introduced to the series and it became a hit. The final act of the saga ends gracefully and with class. What is there not to say about 'The Return Of The King'? The film has taken such a dark path it's stunning. The world of Middle-Earth you knew is of no more, as the final moments of it's future is in the hands of one weary Hobbit, by the name of Frodo. The film's story is about as fast-paced as it was in 'The Two Towers' but this time around the action has climbed so high, you'll want to focus on the action more then the story. The main story of the film is simple: as the last moments of Middle-Earth rest in the hands of Frodo, those who fight alongside him against evil are finding it harder and harder to win. 'The Two Towers' introduced to us a little monster by the name of Gollum who's computer generations look so lifelike you disregarded him for a real life creature. This time around we're shown a new surprise: The King Of The Dead, who's ghostly green aura and chilling facial looks will give you chills. The funny thing is, he's a good guy. The film has so many expectations and tries hard to accomplish them but gives us more then needed. Whether that's a good thing or bad thing is your choice. Is 'Return Of The King' a bad film? No, it's an enjoyable ending and surprisingly doesn't posses the cold-shoulder wrap-up like recent trilogies have given (The Matrix: Revolutions for example). It's hard not to enjoy this film, because of the range of emotions you'll go through (Fear, joy, sadness are just a select few emotions you'll go through). Be warned to those who leave right when the film ends, you'll be teased around once or twice with the surprise new endings. Aside from that, 'The Return Of The King' rules over many films this year and there's no reason not to see it this year.
* * * (Out Of Four)
8 (On IMDB's Scale Out Of 10)
B (A+ Being The Best, F Being The Worst)
GoldenEye (1995)
For A Bond Film, It's Pure Gold And Frankly, One Of The Most Stunning Films Ever. * * * * (Out Of Four)
'GoldenEye' is the perfect Bond film, and in doing so, should be the example of what a Bond film is. After a seven year hiatus from the screen, the series renewed itself in many ways with a new plot, a new beginning, and a new, and better Bond played by Pierce Brosnan. The film shouldn't be looked at as just a Bond film because it holds emotion and an essence not found in other Bond films. Looking at it feels like a sense of seeing it shot in the 50's or 60's and makes it dazzling. While this is supposed to be noticed or not is not the question, because seeing it that way makes the film experience much more accepted. The idea's and characters are so vivid in the film, you feel their pain. There is with no doubt that you will feel emotion surge through you more then once in this film. The hiatus was a good idea for the series, because being away so long built up a stronger return. The film is worth being the example of what a Bond film should be because of what it possess: mainly, everything. The Bond is Pierce Brosnan, which gives Sean a run for his money. The Bond girl is the beautiful Natalia Simonova (Played wonderfully by Izabella Scorupco), a smart, gorgeous, and talented woman. The Bond villain's are evil and unique, including Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) and Alec Trevelyan (Sean Bean) who both have their naughty wicked sides to them. The action scenes are first rate, including sky diving to catch an airplane, fights above a satellite, and a car chase through Russia. The dialogue is topnotch, edgy, and fast ("How could you be like this? How could you be so cold?" "It's what keeps me alive.") GoldenEye is truly the most polished and creative of the series, and the title of 'Gold' is a perfect fit. For any person of film, 'GoldenEye' is a must-have.
* * * * (Out Of Four)
A+ (A+ Being The Highest, F Being The Lowest)
10 (On The IMDB's Ratings Scale)
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
A 'Tower'ing Achievement But Has A Cracked Foundation. * * * (Out Of Four)
"The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring" started a craze within Hollywood over the buzz the series created. The follow-up, "The Two Towers" builds up on it, but in the end leaves us wanting a real ending. The film improves on it's action content, mostly within it's last third act, which we are shown an army of minions battling those against them in Helm's Deep, a last resort for poor villagers surrounding it from the evil of Sarumon. The film takes us on varied journeys of the now broken up fellowship and what each of the fellowship endure to fight for what they believe in: a little hobbit by the name of Frodo, who now we see is being taken down slowly by the ring and those who were taken down as well by it, in the form of a little creature known as Gollum, a computer generated creation so lifelike and realistic, you take it as just another actor within the film. The film has stunning cinematography and takes the best of New Zealand (The location of the filming) for it's depiction of Middle-Earth. The film, however, may wow audiences with the added action but may leave them lost in a haze from the hard, fast-paced plot setting as new characters, locations, and moments are thrown in left and right. But it's not too much to worry about if you stay focused on the story and don't get overwhelmed from the action. The coordination with the film is put nicely and smoothly, except towards the end of the action where areas and scenes are disoriented and confusing, but it shouldn't matter too much. If there was one problem with the film it'd be for the ending. The film leaves you wanting more, which is a classic film gimmick, but by "wanting more" it's meant as wanting a more understandable ending. We're left seeing the Hobbits on their way to Mount Doom through a forest with no reasoning on the others (That is too plausible). But aside from the lackluster ending, the film leads gracefully onto act three of the series and gets you wanting more so bad it'll eat you inside...like a little ring we might know of... My Ratings:
* * * (Out Of Four)
B
8 (On IMDB's Scale Out Of 10)
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Majestic And Stunning; A Cinematic Triumph * * * 1/2 (Three And A Half Out Of Four
The Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Rings" tells the story of J.R.R. Tolkien's three-part novel as a sweeping, bold, exciting first turn. The artistry and deep message may be off a little due to the ways of Hollywood but it still stands as a cinematic triumph. We see the message of 'Size Doesn't Matter' in more then one way. We see a frightened little hobbit named Frodo (Elijah Wood) fall into the hands of the One Ring, which could destroy the world of Middle-Earth if it can take over the minds of those who wish to destroy it. How surprising to see the fact that the hero of the story is a small, shy hobbit, while the One Ring takes it's toll on the other larger heroes is sidetracked, as we see the heroes of the film to be Aragorn (Viggo Mortenson) and his followers, fighting battles against leagues of orcs and other minions of Middle-Earth. The makeup and costume for this film is Oscar caliber and the cosmetics department for this film should go recognized for it. Aside from that, how ever more surprising is the depth and journey we will see the 'Fellowship', a mixed bunch of cultures of Middle-Earth, take going from mighty castles to underground lairs of doom. And to top it off, your left breathless. There's a certain charm the 'Fellowship' carries that the following films don't. Maybe it's because the focus is less on all-out action (Which the film carries plenty of) but more on the imagination and power the novel carried. A book-to-film translation is always risque but a fine job is done here and I praise Peter Jackson for bringing the books so vividly to life.
* * * 1/2 (Out Of Four Stars)
A-
9 (On The IMDB Rating System)
Wrong Turn (2003)
The Title's "Wrong Turn", And You'll Make One By Seeing It
'WRONG TURN' * 1/2 (Out Of Four)
'Wrong Turn' is yet another teen horror film with all the same things we have seen too often. There's the campy dialogue, the over use of gore, the dumb as dirt characters, who each define a certain 'character' within a character in a horror film. There's the man who has that mysterious sexy look, the girl tomboy, the girl who's only got sex on her mind. Then, all hell breaks lose, as they meet up with the inbreeds; 'deranged mountain men' call them if you want. 3 of them in fact, which, through generations of inbreeding have become so disfigured, murder is their only choice to do in life. The fact that they're cannibals is one thing of course, and one (And probably the only) disturbing scene in the film shows a plain filled with nearly 3 to 5 dozen vehicles, implying the number of victims to the "deranged mountain men", and just how disturbing they are. The film has some interesting scenes, but overall lacks substance. You'll be reminded of a horror film somewhere throughout it (I'm not naming one, but they are films that will come to mind). And, to top it all off, the film tries to throw a surprise ending that...isn't surprising at all. In fact, I laughed at it. 2003 had much better exceptions for thriller/horror, mainly the gritty "28 Days Later..." and the spooky "Identity". "Wrong Turn", however, is lacking something. Maybe it's lacking originality, maybe it's not. What I know is that it should lack the same old formula other campy horror films have done. By dropping the lame dialogue, ultra-gross gore, and the fact that sex isn't needed for a horror film, it just might've pulled off to a better turn.
Final Grades * 1/2 (Out Of Four) D (F Being The Lowest, A+ Being The Best) 2 (Out Of IMDB's Rating Of 10)
It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie (2002)
Very VERY Merry Indeed
"It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas" is the most recent Muppet film with a warmhearted, spoof-filled, joke-a-thon with a great Holiday sense to it. Sure, it borrows heavily from the idea of "It's A Wonderful Life" but you look over that idea because of it's charm. The TV special, which aired in 2002 on NBC, was filled to the max with cameos and supporting roles by Joan Cusack (As Ms. Bitterman, the villain, haha), David Arquette, Kelly Ripa, Molly Shannon, Triumph The Insult Comic Dog, Joe Rogan (From Fear Factor), William H. Macy, Matthew Lillard, Whoopi Goldberg (As God, even funnier) and Mel Brooks as Joe Snow (The funniest). The whole film overall is a charming ride, and on it's trip, we are shown such funny spoofs (In due respect). The Muppet's create a new Christmas play based on Moulin Rouge, known as "Moulin Scrooge". An audition of the opening scene is spoofed of Cirque Du Soleil ("Cirque Du Su Lame'", but Kermit mistakes it for "Cirque do so lame"). But the best part is a scene in which Fozzy the Bear, who, through a serious of bad events is mistaken for the Grinch. Too funny. Oh, also, I have to mention the funny little Muppet known as Pepe. He proves no matter how big, you can still be the funniest. The film is now on a DVD with special features including special features. No matter what, in order to make you Christmas complete, you must see this film! You won't regret it. My Grade: A
Scary Movie 3 (2003)
A Step-Down From Good Spoofs, A Step-Up From It's Prequel
Scary Movie 3 tries to be original, but at times (which is most of the time) it isn't. The plot? Well it's not too hard to explain. In short: The Ring + Signs. It also tries to be bad while still being good (It tries to be "R" rated while being "PG-13"). Some scenes are sharp and funny, like the opening scene, but others are just way too far-out and/or gross, like the end. The ending is also dissapointing. But to the story overall, it's in a special area of films that fall between the good and the bad. It tries to be as good as spoof films like Austin Powers, or the first Scary Movie, but at least it's better then some spoofs like Not Another Teen Movie or Scary Movie (2 That is). Suprisingly, it has alot of cameos, mainly by African-American actors (Macy Grey's in it for a short short time, she only has one line (The film never supplies a reason why she has to be in the film)). But now bringing up the subject of the actors, the film takes a huge part at making Black jokes which can be funny for some actors (Regina Hall is hilarious once again in this film) but others, it just doesn't work. So, the fact of the matter is, don't waste your time in the theaters. Wait for if you want for DVD, but then, it's still not worth it. P.S. In the trailers a scene shows Eddie Griffen, Queen Latifah, and Anna Faris in a scene spoofing the original Matrix (Eddie: "I am Orpheous!"), but in the film, this scene, which seemed promising is no where to be found at all. Let's hope it'll be a deleated scene on the DVD. C+ -or- * * (Two Stars).
13th Child (2002)
Why It Went Wrong - A New Jersian's Perspective
Ok first of all, I had high hopes for this film. I, living in the area of the Jersey Devil lore (I have seen the house in which the "13th Child" was supposedly born) expected something fun to watch. So, I go into the theater hoping for a good film. Then I remembered it's independent filmaking I'm seeing. No big budget, no good ideas either (Not saying that indepeandants are un-original, millions are...look at "Pulp Fiction" for one). So first scenes ok...upredictable moment in which something will pop out sooner or later. Ok, I let it ride. Later into the film I took notice how the many skinned deers were in the film. I believe its on the record for most deer corpses on film award. I hope they got paid well (:-p). Anyway the film goes on and on, with the same boring dialouge, interupted by scenes that weren't needed (A sex scene happens in an abanoded trailer between two white trash folk (The trashiest I've ever seen). Trust me, as a fellow New Jersian, we are not that dumb (Sample dialouge: "Your not doing it right!!"). Ok, so I let it pass again. Then the film starts to build some partial momentum. It starts to get interesting (The film goes all the way until the end to revela what the Devil looks like.) In one final scene I believe a body is dragged into shadows, then a flood of blood flows from it (For a fact, the amount of blood used would supply two bodies full at least.) The we get ot the scene. Finally! The audience is on the edge of their seats. Now normally for this excitment to build I'd give extra points ofr the film but it disapoints us so badly that I just had to give it a 1. So....here's a "spoiler" if you don't care to hear my insult about the film. The Jersey Devil more looked like the aliens in the "Alien" series then it did...well the devil (Which was a mix of horse, goat, and other animals...). So in the end, the film was such a dissapointment I actually came up with a better idea. It simply is...more atmosphere. You give a more lore feel to it then some dumbed-down script idea and it might've just might've worked. Oh and one more thing...I still am not completely in understandment of the final scene which the devil grows and rises from some small drops of blood. There the end....0 Stars.
The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (1949)
Disney's Masterpiece!
Disney made a wondefull masterpiece that is pitch-perfect to complete your Halloween season. The story stays faithful to the Washington Irving short story and also adds a beautiful touch by having Bing Crosby's soothing voice-over to serenade this classic animated film which show lush touches of autumn colors in the cool, quiet mountain areas of Sleepy Hollow county, New York, in the 1700's. The film uses some voices in it, but is used rarely. It proves even without many voices of characters how colorful they still can be.
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
A stunning masterpiece to an American classic!
One of the most influential films of all time to me is Tim Burton's stylish, stunning masterpiece "Sleepy Hollow", a truly deserving film to an American classic tale. Tim Burton uses such amazing touches of dark lore and gothic to create a film so wrapped up in storyline and ideas, it will bring you back for a seconed time...and a third time, maybe, even a forth time (For me it made me buy the video and then later the DVD as well). I was so influenced by the film that I took a vacation to the real Sleepy Hollow, New York during the autumn season. But anyway back to the film. This film, based upon the old Washington Irving tale is done up to a 21st century realism, complete with a stylish story so puzzling yet so astonishing, I still cannot completely understand (Don't get me wrong, the films plot has many surfaces, you'll understand the first layer naturally but look closer a few more times and more will be revealed, *that's a true technique to a classic). Having worked with Tim Burton before with "Ed Wood", Johnny Depp is reunited again with Burton to play the role of Icabod Crane, not a simple school-teacher like in the ol' folk tale, but now a New York City investegator sent to the county of Sleepy Hollow in order to investigate the mysterious murders of a supposed "Headless Horsemen" (The horsemen without his head was played by Ray Park (Known by millions as Darth Maul of Star Wars: Episode I). Christina Ricci plays the mysterious Katrina Van Tassel, who plays mixed emotions with magic and love to Icabod's head. The supporting cast goes on and on, and I will say that Burton is a master at casting people. I see no one at all as talented as Depp to play Icabod. Christina? Well...she could possibly replaced, but she knows what she's doing since she has a background for dark films ("Casper" and "The Adams' Family" are both in relation to horror even though their family related films). I tried to sum it as best as I could, but basiclly, I wrote this review in 2003, and to this day have not seen a film that matches it in style (The closet film to match it is 2001's "From Hell" starring...Johnny Depp!). So, simple reviews: Burton's best, Depp's best, Ricii's Better, A True American Classic, An Essential for any film fan. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a big favor and run (Don't walk) to your local video store to see it!
Fun facts: -Ray Park plays the horsemen, but people know him better as Darth Maul (SW:Ep. 1) -The film was shot oddly, not in Sleepy Hollow, but in England. -The town was built from the ground up. -The Western Woods was completely built on a sound stage. -Martin Landau (Who played Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood") makes a brief biref appearence then sadly dies (Try and guess how). -Not that it matters but Depp played a similar character to Icabod in 2001's "From Hell" which was about the Jack the Ripper story in which he played the investegator of the crimes (His character was like Icabod in 100 years from Sleepy Hollow (Sleepy Hollow takes place in 1799, From Hell is like 1910's, or maybe 1890's...I forget) and also heavily into drugs. *It's like the twisted evil side of Icabod)