Reviews

I am shocked to see so many good reviews on a movie so generic, so boring, so uninteresting. This movie doesn't feature great drama, great acting, or great character depth. Everyone here is just so princy with all their fluffy costumes and such. The plot is quite simple, Daniel Day Lewis can't be with the adulterous slut)Michelle Phfeffer or however you spell her name) because he is engaged with Winona Ryder. You would think this outline would cause people heartbreak, people to fight, people to run away in tears or something emotionally involving. No, no , no, just fancy costumes, gallerias, and everyone just acting proper and not letting their real desires and emotions come through. The ending is horrible, I mean really. I thought the performances were quite good, if only they did something worth caring about. I will never watch this overrated picture again. Watch The Basketball Diaries, The Crucible, or even

Bram Stoker's Dracula if you want to watch a drama with emotional depth were things actually happen. 4/10.

I don't why so many people hate this filmn. So what if it wasn't original, I really don't think it was trying to be. It was paying homage to the original, and since I loved the original so much, then I personally do not mind the copy cat. The movie wasn't really all that similiar. Sure the main plot was the same, but the detaials were not and the entire feel and set up to the finale was completely different. Yes I appreciated the gore and violence and I thought It only made the climax more shocking. I've watched the party scene about six times already and I still am jolted by the drama and special effects. I could sympathize with Rachel marvelously played by Emily Bergl and I basically was very pleased with the film. I mean compared to Halloween H20 or any other horror film of today I feel it is great. It has more emotion behind the horror rather than simply I'm gonna kill you or I'm just running away. The Rage has a soul. 10/10

I thought the film was pretty entertaining. It's never boring and the acting is quite good. Helen Mirren's character is a little too cruel to be "realistic", and her softer side was very undeveloped. She was like a one dimensional intelligent "bi#*h and the ending of the film with her performance seemed a little soft. Katie Holmes was cute and Helen really got into the subconscious of the girls characters. Marisa Coughlan was also quite amusing with her Monroe and Linda Blair impression, even though her character was at some points a little slow and emotionally unstable. Barry Watson was very attractive and his performance does not really disappoint, even though the film should have studied more into his psychological self. The movie isn't really horror, and it's more of a black comedy with some lessons of morality and self discovery. The film does have a few twists and its not nearly as bad as some critics are saying. After watching the nauseating Blair Witch Project, Teaching Mrs. Tingle was satisfying in more ways than one.

After watching the pitiful John carpenter film Vampires, I find Bran Stoker's Dracula to be extremely artful, full of amazing acting, and erotically romantic. I instantly fell in love with Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder as the two rekindled their love in a daring and rich fashion. And talk about performances, Winona Ryder with her dazzling curly long black hair, her blood and yearning fiery emotion, I was absolutely dazzled. The movie for me took a while to get into to. But eventually the film gets better with the the possession of the two female "victems." This film even makes blood look lovely and extravagant. This is one of the few films where I wanted Dracula to win and i saw Hopkins as a nuisance, a pest if you will. His performance was good, but his role alone with Keanu Reeves was very limited. Keanu wasn't bad as an actor, but I would much rather see him in the sexy Devil 's Advocate. The sets , costumes, and make up was magnificient and I feel this must be the greatest Dracula film ever creted. After teeny bopper films like Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands, I never knew Winona could act, but this proves that she does have potential.

I thought the film was ok but nothing more. Janet Leigh wasn't funny and she didn't belong here, the plot was considerably simplistic, and it wasn't very scary. Jamie Leigh Curtis has changed from the beautiful fully haired youth from Halloween to a masculine woman with a "lesbian" hairstyle-please. Her actions were also unrealistic and a litle too much for me. And why did the film make LL "Cool" J an important "survivor", he is NOT someone cool, It rather see more of the George Clooney look a like instead. As for Josh Harnett, well he's attractive but they should have showed some skin..it is rating R after all. This just couldn't capture the mood of the original and I don't know why some people are raving. Look at external reviews comments for some more intelligent opininos. This was essentially a typical slasher flick ...rent Carrie 2 or The Faculty instead. At least it was better than I still know what "a trash film is".

Well, when my brother rented this I wasn't exspecting much. I actually liked this film more than She's All That and I was upset that a better film was not as successful. The film is completely entertaining, it's never boring, and the acting from queen bitch Rose McGowen and Fern Mayo was funny and convincing. Pam Grier's talents were wasted as a cop but it's not like a fun story like this needed her anyway. The sex scenes were steamy and I wish rebbeca Gayheart had some action with her drama stud. The film is better than Heathers and the colors, costumes , a 90's style make the film really easy to watch. It's not something that you should take too seriously and it provides for hour and half of entertainment. The film even has an ending that spoofs Carrie and it references that classic film with a joke. I don't know why the critics hated this film so much, but all I know is that it's cute , entertaining, and sexy. I'd recommend.

Well, the movie was pretty good, and I guess that it's on the AFI' list because of it's remarkable originality. The movie is violent, a little bloodly (could have been much bloodier), not highly sexual but the slight glimpses are enough to understand(man raping a man), and only a little nudity- men in shirts off..bruce willis in underwear. The movie did not go in chronological order and that was fresh and original. The acting was good, Uma Thrurman short on screen role was very moving and her on screen time had the most disturbing image of the entire film with her overdosing. I was surprised that John Travolta was nominated for an Oscar because he can act better than what he did in this film(Face Off), he was good but it wasn't special, it was his usual self. As for all the talk of redemption...,I think it's kind of a crock, I mean Samuel L Jackson's character is probaly not all that reliable. The humour--it didn't work and it wasn't funny. The people pretty much fit their roles and the movie and sountrack was good, but I don't really see the big deal of it. Watch for film for a new experience but don't go in thinking the movie is highly enjoyable. 8/10 for a well made and original film.

Well, I just recently went on the ride and it was very thrilling. The line is not as long as it used to be since the ride is old and other rides like Jaws, Twister, and ET get attention, so I suggest going and waiting because you have to wait for everything at Universal Studious. Kongfrontation is the worst line. Anyway, the ride was thrilling and I suggest to sit up front.

Well, what can i say. I rented the Godfather from the library and I completely disliked it. I gave it an effort but the beginning was so boring that I could bearly tolerate it and I had to take a break from the film. When I came back I saw people in cars being blown up, Marlon Brando being injured, an abused wife going crazy with the dishes, Al Pacino young and vengeful and ,more and more deaths. Big Deal! The people that died were people that were underveloped and I can't say i cared much. And what's the big fuss about Marlon Brando acting, he just talked in a funny voice and relaxed-in A Streetcar Named Desire he actually give an effort to act. Well, i have to admit that I did not finish the film. It just wasn't fun enough, not entertaining, and I think the acting nowadays is better. The part that I shut the film off is when Marlon fell in the garden and the little boy went away. I then shut it off and said, that's nice. If the ending is good then maybe I'll finish watching the Godfather, but i don't know. It was just not entertaining. Very boring. The day before I saw the film I saw the three hour Casino, which I liked because the music, the acting, and the excellent 90's pace. It dealt with the mafia, Casino, but people like Sharon Stone and pace made the film emotionally involving. Watch Casino and then watch The Godfather and ask yourself, which film was more entertaining?

Well, the movie is very gripping from the beginning to the end. The story focuses on an innocent group of friends that drive and fall upon a human slaughter house run by Leatherface. The movie has a horrible picture and it seems really cheap but this cheapness in the film made me feel uncomfortable and degrading. This movie's picture makes Halloween look like a fortune. The murders are not graphic and this movie's is surprisingly bloodless as it's reputed to be(by the smart critics). This movie is stuck on the idea of being frightened and the quick murders happen without the gory images. There are five characters so they are not really well developed (unlike Jamie Lee Curtis) and I thought I wouldn't care about the girl in the final chase. But Burns went through so much with the torture and the overlong chainsaw chase that I really felt for her. The movie is disturbing and they do a really cool filming with Marilyn Burns eyes. The movie was overall good and much more disturbing(but not as enjoyable) than halloween. However, the movie is so cheap that it brings you down to it's level, where as Halloween I sat with excitement watching the actions. I admitely did not enjoy watching the film but i had to give it a good rating because it bothered me like no horror film ever made. I praise Tobe Hooper for his degrading and disturbing creation.

Well, what can I saw besides the movie had no entertainment value and it threw away Mary Shelley's classic novel that dealt with feelings so intimately-Guilt for instance. This movie destroyed everything emotional of the characters and really gave Frankenstein a SUCKY name. The effects of the film were a bore, and I can't say the black and white helped much to the excitement. As for the characters, the bride and family members of Victor(titled George in this film) were completely throwaways..who cares if they die. As for all the talk about Borois Karloff, he mumbles and groans threw the entire film. How could someone think he was a classic actor. Why didn't they just get a dummy, put some fabric , and throw an old mans voice that just woke from his grave for fun. Is this acting? It was pitiful, I didn't care for the monster at all. The experience was completely unenjoyable and I'm sure my classmates(yes I watched this in school after the beautiful novel) would agree. As for the AFI list of great movies, it was only put there because it is an old classic, it means nothing it's just a way for people to stick up for it. This is just a really SUCKY movie with deteriorated and careless emotion.

Well, what can I say about this film. It's merely okay and the black and white makes the film seem completely dull and frankly quite boring. I don't understand what all this talk about the color being artistic but I found it repulsive. The acting in the movie was very mediocre, especially from the stiff John Gavin, the ever so proper Vera Miles, and the so serious Martin Balsam. Try watching the new Psycho and you'll find that these characters can actually have personalities. As for Janet Leigh, well she was good, but Anne Heche seemed more innocent, more human, and more sympathetic. As for Anthony Perkins, he's also so monotone, barely ANY emotion, and I struggle to understand why people rave over his dry performance. As for the "mother twist", well that was good but there are twists in about every horror film now a days and they are usually more entertaining than this joke. And then there is the shower scene which everyone says is so scary? Where have they been , I could pick out a dream sequence from any A Nightmare on Elm Street sequel that was done more creatively and powerfully. It was a simple knifing in the shower for god's sake, isn't watching the opening of Drew Barrymore in Scream ten times more chilling and exciting? Give me a break, when I went to Universal Studious they said the shower sequence was one of the most famous scenes of all time. Well, give an audience an opportunity to watch either that or the astonishing death of Piper Laurie in Depalma's Carrie, or the thrill of the finale chase in Halloween, and well see what brings more reactionary emotion of the audience. Well, what can I say about a movie that I will never understand? When people made the new Psycho some thought it was stupid because of the story--and so I know I'm not alone. It's just that these old foggies are so hung up on old movies that they are blind to see that modern movies provide for much more entertainment. Some old horror films like Rosemary's Baby are excellent, but this is not. As for Bernard Herrmann score, it's overplayed, can't he think of anything new to compose? Compare Pino Donnagio' lush score from Carrie opposed to this and see what's more creative and effective. What can I say besides people, this movie is simply average and that it might of have been good back then, but it's simply OK now. Do we still rave about the type writer just because it was original back then? I have spoken and I guess that Blockbuster Video agrees with me that the movie is too much of a joke to be placed in the horror section. It's in the Drama suspense category, and certainly a thrilless and dated film to belong anywhere else. Psycho remains as the most overrated film of all time and the new Psycho is a much better improvement.

I thought the movie was good, and it was interesting and entertaining throughout. The voices are good, the animation is marvelous(especially the action scenes), and the characters of Anne, Tarzan, Kala were well developed. The only failure in the movie was the music. Phil Collins songs were upbeat and some were quite good, but Anne and Tarzan do not sing a single note in the entire film. It was just Phil Collins as a narrative voice and I was a little repulsed at first. The movie is not as sad as The Lion King's moments and probably would not make people cry, but it does come in touch with children's themes and characters, unlike the very adult themed Hunchback. There was less side kicks in the film which was a plus, the villian was not as cartoon like as Jafar, and he reminded of the greedy realistic villian of Pocahontas(not as appealing). I was amused at a comment that usually all the villians die by falling and this movie adds a new twist to that aspect. Overall entertaining film, more appealing to children and much better than Mulan. I'd recommend.

The film was barely funny, the acting was overall mediocre, and the films themes were ridiculously unrealistic to be treated as either a horror, thriller, or comedy. I don't understand why people are giving an unstylish film like this such rave reviews but I must say the jokes on homosexuality, the unpopular, the getting revenge on the popular just didn't make me smile. The main highlight of the film is the chemistry between Slater and Ryder, but everything else and the tragic/comedy ending(however you want to take it) just makes the whole film seem stupid. The 80's picture and style also seemed dated and I'd rather watch a 90's class picture opposed to this waste of time. I'd suggest The Craft(which has plenty of resemblances) anyday with it's class, FX, and actors. Heathers just seems cheap.

Well, there are some similarities between Psycho and Dressed To Kill but the scenes, dialogue, characters, music, but the feel is almost completely different. The characters do not act the same, they do not encounter the same scenes or scenarios, the music is more beautifully graceful with a score written by Pino Donnagio opposed to the much more aggressive scores by Bernard Hermann. I am sure people can dig for similiarities but Psycho is extemely different than this film-except when the police sum up the crime. The movie does contain two shower scenes but who ever made it official that every single time someone is taking a shower they are ripping it from Psycho--that's like saying everytime someone has sex or work in a kitchen or telephone booth they are copying it from a different place. When I watched the opening shower scene and Angie Dickinson was washing herself--the film looked much more like it was Sissy Spacek taking a shower from Depalma's Carrie--not Hitchcock's Psycho. Another viewer wrote that the two shower scenes were pointless because they are just dream sequences--but dreams create imagery about the characters inner feelings, fears, thoughts, and desires regarding to their real lives--and the scenes add suspense. I watched the un-rated version and the main reason why it is unrated is because it shows Angie very naked in the beginning- everything else in the film is fine for an R rating. Someone commented that gore and violence is like Friday the Thirteeneth when there was actually only one bloody spot, and that wasn't even really graphic--maybe Psycho and this do have something in common because both seem to lie incredibly on suspense--at least this film got it right. Some of the cinematography such as the museum sequence was excellently handled and Nancy Allen is funny, sexy, and really easy to like. A split scene was used for no particular reason just to overwhelm the viewer into trying to listen to two conversations at once-- it seemes like Depalma added it just to experiment where in Carrie he used it to maximun advantage of horror. Some really sexy and chilling scenes are when Nancy Allen is naked talking to the doctor trying to get his journal where lush strings create a mood of daring desire and a chase sequence where Nancy is running from subway guys and Bobbi. Great acting overall and the music, cinematography, and mood was perfect for a movie that i'd consider a sexual thriller(not horror).

Well, the film was good. The main thing that made it work was Rebecca De Mornay as the crazed Nanny. Her evil eyes were effective and her rage and mischief with Soloman, Annabella's husband, the glass house, her secrets Annabella's daughter were really cool. The opening was quite effective and I can understand her need for revenge. Rebecca was quite attractive and the scenes of breast feeding were very intimate. Julianne Moore was excellent in her minor role but she was so sexy, intelligent, and memorable that I wished they showed more of her. There is suspense in a few scenes and my only complaint is the way the ending for these thriller movies work like Fatal Attraction, Single White Female. I sometimes wish there was a better resolution to the problem and I don't really like it when cool people die. The story is interesting because of the decepetionous way that Rebecca works but the ending in this type of movie is predictable and unfortunate. The acting makes the film work and overall it was good, not great. 2 1/2 out of 4.

Well, I initially saw this movie because I am a major Carrie fan and I wanted to see another movie with Amy Irving when she was still young. The movie was good, but John Cassevetes and the Kirk Douglas characters were kind of boring. I always thought that john Cassevetes is a little overrated because I've never seen him display a personality that is incredibly enjoyable(even with Rosemary's baby) and in this movie he was his usual negotiating boring self. There was some cool action scenes with Kirk Douglas but my main love of the movie was the majority of the scenes with Amy Irving--who really(despite the billing) is the main stand out character of the film. We watch some really cool scenes with amy involving her watching Andrew Stevens psychically as Andrew watches video tapes of his father being attacked, blood running down other people as Amy's emotions are racing with energy., a sleepwalking scene, a show where she is escaping from the hospital, a scene where she gives a girl a bloody nose, and blue glowing eyes. Amy and Andrew were the two telekinetic teens and they were young, fresh, emotional, and attractive. I really enjoyed their presence and their performance really made the film work. The other characters are really just there for support except Kirk Douglas who gives his usual masculine role. Overall I thought the film was pretty good, 2 1/2 mainly because of the acting, special effects, and the way some scenes just looked so cool! I'd recommend this.

Well, the film isn't bad but it is way overrated. I read Roger Ebert's review on this before I watched it and I was expecting something unworldly excellent and I was wrong. But what else can you expect from a man that didn't like Sleeping with the Enemy, The Guardian, In Dreams, and The Rage; Carrie 2. The film was pretty much a little better than okay. The acting was very mediocre and th script wasn't fabulous. There was little suspense and the characters were people that were ugly, especially that little DORK William Macy. Frances Mcdormand was amusing in some of the scenes because of the way she talked but I was quite appalled about how the police acted in some sequences were very inappropriate and quite unrealistic--trying to be funny and silly as they examine newly discovered dead bodies. The gore at the end is as much as people say and once again the comic in death tone is kept inappropriately. The foot scene was amusing and I was glad to see some the annoying being shot and demolished. The sex scene was amusing , the scene where Frances McDormand was interviewing the two didsy girls was quite funny, but overall the story wan't great. Like There's Something About Mary the story provided a few amusing moments, but that didn't make the film good-just OK. The film was never scary or suspenseful mainly because of the comedic ridiculousness of the situation and I was very glad about the stupid characters fates in this very overrated film. There are much better movies than this and I would suggest In Dreams anyday before this. A bit original yes, but deserving to be on the imdb top 200 certainly not.

There wasn't one scene that was boring in this very bizzare thriller. The acting was good and the story line was provoking. Some of the images like the appple, and the ryhmes I think were just there to be bizarre and the water images were used because that is where the villain lived--in an underground world. Anyhow, the acting was quite excellent and I didn't think Downy Junior seemed whiny or immature--he seemed quite insane. So did Annete Benning and everyone else asked for the role. The gore was far from disturbing because the images were so quickly done--it seemed more of an action film, not a horror film. The ending sequence frightened me the most.

This a very interesting movie-- a little bit unrealistic, but I feel that all my questions were answered completely and that some of the images were just there to be bizarre and thought provoking--don't overanalyze it. My only complaint is that the color or lighting or something having to do with the cinematography bothered me--it looked different in its picture--slightly bothersome. Overall good film.

What can I say. The movie was soooo dark, so depressing that I just wanted to turn it off and throw it in the trash. Thank goodness I only rented this. I continuously wanted for something good, something exciting and It was just words and a picture of a dead man with police wandering around. The movie was sooo bad that it made my other rental film Urban Legend look like an exciting horror classic---and that was only an OK film. Seven is a horrible experience, little gore, little action, mild absurdities, basically a very gloomy unentertaining tone. Even Gweneth Paltrow was stupid and frankly had--no interesting lines and they didn't even show the way she looked at the end--so upsetting. Just like the Baby with Rosemary's baby, the director denied a crucial element, it is just that unlike Rosemary's Baby, I didn't care an inch about the way Seven looked at that point. Thrillers like Fatal Attraction, The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, and The Tie That Binds are movies that at least have an entertaining and lighter deranged glow. Seven is just dark, boring, and so uninvolving. The actors good but the story stunk.

I thought the film was good. The romance was magical and the songs were surprisingly well brought forth. The villian was neat to look at but his motives and actions seemed a little weird and a bit unexplained--Jafar(Alladin-) was much better even though Rasputin was fun to look at. One scene where Rasputin and his animals were singing and the smoke and effects reminded me of Scar's Be Prepared. The actions sequences were okay but the main thing that affected me emotionally was the story of Anastasia finding her past and the whole gentle love relationship. I just don't find magical villains and cartoon action sequences all that exciting or scary anymore---a realistic villain like Frollo(Hunchback of Notre Dame) are usually much more effective because thy are more human. Rasputin was just weird but I did love Anastasia songs, dreams, and personality. My complaints about the film is that Disney's animated sequences look a bit better than this, they are more cartoon and this is more humam-less creative/colorful. I also didn't like the ending with the two bats--I think they should have ended it with the two humans kissing then blackout. Overall good movie--much better than disney's recent Mulan. It also had the usual Disney side kicks, villain, love, and action sequences. This movie can easily be compared to Aladdin with the person finding a place with love and a villain to conquer and the side talker of the situation and the rich and poor. The story was a bit predictable but it was still nice watching. I think it is better to not know the historical facts because it loses the belief and emotion of the story when someone is sitting there knowing that this isn't what really happened--that Anastasia's life was more of a tragedy where she really was alone and not gentically linked to the rich family. It would disturb me if I knew this before the movie . Just watch the movie and treat it as it is--just an entertaining cartoon.

This was the best since the first and I've only seen part 6, part 1, and part 7 H20. I was surprised about how many scenes resembled the others, for instance the car(at the end)resembling Michael's hand from the original nurse and Loomis scene, the H20 ambulance awakening reflecting a scenes of Michael waking from the coma at the beginning, the usual sex scene, and the ending shock of the girl in the same clown costume as the young Myers in the original opening act-with the same music. I realized that the Halloween series is very derivative on each other except this one has plenty of suspense and surprisingly little gore--like the original. The directors could have made more graphically bloody scenes, but for some reason they thought the original technique would be better--I wouldn't be too sure about that. Donald Pleasence acting in this film was the most over- the top emotional, especially considering part 1 and 6 where he seemed much more cautionionary more more grandfather like. The ending of this movie was the greatest shock of all because the character of the little girl(who was played very well) was always painted as so innocent. Some clever, out of the ordinary scenes involve the costume getter scene, a dream sequence where Michael is all around, and a cracking of the face moment. Pleasences warning about Michael evil are little bit repetitive. The acting was really good, I wish they would show more more of Brady since he was so attractive. The characters that had died where characters that you would easily guess but seeing the actual deed still makes me feel bad. Many suspenseful scenes in a film that was much better at capturing the original feel. Overall good movie, certainly better than part 6.

The movie was surprisingly wonderful especially considering the last sequel. The third was dark, and semi-interesting but it wasn't nearly as fun or enjoyable as this. It is filled with comedic lines about Martha Stuart, doll's anatomy, masturbation, and it was actually done effectively during gruesome and disturbing images. The movie wasn't scary or suspenseful and I'm sure that it wasn't the director's intention. It was fun because of the silliness, Jennifer Tilly's over the top and sexy performance. The puppetry of the dolls were so well handled, the movement of mouth, lips, tears in eyes, knife in chest, and the costumes. The dolls were just marvelous and it made the gruesome deaths more enoyable considering the fact that they were done by wonderful dolls. The new Chucky look was great and Tiffany was very cute. A few scenes with Chucky hugging the human Tiffany even made my father smile. Jesse and Jade were surprisingly well- very attractive and the special effects were cool. The ending was so unsuspected and the fact that they could make another as good is quite unlikely. It may not be as suspenseful as movies like Halloween H2O or Urban Legend, but it is certainly more fun!!!!

The movie was generally bad. The story was understandable but it wasn't particularly interesting or enjoyable--quite pointless if you ask me. There were no particular funny scenes, Jim Carrey's Dumb and Dumber is so much more entertaining. The movie seemed more like an unrealistic drama that just wasn't fun or catchy. The only good thing to say about the movie is that the more serious acting from Jim Carrey was impressive and the cinematography was effective. Don't bother with this film. If you want an excellent black comedy try the one of a kind "Bride of Chucky."