Reviews

It's a blatant rip-off of "Halloween," that's obvious, but what's inside is a stock slasher flick that's terrible on its own merits. Immediately the desperation from the director and writer to keep the audiences attention is shown, as they feature a lesbian sex scene not ten minutes in for no reason whatsoever. But with Asylum this is basically par for the course. Even in a "serious" film like "9/11 Commission Report," they featured an obligatory sex scene. But that's only one problem with "Halloween Night." Invariably, you'll be left with a plethora of questions that will never really be answered. Why is Christopher on a killing spree? Why did he escape and where was he going? Why would he kill if he saw his mom brutally murdered? "Duh… he's insane." Nah, I don't buy it.

Not to mention Gingold rips elements from previous slashers. Christopher doesn't kill a girl because she reminds him of his mom, his mask looks similar to Jason's, and the whole mental patient angle is very derivative of a certain film that drops on the same holiday. Gingold pads the film with plodding characterization, terrible dialogue, especially from the lead actor who performs the worst ad-libbing I've ever seen anywhere, and characters that I could give two shits about. It's as hard to list the endless flaws as it was to sit through this, but in the end "Halloween Night" is the result of monkeys on a typewriter who finished off "Halloween" hours before. Boo.

In spite of my best attempted enthusiasm, I just couldn't muster the excitement in watching what I can safely consider one of the worst slasher movies ever made. Only from Asylum could that be accomplished.

For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.

Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.

"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.

It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.

The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.

Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.

I know someone in Hollywood got a hold of a concept for a video game called "Crank," and thought that this was too good to be some stupid old video game. So, they made it into a movie. Because "Crank" is essentially set up like a video game. Our hero gets up, watches a video that lays out the plot, and now he has to find the people who wronged him.

In order to stop the poison, get epinephrine. Level two: Get Epinephrine. Find the villain's brother. Level three: Find him and fight him. Keep your heart rate up, Level Four: Steal a police cycle and drive as fast as you can before your heart slows down; avoid pedestrians and environment. The mob is after you now that you're alive and may go after your girlfriend. Level Five: Get your girlfriend out of her apartment, without getting her killed. It's blatant, and ridiculous, and formulaic, but I had a good time. "Crank" is very much like "Speed" except with a human body as a bomb.

Chevy has just awoken to discover his body has been injected by a rival gang with a poison that, if his heart stops beating fast, will kill him. This is not only the plot, but it gives the movie an excuse to be fast paced and without much characterization. "Crank" is so bad that it's good, and that's because of Statham's entertaining turn as a mobster who just had the worst revenge committed on him. What do you not do to get back at a psychotic mobster? Fill him with adrenaline.

And that's the worst mistake his rivals commit when they pump him with a poison that will kill him if he doesn't keep going. And most of the film is Chevy's journey to keep his heart pumping, and boy do the methods get creative! "Crank" doesn't have much of a plot, it's merely just a sequence of events that resemble a plot in which our hero Chevy must roam around the city causing rampage to keep his heart beating, and in turn it helps him live his life, and face what might happen if he doesn't get the antidote… if there is one.

Statham seems to be having a good time kicking ass and destroying property, while the direction from Mark Neveldine, and Brian Taylor is utterly chaotic. The direction never calms down because the movie never calms down and brings about some utterly hilarious situations that you'll get a kick out of, if you don't put too much stock into what you're watching. I had a blast at this good bad film, and Statham comes through once again.

At the start of "Beast", a young bar patron drifts away from her friends after closing hours and is stalked and mauled to death by a werewolf. The beast grabs her, tears her apart, and howls into the sky. I enjoyed that. But, for no reason, director Scott feels that even though we had that good opening signaling grand things, we could have done without it for another thirty or forty minutes, which in common sense land is a large portion of a film that doesn't even hit the two hour mark, and that makes zero sense.

There's also mainly vapid characterization, plenty of padding including sex scenes, particular focus on sister journalists who have a web log, and a comedic barroom brawl included for no other reason but to pad the movie. Meanwhile, you'll be wondering if the monster is still lurking about, or just fell asleep waiting for victims to get out of that bar that's featured quite prominently.

Does anyone have a shop in that town, or is the main economic base that one small bar? You know that when a horror film is turned into "Roadhouse" for an instance just to keep the story going, it becomes painfully clear that you're not watching anything resembling entertainment. Also featured are a funeral that looks like it was held in a backyard, a town filled with an endless supply of women who look like they came off an open audition for "Hustler", the most inept inactive sheriff, and characters that constantly re-appear due to an obviously menial cast.

So, it's been confirmed to me. Even when The Asylum isn't ripping off another movie, they still suck. "Beast of Bray Road" could have been a fun movie had they actually had creature action and not so much utter stupidity and poor storytelling. Otherwise, this isn't even a fun monster movie.

I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.

"666: The Child" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than "Godsend") with scenes that rip from "The Omen" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way "The Omen" ends.

Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing.

Do you know how your little brother or cousin would always pop out from a corner with a mask and yell "boo!" and then you'd be scared. And then amused, he'd continue doing so. Again, and again, and again, until you started to get angry. But he continued doing it until you tore the mask off and kicked him in the nuts? Well, that's what my experience was like with Simon West's remake of "When a Stranger Calls". Now, I haven't seen the original film just yet, but I imagine it won't make me want to kick the director in the nuts. Imagine this: I took a camera and filmed myself around the house. You would see me drinking water, taking a dump, cleaning my ears, walking around the hallway… I know you're saying "That's stupid, I'd never see that". Well, then you may want to stay away from this.

West's idea of telling a story is doing just that. You can literally feel the writer sweating looking for ways to stretch the story, while he has the character doing literally nothing but walking around the house for a whole hour. And that's not an exaggeration either. West's storytelling abilities are centered on having the main character walking around the huge house she's supposed to be in for literally the entire film. Save for some loud bumps, thumps, creaks, and slamming of doors. Ooh, scary, scary! There's even one scene where a black cat bursts from a closet with a humongous thunderous thump, and a water fall goes off that has the sound of a truck backfiring. Can someone tell me how this is scary? Who thought West including these tired devices would be a good idea? At one point there's a loud bang going off beside her, and she opens the refrigerator and ice is conveniently falling on to the tray. Audiences can not be stupid enough to find this scary. Everything from the fire place to a remote makes a very loud noise just so West can make us jump and help us forget that the movie just isn't scary And the funny aspect of "Stranger" is that the main character Jill never really acts like a teenager. If I were her, as soon as the calls would start I'd immediately let loose like Lenny Bruce after stubbing a toe. But no, she begins with "You jerk! Stop calling me! You're such a meanie!" That last one was false, but I bet someone suggested that at some point. But the lame-brained script relies on a series of plot holes, lapses in logic, and ridiculous plot devices all of which pile up to this heap of crap. For no reason we learn of another babysitter who was stalked and killed before the film through phone calls, for no reason we learn there's a circus near the house, for no reason we learn she's a runner. Neither of these plot points ever comes into play during the film.

Jill's father says he doesn't want her working so far, yet he doesn't mind her taking a job so far away in the middle of nowhere. Jill baby sits instead of doing chores or getting a summer job? She baby sits when it's stated that the kids in the house have a nanny? How did the killer know the parents would have a babysitter? Wouldn't rich people naturally have a digital phone line which would mean better reception even during a storm?! Why would anyone buy a house with so many windows? Beyond that though, Belle's acting is brutally stiff. Hey Camilla you've grown in to quite a scrumptious girl, but try some acting lessons next time. Belle is incredibly unconvincing as the heroine Jill giving a very wooden and over the top performance. But much of that suffers because the character of Jill is such a moron. She commits all the wrong moves, and basically deserves what she gets after ninety minutes of her doing nothing but running around and crying. West tops off this crap-o-rama with one of the most brain dead endings I've seen in a while that clues us to an inevitable sequel. West should be stopped.

I don't want to ruin it for you, but—the calls are coming from inside the house. I'm an asshole, right? I bet that Carol Kane version is not looking so bad now, eh? While it's true that the original version may not have been a masterpiece, I would gladly place thirty dollars to bet that it was much better than this piece of dog crap. Basically, when all is said and done, it's a safe dumb film for safe dumb audiences.

What is so incredibly laughable is that the director is so intent on giving Duff a respectable boost, he forgets that the truly sensible audience will just laugh it off. There's a hilarious quotation from Beethoven before the movie begins that is extremely presumptuous paying too much homage for what we are about to see, and what we're about to see is more horrific than anything we've seen in horror films in the past ten years. It's not so much that "Raise your Voice" is an awful film, but it's more that this is so insanely, brutally melodramatic and manipulative it would make the writers for day time soaps cringe. As always we watch Duff in every single frame of this god forsaking movie, and she doesn't help this film at all.

Originally set to be a more mature, original film, it was toned down, watered down, and dumbed down, not to mention completely lobotomized in to this mess. So, Terri is a young girl who is a singer and has an older brother who loves her and films her doing everything and she wants to be a professional, but her father won't let her. After a major family crisis, Terri heads out on her own to the big city to the music school and blossoms in to a great lip syncher. Now, anyone who is surprised by the sudden death of the major character are either a) young, b) brainless, c) has not seen films for the past forty years, or d) all of the above. I choose d. So, Terri is so broken by her brother's death, she doesn't want to sing. Gah, what a blow to the culture! So, she sneaks off to school much to the obliviousness of her father whose intent to hold her back is never justified thus making him more of a villain than a two dimensional character. Duff has a lot of charisma, appeal, and looks (which accounts for 85 percent of her fan base), but she has ZERO talent. Duff once again displays an incredible ability to show how unable she is to be a remotely watchable actress in both comedic and dramatic outlets. Duff has nothing to her performance here, she's goofy when trying to be serious, wooden when trying to be emotional, and loves to chew the scenery with her attempted emoting, and the director doesn't hesitate to flaunt her as much as possible (and seems to even dwell on her looks too often. Is it any wonder this director has directed many of her vehicles?).

Especially through her "singing". Watch the scene where Terri discovers the real reason she got in to the school. With the right actress cast that could have been heartbreaking but it is so botched, I was just groaning in disgust. But Duff does show some incredible ability--to lip synch, and delivers the notes--like a master ventriloquist. And it's often very giggle inducing to watch people fawn over her "ability" including the fun John Corbett who really pulls off looking amazed at her faux singing.

There is such a large amount of talented actors scattered throughout this film from Rebecca DeMornay, and Jason Ritter, to John Corbett, and even Rita Wilson all of whom are wasted, and Duff doesn't seem to absorb their ability at all giving the worst performance of her small irrelevant career. With the right leading actress, this could have been so good, but Duff's casting is painful. She has zero range with her audience, and zero ability to add depth and emotion to a character that should have, and the fact I had to sit through her while reading Evan Rachel Wood was set to star originally, is an insult to injury. To paraphrase Chris Rock, "If you want Evan Rachel Wood and all you can get is Hillary Duff--Wait!" The attempts at melodrama are forced, rigid, and clunky, take for example when the character Paul confronts Terri's father. Had the writers spent more time on the relationship with Terri and Paul, we could have felt his death more and it would have had a more emotional impact on its intended audience, meanwhile was there really a need for a bitch antagonist if that sub-plot doesn't really go anywhere? Besides that, there could have been much more focus on the better more interesting characters. That type of hackneyed plot mishandling showed what could have been good ended up just falling to waste. The dialogue is criminally clunky with many lines that are just groan inducing including the inevitable "This is the most amazing/scary/exciting moment of my life!" Meanwhile the real actors look bored while around Duff.

And there are many, many forgettable musical numbers! Who knew music students gathered on the front of their school every day and broke out in to impromptu orchestral and music sessions? Meanwhile everyone in the school are snobby as you would expect, and it takes time for them to warm up to her, about the time it takes for the second half of the film. There are your usual cast of characters, the bitch, the snob, the idiot savant, the punk rocker, the rapper, the artistic bohemian, all to blatantly appeal to the general audience it seeks to pander and talk down to. There's nothing to this film, there's no originality, no warmth, no plausible or even remotely bearable plot, and in the end it's just another vapid Duff vehicle.

When Sin City came out, feminists were in an uproar. Why are men the heroes and women the prostitutes, murderers, and hookers? They asked, well, this is just as guilty of such treason with such neo-feminist malarkey posing as a thriller. Here, the men are depicted as low-lives, perverts, rapists, abusers, boozers, murderers, robbers, and wussies while the women are heroes! Puh-lease. Thelma and Louise is an unrealistic melodramatic waste of time. They kill a man for unjustifiably and sadistically, rob a store for no reason, and taunt others, while we're supposed to root for them? Give me a break. In a modern age of feminists who want to depict women as heroes and men as simpering morons, this just takes the cake as a real waste of time. It's just ridiculous. Had this film even been remotely feminist as it aimed to, in the end they'd have taken their medicine with all their might instead of romanticizing suicide. What a waste. 3/10

I was certain this would be another manufactured Oscar contender for sure, I mean the trailer was so sappy and corny, but when I caught an early screening for it, I was shocked and amazed. This is a magnificent movie in all respects from acting, directing, cinematography, and a truly inspiring under dog tale about beating the odds. Truly one of the best Boxing movies I've ever seen, and I've seen "Raging Bull" and "Rocky". The theater was full the day I got to see it, and the crowd was chatty in the beginning, but halfway through, you could hear a pin drop, this film will truly grab you by the throat and make you watch and put some hope in your heart. Crowe is utterly amazing and succeeds yet again in giving an amazing performance in an amazing movie. Truly a soon to be classic film.

**** out of ****

If you think this is how America truly is, then you're so naive. Where do the issues about poverty, the economy, deficit, high taxes, inflation, and racial injustice come in? Surprise, surprise it's never featured here nor is it EVER talked about!

We see some amazing direction followed by actors acting like real Joe schmoes reading from a script who display their pleasure with this grand country as if we don't have problems, because this propaganda would rather have us ignore the problems because it's much better to just watch this comedy and forget our misery.

Smart people will really dislike this and will see right through its act, as I did. Is it UnAmerican to see right through this propaganda? It's Unamerican to pretend we have no problems.

How do you ruin four of the most timeless, scariest, and three-dimensional horror characters in history? Well, if you're Stephen Sommers you put them in a special effects-laden piece of trash like this, and then make like a politician and cop -out insisting you're a fan of these monsters, just to cover your bases and prevent criticism for directing and overseeing this chunk of cinematic sacrilege. The best about the opening of "Van Helsing" in theaters, you ask? Their releases of Universal's monster classics in boxed sets. Maybe it was sub-conscious guilt on part of Universal for ruining their characters.

Van Helsing, my favorite literary hero of all time is resurrected for the hundredth time around ala Bruckheimer motif in this franchise wannabe called "Van Helsing". I've read Bram Stoker's "Dracula", Robert Louis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", and Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" in high school, all excellent books in their own level, and all metaphors in their own dimensions, but hardly is the depth and complexity present here, except their concepts, almost as if brought together by a five year old, or in this case Sommers' mentality, and the concepts are the only things on parade here. Normally, bringing together these classic horror characters would be gold for any horror fan such as myself, and I remember many a horror fan excited at the reunion of these characters, but Sommers' has single-handedly ruined the legacies people like James Whale, Tod Browning, George Waggner, and Rouben Mamoulian set forth with their loose but powerful adaptations of these literary characters, and Sommers completely misses the point of these tragic characters with a messy, hackney script.

In it's concept alone "Van Helsing" manages to pull off the feel of an old time serial with a feeling of adventure and sheer fantasy that will leave you sitting there without having to think about the plot. It's a good time killer with its ridiculous plot line and action. It does achieve entertainment level in certain points of the film including stunning cinematography, and some really nice action sequences including the horse and carriage scene with the wolfman, and the climax where Van Helsing and Dracula throw down, the only real sequence that had me excited. Some will definitely consider it a guilty pleasure, and in many ways it is.

Sommers' most heinous crime is ruining these characters with one fell swoop. This is blasphemy at its worst, and a spit in the face of every horror fan that grew up with the Universal horror films. Sommers manages to resort some of the scariest most complex three-dimensional horror figures of all time to modern mindless monsters (ala the wolfman), turns them into campy figures (ala Mr. Hyde who looks like a combination of a Shrek, an ape, and Andre the Giant), and Dracula whom sports a really corny ponytail and often has lovers' spats with his brides; and we're blessed enough to see horrifyingly bad scenes with horrid dialogue from his mates like "You'll get another bride? Is that all we are to you?" They also whine incessantly about their losses, including the brides who are really obnoxious, and over the top, all scenes that beg for eye rolls. Who knew Dracula was a cornball who resembled a soap opera star? Richard Roxburgh whom I liked as M in "LXG" is dreadful as Dracula. Where's Christopher Lee when you need him? Here Dracula looks like Antonio Banderas combined with the accent of Fernando Lamas. Oh, and in Sommers' reality, vampires don't burn up when staked, they burst into green ooze, it was something I've never seen before, and wish I hadn't.

Many characters here are composites of better characters, or retreads of older characters ala Frankenstein whom is a more colorful version of Karloff's Frankenstein. Our hero Van Helsing's costume concept is a composite of The Shadow, Vampire Hunter D, and Batman, has zero personality and has dialogue that is comprised mostly of one-liners. Sommers uses the same reliable story clichés and devices such as the rogue hero under the employ of the church who has a secret organization involved with thwarting evil, and he barks that he's tired of working, they beckon him to go back and fight, blah blah. Our anti-hero is even complete with his very own "Q" clone named Carl (David Wenham) who is zany, whacky, a misfit, but brilliant; aren't they all? Van Helsing is a character that I was desperately trying to take a liking to, but his character, and the way he's written is so utterly uneven. One minute he's a warrior, the next a cowboy, then he's a Sherlock Holmes detective, and suddenly he can sense evil, like Spider-Man. Memo to Sommers: Just pick one concept and stick with it.

Beckinsale is pretty much a clone of her "Underworld" character sans the fangs, charisma, and pure sex appeal, but she does manage to sport a really corny gypsy accent and is a relatively useless character. There's a highly vexing moment where Anna and Van Helsing face off against Dracula's brides in a town square, Anna is rendered helpless, but later on goes through a basic arsenal of weapons in a church... the question I ask is: why couldn't she have used those weapons in the attack? And somehow she always sports a sword but never uses it.

The special effects are horrible! The figures are stiff, and grainy, often times the double exposures of the actors' faces in the creatures bodies are rigid and bland, and the morphing, though smooth, is over-used and cartoonish, and boy does Sommers love to use those special effects. Every scene in the film is comprised of eye candy more useful for people with short-attention spans and in that, Sommers manages to insult his audiences intelligence sporting non-stop special effects and never settling down to tell the story, which is completely nonsensical. At the beginning Anna and her gang are more than willing to mercilessly slaughter a werewolf but once her brother turns, she begins making excuses like "It's not his fault", and "he's innocent", and "that body hair was already there"--well, that wasn't one of the lines, but you have to hate her for easily being able to kill an innocent stranger who's a werewolf, but pitying her brother who's a werewolf and making excuses.

There are also plenty of plot holes that go on and on, I'm afraid. In the end, all Sommers has done is ruined some of my favorite characters of all time dumbing them down, his usual sense of mind-numbing action and special effects, lack of characterization, and the horrible starter to a surely terrible franchise.