Reviews

I went and saw Feardotcom at the theatre a while back and just now decided to write a review for it. Seeing the trailer on the net a couple weeks before it came out, I thought, `Awesome, the guy who did House on Haunted Hill is coming out with a new movie.' And really, it helps to be a fan of House to fully appreciate this flick. No, it's not a sequel, but there are a lot of subliminal things that are very similar to some of the stuff seen in House. Creepy little girl bouncing a ball, weird looking woman spewing blood out of her mouth. Pretty much, all the weird subliminal single frame stuff in House that didn't really fit in with that plot is explained in this movie. I truly think the two are connected, if only on that subliminal level.

William Malone has got to be one of the best horror directors I've seen. I mean, he really has a great style down. He knows how to create a good creepy atmosphere and throw in some genuinely freaky scares. While I wasn't as freaked out by Feardotcom as I was House, it still had some great scary moments. The sets and locations in the flick are also great and creepy. There was a little bit of a Se7en quality to it, while also having the strange, old, creepy architecture from House, as well.

As for the plot, it's not totally original. It's a little reminiscent of Strangeland, only with more of a paranormal twist on it. The death scenes are pretty cool and the movie starts with a bang… or a ka-pow really. Some good make-up effects with some creepy House on Haunted Hill-like ghosts, or was it just one ghost? Can't remember too well. Seems like in one point there was more then one, but I can't be sure.

The cast has a few cool genre cats in it. Stephen Dorff, who's first billed but really doesn't seem like the main character. That would be Natascha McElhone, considering she's the one doing a lot of the action and Stephen's MIA through a few large sequences. The other Stephen of the movie, Stephen Rea, plays the Captain Howdy-like serial killer. He's supposed to torture his victims until they beg for death, but they never really show him torturing too much and mostly he's just babbling about one thing or another. Jeffrey Combs is awesome as usual and has an interesting little part as Dorff's partner, Sykes. He manages to take a fairly small part and add a whole unspoken subplot to it. I really wish they had had him in more of the movie. There's also a brief appearance by genre great Udo Kier, who's usually either playing a vamp or is in a vamp movie, but not this time. It's a small part, but it's still cool seeing him in a flick.

The problem with Feardotcom is not much different then the main problem with House on Haunted Hill. The ending. While being better then House's, it still leaves a lot to be desired. It's almost like the movie is good up until a certain point, and when it comes time to wrap everything up, it starts to fall apart. There's a lot that isn't explained, but it's fairly easy to figure it out if you're paying attention. The clichés also start to pile up near the end, and the final scene is just… strange. But at least it's strange in a good way.

Overall: Feardotcom is worth checking out. If you're a fan of House on Haunted Hill, you'll probably like it quite a bit. Still, it almost seems like a clone of Ring, and the fact that the American remake is coming out soon seems a bit to convenient to be a coincidence.

Take one part Predator, one part Aliens, one part Tremors, a pack of werewolves, and a whole lotta gore, mix and you have Dog Soldiers. A suspense, action, and gore filled werewolf flick that's reminiscent of all three of the aforementioned movies, and yet is still entertaining enough that it's good. The acting is good for a low budget horror movie. The story, while being a bit confusing at times, holds together well enough. And as I've mentioned twice already, the gore is really damn good and certainly not shied away from, even though the werewolves themselves are a bit disproportioned.

First billed in this flick is Sean Pertwee. He's not a huge actor, but he's a pretty good one. He's had a couple small parts alongside the likes of Jason Isaacs and under director Paul W.S. Anderson (in Event Horizon and Soldier). He plays the leader of the group of soldiers and he pulls off a good authority figure while also providing a good bit of depth to his character. Kevin McKidd plays the actual 'hero' of this picture and would sort of be related to Michael Biehn's character in Aliens, being as he doesn't start out in control, but he ends up being in charge. Emma Cleasby is the 'ranger-esque' person who just so happens to stumble onto the soldiers right when they need it the most. She does pretty well, but her character is also one of the reasons the story gets confusing. Darren Morfitt plays Spoon, the totally nuts and totally badass Hudson character of this flick. Oh, for those not familiar with the whole 'Hudson character' thing. Hudson was Bill Paxton's character in Aliens. Filled with snappy one-liners and defiant in the face of death, not to mention he can kick some werewolf ass.

The story was pretty straightforward and standard action movie stuff. It's a classic throwback to the days of Predator and Aliens. Where things didn't have to make a hundred percent sense, but they were entertaining, cause there was a buncha soldier guys blasting at baddies with pulse rifles and using colorful language. That's Dog Soldiers to a 'T'. Don't go check this movie out if you're looking for a deep movie about the inner turmoil of being a werewolf. Check this movie out to see a whole lotta gunplay. The one main problem this movie does have, is when it tries to force more drama and story into it, and instead of making things better, it just makes them more confusing. That and the end is such a cliché 'killer rises once more' ending that it was just kinda boring. If you're going to use a cliché as old as that. at least spice it up a little and don't make it so. predictable.

The make-up effects on the werewolves were pretty cool, especially when you saw only glimpses of them in the shadows, running through the forest. It was when you got a good look at them, and their heads especially, when they stopped being as cool. First of all, whoever designed them needs to take some proportion classes. Giant head on regular human sized body make awkward looking werewolf. The gore, however, was top class, and there was no shortage of it. Lots and lots of werewolf munching action. One-word. sausages.

Overall: Werewolf movies are few and far between, and good ones are even fewer. As far as they go, I think this one is pretty damn entertaining and worth checking out.

I heard about this movie way back before it came out and thought it sounded really interesting and thought it was cool that Bill Paxton was going to direct it. All the praise this movie got in the trailers were from such high names as Sam Raimi, James Cameron, and Stephen King. All of which are friends of Bill's, or friends of friends (Bill was in Sam Raimi's ‘A Simple Plan' and he's been in just about all of Cameron's movies, and Stephen King is a friend of Sam Raimi's). The movie was actually really good, too. It started out kinda iffy, but as it progressed it got better and better. The acting was pretty good, although kinda lame in some places. The plot was awesome and pretty original with a nice twist ending. The directing was actually surprisingly good for a debut job, too.

At first, the acting, and Bill Paxton especially, was kinda lame and cheesy. Bill almost seemed tired, which would make sense, doing double duty as director and star. That's tough work; I can say that from experience. Sometimes you're so preoccupied with directing, that you don't do as good at acting. That's what it looked like was happening with him at first, but as the movie went along, he and everyone else got a lot better. I don't really like Matthew McConaughey (which I prolly mentioned in my Reign of Fire review) but he did really good in this movie. Very intense. The two kids were pretty good for child actors, too.

The story started out interesting but pretty average, and like the acting, just got better as things went along. It was pretty suspenseful and just kinda nuts in some places. That and the twist ending was really good and really made the movie. It was really good, considering it's the first thing the writer's done. The editing and atmosphere was well done, too. I think I'd have liked the music better if I hadn't fallen asleep with the DVD menu on the TV and the theme playing over and over. Whoops.

Bill Paxton's directing was really good, considering the only other thing he's directed is a music video called Fish Heads in 1982, which I guess is supposed to be really weird. But he has been in a lot of talented director's movies. Cameron (okay, maybe not his later work, but his earlier stuff rocks), Raimi, Ron Howard, Jan de Bont… no wait, he's not that good. That and he's been in a lot of horror movies, so it's only right that he makes his feature film directorial debut with one. I think he did a really good job.

Overview: Frailty is a cool flick, worth renting. If you don't like it that much the first time you watch it, try watching it once more. To me it was better the second time around.

I snagged a DVD screener copy of this for seven bucks up at Asylum. The quality and subtitles aren't totally great, as a result, but it's good enough to watch. I've heard about this movie before, that it was pretty good. It's pretty strange and weird, like most Asian horror flicks I've seen. The plot moved at a slow pace but still remained pretty interesting, the acting was pretty good, but it started to fall apart near the end.

The pacing on this movie is pretty slow, which can be a bad thing if it's not kept interesting enough. Luckily, Audition remains interesting through the whole movie. It also switches gears from being a simply dramatic type movie to a weird psychological thriller with some graphic torture to boot. It pulls off the transition well, going from relatively normal, to normal with a slight edge of uneasiness, to just really weird and messed up.

All the actors did a good job. Ryo Ishibashi pulled off a normal, likeable leading guy. A character that you can actually care about what happens to them as opposed to not really giving a crap. Also, Eihi Shiina, who plays Asami, is just creepy all the way through, progressively more so as the movie goes on. Everyone else is good enough to keep the movie going and enjoyable as well.

Really, there are only hints of things up until about the last forty-five minutes or so. That's when the movie really gets weird. And it gets weird in a really cool, psychological way. For a few minutes, I was just like, `Huh?' and wondering if the DVD skipped or what happened, but as it went on, I realized what was going on and it was cool. The torture scene was pretty graphic and disturbing, and definitely cringe-worthy, but it could've gone on a bit longer. And the ending itself was a little bit of a letdown.

Overall: Audition was interesting and it had some cool aspects. Worth renting and checking out if you like Asian horror flicks or just weird, kinda psychological, thriller type stuff.

I stumbled onto this flick just as it was starting on one of the Cinemax channels and decided to check it out. I heard about it when it first came out and I thought it sounded kinda interesting, but that it looked pretty typical and boring. Surprisingly, it turned out to be pretty good. The acting is good, for the most part; the plot, while not entirely original, held my attention; the atmosphere was great and very suspenseful. The ending could've been better, but it was still pretty good.

Up until now, the only Paul Walker movie I had ever seen was The Fast and the Furious. While I do admit liking that movie (I know… I know… What can I say? My tastes are strange and they vary widely), I thought his character was pretty lame and so was the acting. While his acting in this still isn't a hundred percent great and he does sorta sound like Keanu Reeves, there's still a marked improvement. Steve Zahn is great. He's goofy and kooky but at the same time can pull off some drama stuff, too. He provides a lot of great comic relief. Leelee Sobieski just looks, acts, and sounds like Helen Hunt. I really didn't like her that much and thankfully she's not in the movie a whole lot. Ted Levine, who played Buffalo Bill in The Silence of the Lambs, voiced the psychotic truck driver and he's great for the part. They guy just has a great, unique, eerie voice and he uses it for all it's worth in this flick.

There've been more then a couple road trip thrillers made. The Hitcher, Steven Spielberg's Duel (which I've never seen, but by looking at the plot, it's probably pretty similar to Joy Ride… or Joy Ride is similar to Duel). So the premise for Joy Ride isn't original, that's fine. Few movies nowadays are. The trick is to take the used premise and make it seem new, or at least not as used as it is. Joy Ride is able to do that. It's predictable at times, but it still remains interesting and suspenseful enough to keep you interested.

That's one thing that this movie has plenty of, suspense. There are parts where it's almost like a regular road trip movie, but when it switches over and the dark, psychotic side comes out, the suspense kicks into full drive. There aren't really too many movies that gave me the `edge of your seat' feeling, but this was one of them. Even in it's predictable moments, it was still suspenseful. The climax of the movie was sort of a let down after all the build up, but the little twist ending was pretty cool and almost left it open for a sequel. Although, personally, this is one movie that doesn't need a sequel, even though the ending leaves it open for one.

Overall: Joy Ride is a good, suspenseful flick. Not too much blood and guts for all you gore hounds, but it's still entertaining. I'd say it's worth renting, and possibly buying, if you like it enough.

I really expected this to be better. It had a lot of good things going for it. Good cast, with the exception of Keanu Reeves, good director, a good story to work from. But even with all that, I found it to be very boring. That could be blamed on the fact that Dracula is one of the most told stories in cinematic history, with tons of versions. But still, it could have been done much better. The action, what little there was, was severely lagging, and the acting talent was pretty much wasted. However, it did have some very nicely done cinematography that was pretty interesting to watch, and the make-up effects were cool.

Gary Oldman as Dracula. That alone sounds like it'll make a good movie to me. I mean, he's the man of a thousand evil faces. And while he did a good job, it wasn't enough to save the movie. And neither was Anthony Hopkins, playing Van Helsing. I'm convinced you could put Hopkins in anything and make the movie better. He could make a Barney movie better. So I have to think that Dracula was a pure fluke. So had to have been casting Bill and Ted's Ted as Jonathan Harker. Let me speak for everyone when I say, `Huh?' I've always liked Winona Ryder, and I liked her in this, too, as much as I could anyway. Most of the time I was just being bored.

Francis Ford Coppola… he did The Godfather, and even better, The Godfather, Part 2. Then he did Godfather 3 and that just went straight to hell. But still, this is a guy whose done good movies… wait; he also executive produced Jeepers Creepers… Okay, so maybe the guy's starting to loose it in his old age, but this was back in '92… which was the movie he did right after Godfather 3… wait a minute, maybe this isn't such a surprise. Also, he did start his career working with/for Roger Corman. Ok, mystery solved.

Then we have the story, Dracula. Sure it's been done repeatedly, it was even one of the very first movies ever made (as Nosferatu). There's obviously something good here, if it's being done so much. So how come this version, with all the things that say it should be good, is so damn boring? Maybe because it's two hours and ten minutes long. Well, Fellowship of the Ring was even longer and that kept me on the edge of my seat, even the second time I saw it. Maybe it's just cause somehow they messed up the flow of the movie and they had a lot of stuff going on, but nothing actually happening.

Most of the time, when I do reviews, I talk about the good aspects of the movie for three paragraphs and toss in all the bad stuff in the last one. This is a reversal of my usual way of going about things. So, what good things were there in Bram Stoker's Dracula? Well, through a lot of the movie, there was a lot of really cool camera work. But even that tends to get overdone after a little while, and near the end of the movie, it just disappears. The make-up effects were another good thing about it. They transform Gary Oldman from young, to old, to a wolf-man, to a bat-man, to headless. But of course, it's like any other movie Gary Oldman's in. He never was the same look twice.

Overall: From everything I heard about this movie, I figured it would be great. My uncle told me that after the opening credits, it all went downhill, and he was right. It's more of a weird, long, boring love story then any kind of horror movie. It's worth maybe borrowing from a friend to check out once, but that's about it.

I just watched The Forsaken on OuterMax. I had heard somewhat mixed things about it, but it turned out to be fairly entertaining. The acting was pretty good considering it was mostly filled with people from the WB. The plot was entertaining, but kind of a direct copy of John Carpenter's Vampires. The special effects are pretty limited, some nice gore effects. There's plenty of blood and nudity, pretty much what any vamp flick needs.

Kerr Smith plays the main character, Sean. Kerr's probably best known for playing Jack McPhee, the somewhat gay guy on Dawson's Creek. I've only seen one episode of that though, so I mostly know Kerr from his role in Final Destination. He seems to be fairly talented as an actor, cause all three parts I've seen him do have been pretty varied and different. Brendan Fehr plays the hitchhiking vamp hunter, who was also in Final Destination, as well as being on the show Roswell. Brendan was decent, but he didn't really pull off a good vamp hunter in my opinion. Izabella Miko picks up where the teasing left off in Coyote Ugly (i.e. she's actually naked in this, quite a bit even). Other then her nudity, there really isn't much to comment on. She's either unconscious or a freaked out mute through 90% of the movie. The coolest character and best actor I saw in the movie was Johnathon Schaech, who was also in The Doom Generation, who plays the lead vamp. He reminded me a bit of Benicio Del Toro, the way he looked and acted.

The plot was so close to Carpenter's Vampires, that it could be plagiarism. Take the Vampires script, make the actor's younger and a fewer number of them, then tweak it around just a little bit, throw in some elements from Lost Boys and Near Dark, and you have The Forsaken. The only saving grace really is, unlike Final Fantasy, which was a boring rip off of Aliens, The Forsaken is actually kinda entertaining. The vampire mythos seems kinda subdued. I didn't really see any fangs, just funny looking eyes and they did bite people. Although it seemed more like they were just biting people more then they were drinking their blood. The only way to kill them was sunlight or decapitation, and there was something about hallowed ground that I sorta missed.

There were some cool gore effects. A guy's heart got ripped out, and a vamp chick's head got blown off. The sunlight death effect was pretty cool, and typical. The usual flailing, screaming, and bursting into flames, again very reminiscent of Vampires. They must have had some kind of strange contact lenses for the vamps, cause they're eyes looked pretty funky. Other then that, they sprayed some cool looking blood around, which is always fun.

Overall: The Forsaken is very similar to Vampires and Near Dark. If you're a fan of either of those, you'll probably enjoy this flick. However, it did have some severe lack of originality problems. The ending left it wide open for a sequel, too, so who knows.

The sequel to Rebirth of Mothra is surprisingly much more

entertaining. The cast is a lot better, and a lot less pointless.

The sets are pretty cool and much more interesting then the first

one. The plot is pretty much a typical kaiju plot, with the same

Captain Planet stuff the first one had. The new monster, Dagahra, is

pretty cool, too.

One of the main things that killed Rebirth of Mothra was the human

interaction and how pointless it was. Thankfully, this one has a lot

better and a lot less pointless human interaction. The main

characters are still kids, but they're a lot less annoying then the

ones from the first one. There's also more for them to do, and no

blank stares! It's a lot more like the usual kaiju plot and it helps

make the movie more entertaining.

Another thing that was kind of boring with Rebirth was the sets. It

was pretty much just forest. This is a lot more interesting, with a

city being demolished, and a bunch of cool water scenes, as well as a

great looking ancient pyramid that comes out of the water. The

inside of the pyramid is a bunch of corridors that are like part Last

Crusade and part Stargate.

The plot is a typical kaiju/Captain Planet one. Humans do bad

things, like polluting the oceans; monster comes to wreak havoc for

it. The little twin faerie girls of Mothra, Moll and Lora, come to

the rescue and call on Mothra to fight the creature off. Belvera,

the bad faerie sister, tries to stop them. They're costumes have

changed since the first movie, and they still look pretty cool, but I

liked Belvera's old costume better. At least the Captain Planet

stuff isn't as sappy as it was in the first movie.

Dagahra is pretty cool looking, but not as cool as some of the other

baddies in other kaiju movies. The fight scenes were a lot more

action packed and a lot steadier then the first, which helped keep

the boredom at bay. But still, I tended to get bored while watching

it. While Mothra can kick ass, his powers seem to be so weird and

varied that it's almost like there isn't anything he can't do.

Mothra can even transform into Aqua-Mothra to fight underwater, as

well as turn into a bunch of Mini-Mothras to actually go INSIDE

Dagahra and fight the little poisonous starfish critters it can shoot

out.

Overall: Rebirth of Mothra 2 is more entertaining then the first one,

but it's still a mediocre kaiju movie. It goes from kinda

entertaining, to kinda weird, and finally just kinda boring. Like

the first one, it's worth renting if you're a fan.

I got this DVD more then a year ago in L.A. Being a long- time Godzilla and Co. fan, and seeing a DVD with a double feature of Rebirth of Mothra, and Rebirth of Mothra 2 was just too silly for me not to buy. Rebirth of Mothra is definitely that, silly. Sometimes it's a good kind of silly, other times it's just a boring silly. The plot was a typical kaiju (Japanese for monster, i.e. Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan, etc.) plot, with a seal being removed and a wicked monster coming out to wreak havoc on the planet. The human acting wasn't that good, really. The special effects were pretty cool in places, and bad in others and there was some pretty good cinematography.

Most of the kaijus I've seen, which is a hell of a lot, tie the humans into the story somehow. That way you're not just watching two bigass monsters going at it for 90 minutes. Most of the time, the human plot is cheesy but still entertaining. Rebirth of Mothra is not one of those. The human plot, if I could even call it that, was boring and pointless and pretty much just had a couple bratty kids sitting on a mountainside watching the battle. If that's not bad enough, some of the lines seemed to be spoken in telekinesis, considering it was just blank stares looking at each other.

I don't know whether to blame the writing, the directing, or the acting for all the blank, meaningless stares. All the humans were pretty horrible actors, and the bad dubbing didn't help any. The only three who were actually pretty cool were the three faerie girls. They weren't the same as the twin faeries from previous Mothra movies, and they weren't even twins. Actually, they looked totally different, but that's ok. They wore cool costumes, carried most of the story, and even sang a song or two. And the evil faerie sister, trying to use Desghidorah for her own evil ways, was actually pretty cute, so that's always a plus.

The special effects had its ups and downs. There were a few really great looking scenes, and Desghidorah (which was pretty much like a black King Ghidorah with four legs) was pretty badass looking.

Mothra looked pretty cool in a few scenes, too. There was the usual caterpillar version crawling around for a little bit which looked the same as always, if not a little worse then in older movies. I don't really want to give it away, but the underwater Mothra scene looked really good. The only problem is, there can't be the same kind of action that's in a Godzilla movie, and cause Mothra just isn't as tough or limber as Big G. She can fly around and shoot stuff, but that's about it. This is pretty evident through most of the movie, when Mothra's getting beaten pretty badly. But there is one pretty cool scene near the end where it actually convinces you that Mothra CAN kick some ass.

Overall: It's a so-so kaiju, with a couple cool fight scenes. It's mostly pretty boring, focusing on human's who don't really have much to say or do, other then run around, doing silly stuff. It's worth a rental if you're into these kinds of movies.

I thought this looked interesting from the first time I saw it at Hollywood Video, although I have no idea why. I mean, if you just look at it, it looks like any other direct-to-video release and one with a pretty cheesy title at that. But, for better or worse, it kept tugging on my "check this out" senses, so when I was at the Horrorfind convention and not only had a chance to get it, but also had a chance to get it signed by Brinke Stevens herself, I couldn't resist. So now that I've seen it what do I think? Well, it was okay, but it could have been a lot better.

The story started out pretty predictably. In fact, the whole movie was pretty predictable. Another thing was that there was no sense of closure. It was left hanging wide open for a sequel. And if no sequel gets made, then "Horrorvision" will turn out to be a pretty pointless movie, you know, like the new "Planet of the Apes". It did have a nice 'end of the world' feel to it, which was cool (kinda like "Maximum Overdrive" in a way). Other than that, there weren't really any highlights in the story. Except for a few "Star Wars" references near the end. Must love those "Star Wars" references.

The acting was decent for a low budget, Full Moon production. There were a couple Full Moon regulars, a few total newbies, and, of course, Brinke Stevens. Brinke had a pretty cool part, but she wasn't around very long (that's what happens when you have 'Special Appearance by' in front of your name). The lead, Jake Leonard, was a little bit of an over-actor, but he did pretty well considering this was his first flick. Another relative newcomer that I liked was Maggie Rose Fleck, but, like Brinke, her part wasn't that big.

The make-up was done pretty well. There was one creepy-looking guy with a bunch of computer stuff on him. The other forms of special effects were pretty cheesy. Little puppet thingies on strings and quite a lot of really bad computer graphic effects. But, hey, this is Full Moon, king of the really bad computer graphic effects. One thing in the flick that I thought was pretty cool was the music. It was some weird 'electro-rock' type stuff and it fit with the movie pretty well.

Do I regret buying or watching this flick? Nope. Will I watch it again? Maybe. Anytime soon? Probably not. If you're a fan of cheesy Full Moon direct-to-video flicks with no closure or a die-hard Brinke Stevens fanatic, check it out.

So what do you do when you've utterly ended a series and yet want to bring it back one more time and yet not have to deal with all the other sequels? Well, there are two ways to do this. The first is called "Halloween: H20" (i.e. the WRONG way) and the second is called "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" (i.e. the RIGHT way). Once again, like Dream Warriors, this flick brought back Heather Langenkamp and John Saxon (this time playing themselves) and Wes Craven as writer/director (and he played himself, too).

This was actually the first out of the whole "Nightmare" series that I ever saw. It was on TNT's Monster Vision back when good old Joe Bob Briggs hosted it. I remember really enjoying it then and upon subsequent viewings, and also after watching the rest of the series, this is still one of my favorites. The story went back to the more simple way that Craven had in the first film and it helps a lot. Also, if you watch, there are tons of similarities and reoccurrences that happened in previous "Nightmare" films. To take a line from Joe Bob, "It's sometimes hard to tell where reality ends and the movie begins." Or something to that extent.

It was cool to see people playing themselves, like Wes Craven, Bob Shaye, and Robert Englund (Man, I want a pair of those purple tinted glasses he had. Can you say, "cool"?). They all did pretty good considering they're not really actors (except Englund). There was also Miko Hughes (you know, that creepy kid from "Pete Semetary") who did an excellent performance. He's probably one of the best child actors around (take that, Haley Joel Osment).

Surprisingly enough, the special effects in this one were the only real let down for me. They changed Freddy's make-up and glove and I didn't think they looked as good. His face burns just seemed so dry, unlike the previous flicks where he was still gooey. Also, the new glove doesn't hold up to the old one. How could it? The old glove is a classic, it was an actual glove. This new glove had the blades growing out of his fingertips, with bones on the outside and it looks very fake. An old case of, `if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But since it's technically not the same Freddy, I guess they almost had to change it. I just wish it had looked better.

A good breakaway from the rest of the "Nightmare" series. Good as a bookend of to the series and also as a stand-alone film. Check it out.

Not everyday you see a Danish horror movie, and it was actually pretty well done. Good acting, interesting story, even if it was pretty predictable and slow. The biggest problem I had with it was the poor subtitling. There was an American remake made in 1998. If I see it around, I might check it out.

The cast was all Danish, I think. I know there was no one I recognized in this flick. Still, they all did a really good job. Kim Bodnia was pretty unlikable, but I guess that's what he was supposed to be, but there were times when it seemed like he was trying a bit too hard. Nikolaj played a good role, especially considering this was only his second film.

The story was a good `who-done-it' mystery/thriller. Whether or not I'd classify this, as a full-blown horror movie is iffy. Sure, you could watch it on Halloween night and get a kick out of it, but you'd just as soon see it on A&E Mysteries. Does that make it a bad movie? No, it just means that the audience is slightly different. A classification difference aside, the story itself is interesting but there were times when it seemed to drag. There were scenes that could have been tightened up or taken out entirely. Also, I thought it was pretty predictable, but maybe that's just me.

What bugged me the most about this movie are the subtitles. Now, I don't mind subtitles or subtitled movies, but these subtitles were poorly done. So what's the big deal? Well, when the movie is in Danish it means you can miss a lot and get confused easily. Bad subtitles are one of the main reasons I didn't give this movie a higher rating.

If you're looking for a full-blown horror movie, look elsewhere, but if you're looking for a good mystery/thriller, check this one out.

I have a weird relationship with this movie. The first time I watched it, I thought it was horrible. Now, after the third time I've watched it, I almost like it more than the 5th one. The reason, plain and simple, is that this one didn't try so hard to be different, it seemed a lot more relaxed and tried to break out of the rut the "Nightmare" series was going into. Is it a great film? Hell, no, far from it, but at least it's entertaining which is important.

One thing that was good in this flick that 4 and 5 lacked (especially 5) was realistic characters that you liked. Sure, they were stupid at times, but at least they had more than one personality trait. Shon Greenblatt almost seemed like Ash from "Evil Dead." He was somewhat chicken hearted but still held up under pressure and even had funny lines to deliver. In fact, the first half of the movie is pretty hilarious; it's just too bad this was supposed to be a horror movie. I also thought Lisa Zane wasn't a good choice, she just seemed so stiff.

The story didn't pick up where 5 left off which, personally, I thought was a good thing (The Dream Master storyline was getting a little old), but it didn't really ignore the last films either. The plot was similar to part 4, only this time Freddy wants out of Springwood to kill new kids. One of the cool things in this flick was that it showed more of Freddy's past (his younger years) and also how he got his powers.

Once again pushing the bar on effects, the entire end sequence of "Freddy's Dead" was shot in 3-D. Now, since I have the DVD version, I got to see it in 3-D. It looked ok, but I'm sure it would have been a lot better on the big screen (still I wonder if they'll release similar versions of Friday the 13th 3 and Jaws 3). Aside from the semi-spiffy 3-D ending, the rest of the effects were pretty good also. The whole opening sequence was pretty wild and filled with effects. I especially liked the "never-ending hill." If you've seen the flick, you'll know what I'm talking about.

"Freddy's Dead" is far from the best in the series, but I'd still say watch it once. At the very least, you'll laugh through the first half.

This one picked up where the last one left off pretty much. Freddy is once again resurrected and starts killing people off. It's yet another mediocre installment of the aging "Nightmare" series. The acting was nothing special, the story was so-so, but the SFX were still pretty good.

This was the first time that it felt like I was watching one of the other slashers, like "Friday the 13th", because the characters were more used for cannon fodder than anything else. I'm not saying the characters in the movie weren't good, I'm just saying that the only real reason they were there at all was to give Freddy some people to kill. Even with by doing that, the total body count was only three and although they were pretty original deaths, they were nowhere near as good as the deaths in the previous movies (specifically the first and third).

That's another thing that bothered me with this flick. It seemed that they were trying too hard to come up with character types that hadn't been used in the previous films and also to kill them in new ways. It's like they're saying, "You've seen Freddy dice up the karate kid, you've seen him take down the Wizard Master, now watch as he goes up against the nerdy comic book kid." It's as if all the characters were defined by their one trait and they had no personality other than what the trademark trait allowed them.

The story was okay, but like the characters, it seems like they were running out of ideas. I can just imagine the writers sitting around in some deep, dark basement pondering how they were going to revive Freddy yet again. Pretty sneaky the way they did it, but I don't think they were fooling anyone. I mean, hell, the title alone gives it away. I guess I should be glad that this sequel actually went along with the previous entries and also got all the cast to return (those double picture deals will kill you, read the small print next time Lisa Wilcox).

Like I said, the SFX were again really good, but also like I said, it just seems like they were trying to figure out what they hadn't done yet and then do it. I know, that's partially a good thing cause it would be boring if they just repeated themselves over and over doing the same thing in the same way in every movie (*cough* Friday the 13th *cough* I think I'm getting a cold). Still, it gets annoying when it's so brutally obvious that they're racking their brains just to come up with something entirely different. It's as if, to hell with quality, just as long as it's different.

Overall: Another so-so addition of the "Nightmare" series. Hardcore fans only.

A mediocre installment in the `Nightmare' series. It wasn't entirely bad but then again there weren't a whole lot of good things about it either. Some good acting mixed with some bad acting, a semi-decent story, and good effects, as per the usual for `Nightmare' films.

One of the main things that bugged me about this movie was the recasting of Kristen (Patricia Arquette from part 3). I guess I can understand it, cause I'd imagine Patricia wouldn't really want to get sucked into another one of these movies, but the girl that replaced her was nowhere near as good and didn't really even look like her. Another thing that annoyed me about this flick was that it killed off all the cool characters very quickly and left the dorky characters. Englund did well; of course, he's pretty well grown into his character by now and pretty free in it.

The story and plot were decent enough, I guess, but coming after `Dream Warriors' it was a far cry. It just seemed like they were desperate to come up with new ways to kill Freddy. It also seemed like they were trying so hard to confuse the audience of whether it was a dream or reality that they got confused themselves and then said the hell with it and just kept going.

The one aspect that seemed up to par were the effects. It really must be the part of these movies that they spend the most money and take the most time on. There's a great reforming Freddy scene near the beginning and Freddy's demise is also really cool. The only problem is that I don't think good effects can really carry this movie.

A mediocre entry in the series. Worth renting if you're doing the whole `Nightmare' series marathon type thing, otherwise not really worth it.

I would say this is what `Nightmare 2' should have been. It picks up where the first one left off, although 6 years later, and it further explores Freddy's character as well as the dream world. If a sequel is going to be made, this is the way it should be done. It brings back Nancy and her father from the first one, and it also brought back Wes Craven as co-writer and executive producer.

I most likely always like movies that take place in mental institutions and stuff, which this movie does. Also, like the first one, the characters are real characters not chumps you'd just as soon see dead and that helps the movie a lot. I'm assuming that might have been Craven's work but don't hold me to that cause I don't know for sure. The acting was once again up to speed, and there were even two up and coming stars (Patricia Arquette and Larry Fishburne) that had excellent parts and played them really well.

You can tell that New Line was putting more into the series by the number and quality of the special effects. This movie had tons of really good effects from a barking pig's head to a giant Freddy-snake thing (which looks a lot like a male reproductive organ if you look at it). There was one effect that was downright horrible, though, that involved a `Jason and the Argonauts'-like skeleton fighting with real actors. Let's just say at least `Army of Darkness' had better effects than this or else the movie would have been ruined.

Ah, Robert Englund, he really must like this part. I don't blame him; it probably is one that comes around once in a lifetime. He really sinks his teeth into playing Freddy Krueger and by the looks of it he enjoys it, too. This was the movie where Freddy got the reputation of being a wise-cracker (`Welcome to prime time, bitch!' Need I say more?), but I think it fits him. It sets Freddy apart from the more silent and slow paced killers (i.e. Michael and Jason).

Great sequel and a great installment in the `Nightmare' series. You could skip the second one and not miss much but you should definitely check this one out.

I think I could safely say that this was the worst out of the series. It ignored the first basic rule that the first one lay down, which was Freddy is a dream creature. They made the fatal error of bringing Freddy into the real world and it's one of the reasons that make this movie so bad. Another interesting tidbit, the door in the first one was blue and in this one it's red and if I remember right, the door is red in the rest of the sequels as well.

This was a very gay movie, and I'm not saying that as an insult. There were a lot of homosexual undertones. Now, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it didn't help any to have the ‘hero' scream really high pitched like.

Anyway, onto the acting, which was mediocre at best. Englund of course did a good job once again portraying Freddy Krueger, but everyone else seemed to just be trying too hard. Another thing that differed from the first `Nightmare' was the fact that I didn't really care about any of the characters very much. As far as I was concerned, Freddy could have killed them all and it would've been a better movie.

The story, oh man, what can I say about the story? It was decent enough I guess, but it could've been a hell of a lot better. It seemed like they were trying to play on hallucination tricks as opposed to actually trying to get any kind of real plot. If they had stopped trying to mess with the audiences mind so much and actually got a good story going, it would have been a lot better. As it stands, it's an average possession story; it's just too bad it doesn't fit Freddy whatsoever. One of the worst scenes has to be when Freddy is terrorizing a large group of teens by a swimming pool (in the real world, no less). There are quite a few of the teens that dwarf Freddy and he doesn't seem intimidating or scary at all.

The effects were good at least; I'll give the movie that. I particularly enjoyed the exploding bird. There's also a really good melting Freddy shot near the end. Other than that, nothing really special, a model shot at the beginning that looked okay, I guess.

It seemed like a rush job to me. Something thrown together really quick to appease fans of the first and in the process they made a pretty crappy movie. I'd recommend it to hardcore `Nightmare' fans only.

This is it, the one that started it all. Hard to do a movie like this justice with a review, but I'll try. This was like the third or fourth time I watched it and I still say it's damn good. Not perfect, but few, if any, movies are. It's hard to look at a movie like this without seeing the whole series, but even in relation to the rest of the series, it's one of the best. Wes Craven really stumbled onto something good with this flick.

I'll start with the story, which is really quite simple when you get down to it. It's the old-fashioned boogeyman story. Something's under the bed and it's going to come out and get you as soon as you go to sleep. The trick with this story is that the boogeyman isn't under the bed, but in your head. Simple, yes, but effective, because when you're dealing with dreams, or nightmares as the case may be, you have a lot of freedom. The laws of reality don't bind you and Craven used that to make a pretty scary movie.

It's really your basic slasher, teenagers, sex, and bloody death, but I think this was a far more imaginative slasher then, say, Friday the 13th, which was a killer in the woods basically. Almost anyone could come up with that idea and throw in some nameless teenagers to get slaughtered. `Nightmare' took more thought and it shows.

Another thing is that there aren't any cannon fodder victims in this flick. You know, those people who are brought in just to be killed off. In this movie all the characters are just that, characters. The total number of bodies in `Nightmare' is a very low three, but each one of the deaths are gruesome and they all occur to developed characters, which means the effect is that much greater.

The acting wasn't top notch, but it was still very good. Newcomers Heather Langenkamp and Johnny Depp (this was Depp's first movie) are great in their roles, as is good old Robert Englund playing (as if you didn't know) Freddy Krueger, the knife-gloved maniac. John Saxon also plays a good role.

The special effects in this movie were really good considering what they had to do. Krueger's burns are very gruesome and realistic, I just didn't get how he could be burned alive and still his hands were untouched (look under his glove, his skin is perfect). There was a very good segment involving a girl being dragged up across a ceiling as well as a blood fountain that was pretty cool.

`A Nightmare on Elm Street' is a classic slasher and horror movie. I think everyone should watch it at least once.

This movie was awesome. Practically every aspect of it was great. It had good atmosphere, it was creepy but still had just the right amount of comic relief in just the right places. The acting was superb, the story was interesting, and the effects were awesome (even by today's standards). One thing that amazes me is that this flick is rated only PG. This is a very intense movie for that low a rating, I'm amazed it got by. I assume this was before the advent of PG-13, which is the reason why.

To tell you the truth, I never thought much of Craig T. Nelson. I always thought of him as `That Coach-guy.' But while I was watching this, I realized he's a pretty damn good actor. The same went for the rest of the cast, except the oldest daughter who just seemed annoying for the most part. They all played their parts well, seeming like a normal, happy, tightly knit family. Very laid back and everything. There's an especially funny scene with the parents smoking pot in their room.

The storyline and plot was really good. It gives you a lot of action while keeping you informed of what's going on at the same time. I'd think it would be very hard to get lost in this movie. The whole story made it seem real, as if it were based on real events. Paranormal investigators were brought in and they had all their fancy equipment and everything. There were a few problems with the pacing, I thought. It seemed to move very fast and then slow to a crawl and then start up again.

The special effects in this flick were very well done. Jan de Bont could take a lesson from this movie on how to properly make a haunted house movie without using crappy CGI effects. It's really sad, I think, that they could make a movie look this good and have some very creepy effects, and yet with the passing of time not be able to do it anywhere as good. A couple particularly creepy scenes involve a tree and a clown doll. There was one scene where a guy tore off his face and you could obviously tell it was a dummy, but that was the only crappy effect in the whole movie.

A great ghost movie, probably one of the best of its kind. Great acting, story, and effects. Tobe Hooper really outdid himself. I highly recommend this flick to everyone.

After watching this movie a second time, I understood more but I was still left with one word to describe it after it was done. Huh? I'm not sure if much of anything in this movie makes any sense whatsoever, but then again, that's one of it's good qualities in my opinion.

All through the movie, it seems as if every character has at least one deep, dark secret they're hiding, but none of the secrets ever actually come out. I think that's where this movie went wrong; it had a bunch of really good, yet pointless, plot setups and no real follow through. Even the main plot seemed to be hastily thrown together at the last minute.

It seems as if this movie was just an excuse to kill off a handful of people in particularly gruesome ways while trying as hard as it can to confuse the shit out of the audience. Now that brings me to this flick's best aspect, the gore. As usual, Fulci's gore effects are great, with tons of blood and no shying away from the violence. There were one or two shots that looked incredibly real.

The acting was pretty cheesy, especially the family's son, Bob. Man, could that kid scream like a little girl (no offense to any little girls out there). Wouldn't have surprised me if my ears were bleeding by the end of the movie.

Biggest technical problem I saw was the music. Don't get me wrong, the music itself was eerie and creepy and great. The thing was that right in the middle of a scene, or even right in the middle of a dramatic part of a scene, it would just cut out and the movie would be dead silent (except for Bob's screams, of course).

Would've given it a lower rating, but the gore was really good, and I happen to like flicks that make absolutely no sense. If you're in the mood to be really confused without the hope of resolution and you want to see some good gore, check this flick out.

This was an okay flick. I didn't really have any expectations, so there was no real way I could've gotten let down, unless it was completely horrible. And completely horrible this movie is not. The acting is good and some of the effects are really well done.

The story is pretty good and thorough thanks to two rather long flashback segments. I didn't notice any real plot holes until the ending. The characters were all pretty interesting and it's not everyday that you see a horror movie with four old men as the main characters.

There were a couple good ‘boo' scares that caught me off guard. As far as I could tell there was no real blood in this movie, just a rotting corpse. But the rotting corpse is really well done, so kudos to whoever did that effects job. There was one particularly cheesy blue screen shot of a guy falling through his hotel room window and dropping to his doom (and in the nude, too * shudder *) but I can hardly think of any blue screen shots that weren't cheesy in any movie.

The main problem I had with this movie, and the reason I didn't give it a higher rating, was the ending. Up until the ending, it was pretty good. They explained everything and set up a good climax, but when they got to actually executing the climax, they failed. It just seemed like they were trying to finish it up way too fast. The fate of a main character and supporting character was completely forgotten and the ending really didn't resolve anything, it's like the movie just ended. And I think the biggest thing about the ending that got on my nerves was when a 70-year-old man was in a car that flipped over and crashed and then got out and was fine. Not even a bump on the head. Guess he took his vitamins.

`Ghost Story' is a decent flick, nothing really special. If there's nothing else to watch and you're curios, check it out.

Well, my DVD says, `Count Dracula and His Vampire Brides' but IMDb says `The Satanic Rites of Dracula.' I don't think it really matters, since it's the same flick. This is one of the many Hammer films featuring Lee as Dracula and Cushing as Van Helsing. This was more of a James Bond flick with a vampire and satanic rituals than a real horror movie.

There's a secret spy organization, an evil cult with members from the London government, even James Bond-ish music. The only real difference is that occasionally you'll see a vampire or two. Another thing, the vampire brides were hardly in the flick at all. Inappropriate story forgiven, the acting was good and it's always fun to watch Lee and Cushing play off of each other.

There wasn't much gore, just a little chicken's blood and a couple stakes through the heart. Of course, there was the obligatory nudity scene and all the vampire slaying tools were assembled. The plague only infected one person and the make-up effects were decent, but still pretty lame.

Didn't the Count ever watch a Bond film? You're never supposed to reveal your entire scheme, ever. Oh well, too late now. I'd recommend this flick to hardcore Hammer fans only.

This movie was pretty bad. First of all, I have to say, the title has really nothing to do with the actual movie. No one ever says, `Don't look in the basement.' The basement isn't even referred to or gone into until an hour and 20 minutes into the movie. And even then, the basement segment is only about a minute long.

The acting was pretty horrendous. Although there were a few interesting characters, it was more silly than frightening. It reminded me of a cross between `Spider Baby' and `Texas Chainsaw Massacre.' `Spider Baby' because of all the weird characters, `TCM' because of all the screaming. Both of those flicks beat this one by a mile.

The music was kind of weird, but not in a good way. It sounded as if it was pulled off of re-runs of `The Prisoner.' And maybe it was just my DVD, but there was an annoying trail coming off of things when they moved that made the movie almost painful to watch.

As for the story, like I said, there were some interesting characters but the basic plot seemed to be written by some sort of crazy person that should've been in the film. Very rarely did it seem to be going in any coherent direction and when the story finally got around to making some sort of sense, it was very predictable.

`Don't Look in the Basement' is a painful movie to watch with no real rewards afterwards. I wouldn't recommend it.

Despite the fact that there were a group of zombie-like beings in this movie, this is still very much a psychological horror movie. And a good one, at that. The acting is kind of cheesy at times, but it does well enough. The story is a simple on to follow, but still interesting. The lead zombie had some creepy make-up that was still, like the story, simple.

From a technical standpoint, the print of the film was excellent. Practically, crystal clear (which is pretty amazing considering it's a $6 DVD with two movies on it). The dubbing on the film was pretty bad at times, especially near the beginning. Some of the camera work was very imaginative and quite good for a low budget ‘60s horror flick.

Now for the problems, not that there were many, but there were some. The score, while pretty eerie, also got annoying after a while. Screeching organ music through the entire movie for the most part. Of course, there was the bad dubbing, which at times was absolutely horrible, with characters talking and their lips weren't even moving. The acting, like I said above, was cheesy at times, which I would blame on the actors, in part.

Carnival of Souls is a good psychological horror movie well worth checking out.

It might just be that I'm a Vincent Price and Edgar Allan Poe fan, but I really enjoyed this movie. It had great acting, an interesting story and characters, terrific soundtrack, and was even eerie at times.

I'm amazed that this movie was directed by Roger Corman. I mean, his is not the name you associate with really good movies. However, I'd say that this is probably one of his all time best movies. It's not perfect, but it's damn good. Price's performance is great, as it most always is. His attention to detail in characters is truly amazing and very entertaining to watch.

The story was very interesting and even though it was a bit slow at times, still held my attention. Part of that was because of the characters. The fact that there were only four characters in the entire movie meant that there was plenty of time to explore them all.

Technically, the film was very well done, also. There was a scene at the end with a cheesy blue screen fire effect, but that's forgivable. The color tones in the dream sequence were a bit silly and kind of `Disney-ish' but got the mood across.

Awesome movie, one of Corman's best. Definitely check it out.