Change Your Image
leslie_rulz08
Reviews
Are You Afraid of the Dark?: The Tale of the Phantom Cab (1990)
A weak pilot to a memorable TV series
PLOT: Two brothers get lost in the woods. They find help when they run into a man who leads them into the hands of Dr. Vink. The strange, old man (Dr. Vink) makes a deal with the brothers: If they can solve his riddle; they can phone home. If they can't solve his riddle...God help them!
REVIEW: Like the direction, like the script, the story is a perfect example of a typical (Are You Afraid of the Dark?) ghost tale. But that's not saying much...Cast: the casting is TERRIBLE, just like the acting. An example of the terrible acting in "The Tale of the Phantom Cab" would be the shots of the siblings scream. These shots are pretty unconvincing even for child actors. Fortunately, the child actors are the only problem in "TTotPC." Unfortunately, the child actors play the main characters in "TTotPC." Luckily, Aron Tager does a fine job with his "Dr. Vink" character. The character of Dr. Vink is one of the highlights of the episode, by the way.
FINAL STATEMENT(S): "TTotPC" is definitely a weak pilot to a memorable TV series but the episode, despite the acting/casting & despite the fact that it has C-A-M-P written all over it, is, in itself, an entertaining fun-fest. OK, "an entertaining fun-fest" maybe a stretch, but come on; we're talking about "AYAotD?"...we're talking about a children's show.
TRVIA: All-male cast (excluding scenes featuring "The Midnight Society").
RATING: 2 out of 5 stars.
Cat People (1942)
A SUGGESTIVE, romantic horror film
The film features an odd couple: An all-American marine engineer, Oliver (Smith) & a superstitious Serbian-born fashion designer, Irena (Simon). Irena is convinced that she will transform into a panther if aroused to passion. Because of this; the couple has never indulged in sexual activity with one another which leads to Oliver falling for his assistant, Alice (Randolph). When it is revealed that Alice feels the same way about Oliver, jealousy is provoked within Irena. Now we will find out if Irena really is one of the Cat People!
The plot is intriguing isn't it? I think it is. Maybe kind of silly...but intriguing. And original. And simple. Like the film. The film is simple yet effective. Very entertaining, too. However, their are some boring parts in Cat People. But the movie is too effective to let those flaws stand out. You see, Cat People is a romantic horror film. A SUGGESTIVE romantic horror film. What I mean is that the fright scenes never expose the villain until the final chapters of the picture. This technique works so much that it is the highlight of Cat People.
And as far as acting goes, every actor & actress does a fine job with the given dialogue, even the minor ones (typical for a B&W (horror) motion picture) & the direction is basically great-ditto the script...a slightly underrated gem this is.
All in all, this is an effective little horror film. Pretty suggestive in the fright department which is a good thing but slightly underrated. TRIVIA: Cat People was followed by a sequel & a loose remake RATING: 4/5
Village of the Damned (1960)
Overrated but not bad
One morning, in a small Britaish Village, all the locals including the animals fall unconscious for no apparent reason. Later, all the males & animals wake up, unaffected by the happening while every female in the Village capable of child birth awake only to find out that they are pregnant.
Three years later, the children of those women have all grown up at an impossible speed, physically & mentally. They all walk in a group, dress in black & have pasty-blonde hair complete with those pairs of eerie, glowing eyes. Some of the locals think they are evil &...those who do are right. Anyone who is a threat to them is killed & since they can read minds, anyone able to stop them is in danger.
Village of the Damned (1960) has been received as some sort of cult-classic which it is. But I felt that it's overrated. All these reviews talking about how scary it is (some even said that they had nightmares because the glowing eyes of the children scared them so much) are near ridiculous. I hope that the people who had nightmares from this film were only joking as Village of the Damned was spooky in the least.
There were a few creepy scenes to find containing the children but that was it. The 'scary' parts were predictable, there were some boring scenes thrown in & the last part of the movie-the resolution of how to get rid of the children felt rushed. Anyway I feel that Village of the Damned has only became a cult classic probably because the children or the creepiness of their stare.
Maybe Village of the Damned is only predictable because I've seen too many films with the evil child(ren) aspect but there isn't much to like about this movie. I found myself trying to come up with all the positive notes this movie had in it but there weren't many. Well, the acting was convincing, it appears well-made despite its low budget & the kids were creepy.
So I didn't find much good out of this but maybe you will. It's entertaining, well made, the acting is superb & the movie has some creepy scenes in it. Even though it seems as though I was bashing the film in the paragraphs above, there wasn't much to dislike about Children of the Damned so I'm giving it 3 out of five stars.
Followed by the thematic sequel Children of the Damned (1963) & John Carpenter's Village of the Damned (1995, the remake).
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006)
Charming little slasher/thriller
All the boys love Mandy Lane played by Amber Heard from Friday Night Lights (2004), Alpha Dog (2006) & Pineapple Express (2008) & all the girls envy Mandy Lane. But there is more to Many than meets the eye. She is an orphan since a young age & has been raised by her Aunt along with her cousin. Also, she is best friends with Emmet the-social outcast of there high school. He secretly loves her & she knows. Anyway, one day she is invited to one of the jocks pool party's. All the boys there especially Dylan the jock wanna get in her pants. Soon enough Emmet & Dylan are drunk which results in Emmet persuading Dylan to jump off the roof into the pool to impress Mandy. Of course it goes terribly wrong & 9 months later, we see that Mandy & Emmets relationship has died. So this is when Mandy is invited to a weekend away to a remote branch with 2 other girls & 3 other guys in which are all horny (by the way, the guys are trying to steal Mandys virginity away from her). When they arrive, they have fun, drink booze, do drugs, play games, put themselves into sexual situations. In the middle of the film, we find out that someone who is obsessed with Mandy is watching them & is waiting for the right time to...well you know the drill.
All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) has gotten rave reviews when it was released but the reviews that have been posted recently are mostly negative. I knew this movie would somehow charm me but I didn't set my expectations too high just in case the negative reviews were true.
It turns out that both the positive & negative reviews were true. It is hard to pull all the positive tones of the film out & comment on/about them because there weren't many. Still, this slasher really charmed me as if it were screaming out it's a good movie. Let me start from my usual order.
The plot was unoriginal yet still had a few veins of originality including the twists. But the twists themselves were predictable & the creator of this picture could have easily hidden some sub-plots just to make theses twists be considered as a 'twist'. The thing that got me however is that the while the twists obvious, the last one worked to a degree in which I felt manipulated. This is a positive comment on All The Boys Love Mandy Lane. It really made me like & care for the character & when it turned out that she had orchestrated the whole rampage I realized I had been manipulated. Well not entirely because I had expected something like this to happen but...well this film just has this appeal which i can't explain.
All The Boys Love Mandy Lane has this 70's feel to it which was reminiscent of all the old horror classics. Intentional or not i liked it. The score helps even more & the direction is good. The acting too, is good. Yet none of the characters were really developed. Still, they were each given depth & the dumb blonde chick was funny. Speaking of humor, this movie was full of it & that along with the final scenes reminded me of Scream (1996).
The gore is realistic-the whole movie is realistic & really gritty especially the chase scene in the end which should have lasted longer but sadly didn't. The death scenes are full of characters making stupid decisions which lowered the films potential (& this flick had lots of potential, indeedy). Also, none of the death scenes are scary or suspenseful or intense or anything like that. This was a real letdown but still while the death scenes are not very original, inventive or well set-up/done, they can be very effective & realistic. Gore is not a key point to All The Boys Love Mandy Lane anyway but gore fans won't be too disappointed as the violence & gore is vicious enough.
All in all a predictable sometimes clichéd slasher/thriller which will hopefully amuse & entertain you for 87 minutes as it did for me. 3 out of 5 stars.
Wolfen (1981)
Slow killer dog film which looks stunninglly clear for its age
NYPD detective Dewey Wilson (Albert Finney) is investigating three violent murders in NY. However, he soon learns that this is no ordinary case. He learns that there is not a trace or speck of metal/plastic detected in the corpses. This leads him to (a) family(s) of Native Indians who warn him that the Wolfen was responsible. Wolfen is a pack of ancient creatures similar yet more powerful than that of wolves.
Wolfen was filmed & released around the same time as The Howling (1980) & An American Werewolf In London (1981). Seeing as those films are classics, this gem has been unappreciated ever since.
Wolfen has an ordinary plot & nothing much happens in the film. But Wolfen is scary. Especially the dogs/wolves whatever they are. The movie also has a suspenseful opening & some grisly kills/decent gore. Yet after that fraction of the movie,-everything goes downhill. I kind of lost my interest in it & the kills inbetween the opening/finale were unsatisfying. I was still entertained, though. But the finale came & hit me. It was effective & tense. But then it ended & I was like 'is that it?'.
The Native American theme doesn't help at all. In fact it made me loose my interest even more. If it wasn't for that sub-plot than i would probably rate this higher. I mean, that part of Wolfen wasn't even in the novel. By the way, Wolfen is based on the 1978 novel of the same name by Whitley Strieber.
Anyway, the the acting in this picture is really good & the direction/shots are/is beautiful. Another thing is that Wolfen has a really nice picture & looks very nice. Still, there was no character development whatsoever in it. Actually, some of the characters were unlikable & Dewey relationship with that lead female character was so fake & just didn't cut it. Adding onto those flaws is a list of clichés.
PS: This flick is maybe first movie to use the in-camera effect to portray the subjective POV of a wolf. This technique was later used in the Predator series (1987, 1990, 2004, 2007).
Like I said, this show has some grisly kills/decent gore. But most of it is off-screen or awkwardly performed.
All in all an unappreciated maybe I was overrating this when I mentioned 'gem'. If this movie lost that sub-plot & had some likable characters i might've gave this 4 stars but you can't do that to a film unless you re-film it so that's why i'm giving Wolfen 3 stars out of 5.
Halloween II (1981)
Gory follow-up full of flaws
From the director of The Witches of Eastwick (1992), The Birds II: Land's End (1994) & the underrated Halloween Resurrection (2002).
Halloween II continues exactly where the original left off. Dr Loomis (Donald Pleasence) has shot Michael Myres 6 times & Laurie Strode (Scream Queen Jamie Lee Curtis) is going to hospital. But, Michael has left the spot where he landed after the shooting & is loose on the streets of Haddonfield-again. While Myres is on his way to the hospital to get to Jamie, Loomis & friends are failing to capture the shape.
Nothing much or original going on in the plot. Just a continuation of the first.
Still, the movie is really tense-especially how the film is set up. There are really suspenseful chase scenes unlike the original Halloween (1978) which was a really good horror film but just isn't scary or suspenseful. Just well-made.
Halloween II however, manages to do what the first part couldn't. It is full of suspense. But unlike number 1, there is no time for character development so none of the characters are likable enough to root for. The once likable Laurie Strode is now a weak Jason Voorhees victim who just won't talk. Speaking of Jason aka villain in Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981), Halloween II (1981) is better in many ways but there is no time to get into that.
This flick is clichéd & predictable as hell.(:) a combo which ruins any horror movie. Also this pic gives Michael Myres backstory which ruined the mystery & horror of the character. It also ruined Laurie Strodes character & the development of the plot in the first movie. I mean the rampage in the original was obviously random.
But what this film does have is descent acting, a good score & good direction by first time director Rick Rosenthal. The Halloween song is fractured kind of but i like the original better. Another thing is that this movie introduced the Mr.Sandman song into the series. That song goes with the film very well despite the fact that one doesn't relate to the other. But those things don't save me giving this movie 2 out of 5 stars.
At least we get some effective death scenes & some good gore. Unlike the first, Halloween II has a gallons of gore. The gore in the original is underrated. The gore in this one is overrated. Memorable death scene involves a bath tub.
Bad slasher sequel which is awful compared the classic original.
Tenebre (1982)
Wonderful giallo film with amazing death/gore sequences
Giallo author, Peter Neal played by Anthony Franciossa moves to Rome to promote his latest book, Tenebrae. Peter arrives at his apartment in Rome only to find out that a crazed fan is making tribute to his work by going on a grisly rampage. How can he/she be stopped? Who is it? John Saxon (from Black Christmas (1974), Blood Beach (1980), A Nightmare on Elm Street 1 & 3 & From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)) co-stars in this classic by Italian master director Dario Argento, who made the animal trilogy, the three mothers trilogy & Profondo rosso (Deep Red-1975).
Tenenbre (1981) is a giallo & a slasher film. It does a good job of being violent/gory but like most giallo & slasher films of that era, it isn't scary. However, Tenebrae is a good mystery & there are shocks, thrills to be found. If you are confused after watching the movie, then watch it again. If you still don't get it, watch it a couple more times or read recount(s) of the movie which can be found on numerous websites linked to IMDb.
Anyway, Tenebrae is strong & effectively haunting & really unpredictable at times, it really gets into you. The intense death scenes aren't as sick as some people have said they are-in fact, half of them are off-screen & really well setup/made. I know this may sound off but it's art.
Now, the direction is kinda overrated. I mean in the beginning of the picture, the directing is shaky & really bad. Not a good sign. But later on, the show manages to clean up its act with some VERY well-directed scenes & good acting.
Still, Tenebrae has its faults. Some of the gore is sloppy & looks a bit fake which makes a couple of the death scenes look fake, some of the females look like drag queens (the rest are beautiful), a very scary, intense chase scenes involving a dog is ruined with some stupid 'coincidences' stupid character actions & a fake kill, there are no interesting or likable characters (some characters are annoying) & overall, i just think the film could have been better.
Is Tenebrae gory? Very. Gore fans should be pleased.
4 out of 5 stars. Recommended if you can find it.
Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988)
Really corny and overrated sequel but lots of gore and sex and drugs
From the creaters of Sleepaway Camp III: Teenage Wasteland (1989).
Angela played by Pamela Springsteen is now officially female. She has been released from the mental hospital she was put in due to a nice recovery & manners & she is now working as a counselor at Camp Rolling Hills. The camp is running normally until Angela starts to kill those who sin. Her excuse for each disappearance: "I sent them home."
The plot is baaaad. Really unoriginal stuff. Another Friday the 13th (1979) this is.
But Sleepaway Camp 2 while using the same slasher routine, is NOT a serious movie. So scary, tense etc are not words to describe this film.
Actually, this flick did the opposite, the KILLER is funny & maybe a little likable......black comedy this is too.
Also the direction, acting, script don't stand out. Actually the acting in the beginning is pretty corny. The whole movie is pretty corny.
However, I don't think that much viewers are aware of this but there is character development going on between Angela & Molly-the final girl (played by Ren'ee Estevez, sister of Emilio Estevez & Charlie Sheen.) Both characters has chemistry & were a tad likable.
Yet the finale seemed forced & the ending was...OK.
Anyway, this show is obviously inspired by earlier horror classics such as The Texas Chainsaw (1974) Friday the 13th & A Nigthmare on Elm Street (1984). Homages & short parody's/spoofs are abound in this campy slasher. But this sequel to the original cult classic (1983) seems to be very overrated.
Gore is present & is good. We get a body count of 18 maybe 19 & the death scenes even thought they are ineffective ones played out for laughs at times they are kind of...oowwi. Funny still. At times the gore looks fake but hey, there lots of Friday the 13th-like kills & the violence is grisly. OK gore FX.
All in all, 3 out of 5 stars. It just made it.
If your a desperate horror fan, then watch it if you can find a copy (a copy is hard to get your hands on.)
My Bloody Valentine (1981)
Unoriginal old school slasher
From George Mihalka, the man who brought you Eternal Evil (The Blue Man)(1985).
Twenty years ago, in a small town, a Valentines dance was held in the towns hall. While everyone were happily enjoying the night, seven miners were working. Two of the miners left without telling the others, to attend the dance. This led the accident in which the mines collapsed on the men, killing them. But one of them - Harry Warden survived on the others meat. He was crazy when they put him in a mental hospital.
A year later, he escaped on Valentines day & came back to town to murder the two men. Since, there has never been another Valentines dance until now. Now, a crowd of young adults are setting up the dance. But as a box of Valentines containing a warning & a blood-soaked heart arrives, locals are murdered...is Harry Warden back?
The plot is an unoriginal mix of Halloween (1978) & Friday the 13th (1979). Not good.
However, this show, while not beating Halloween, is better than Friday the 13th. My Bloody Valentine (1980) did not put me in suspense & it did not scare me. But i still like the movie. It is tense, well acted, has an OK score (some of it was from Prom Night (1979)) & it has some strong death scenes.
Another thing about this flick is that it looks real good & better than most slashers from that error. The villain is scary, the atmosphere is scary & there's just something about My Bloody Valentine that gets me. It's also a perfect example of the late 70's early 80's slasher films. It has the plot, horror, clichés, gore, the masked killer, the teens who look veerry old, the sex, the climax/twist. It does not have any nudity but i'll pass on that. PS: There is a little character development going on too.
I don't see why everyone wants an uncut version. I know it will be nice but the picture is already gory as it is. We get some effective death scenes (half are offscreen) & some good violence. Good enough. Cool weapon of choice, too.
All in all i give it 3 out of 5 stars. I you want a perfect example of a slasher movie, than if you see this, you've seen them all. Kinda hard to find, but.
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Great slasher sequel ruined by a couple plot holes
From Steve Miner, the director of Friday the 13th Part III (D) (1982), House (1985), Warlock (1989), Halloween H2O (1998), Lake Placid (1999) & Day of the Dead (2008).
Five years ago, Miss Voorhees returned to Camp Crystal Lake to avenge her poor son Jasons death again. That time she was caught & decapitated by one of the counselors.
2 months after the massacre, the survivor was murdered by a maniac in her own home.
Now, a number of teenagers & young adults including Amy Steel (April Fool's Day (1986) have started to attend a nearby summer camp. Soon, the head counselor warns everyone about Jason, his land & his horrific backstory including his overprotective mother Pamela. Despite the above, everything goes well.
Meanwhile, a madman commits a couple murders than heads to the camp where the half of the counselors have gone down town to party. The other half are messing around with each other in the cabins/campgrounds when the maniac arrives & starts to kill them in the usual fashion.
Friday the 13th Part 2 is part 1 all over again. But this time, it has been improved. While there is no story or suspense or script like the original, the acting is still OK. Unoriginal & clichéd like the Friday the 13th (1979), but.
Anyway, the movie is played out in the usual fashion but the reason i like it is that it is fast paced & entertaining UNLIKE the first.
The score is the same as the number 1 & the atmosphere is the same as number 1 & the direction has improved. Still, the film is really effective & strong & is set in a very grisly mode. Also the film has lots of jokes & most of them unlike the other Friday the 13th films work. & for some reason, the flick just attracts me.
The characters help too. Jason make his first main role & his outfit/mask is really freaky & realistically raw. This gives the picture a hillbilly theme which adds onto the tension. Another thing, the final girl Ginny (Amy Steel) is one badass chick which is different to the other final girls in the series (especially Alice from the original).
This girl knocked Jason over, waited IN FRONT of a tree only to knee him in between the legs. Amy Steel also nearly cuts his arm off with his own machete. The girl harms him other times too but the above are the most notable ones. So...i guess the girl has balls.
Yet despite all that, like most Friday the 13th films, this one has some big flaws/plot holes about Jasons background. I could ignore them but they make the plot...I mean if Jason didn't drown then why didn't he contact his mother?.........it just doesn't make sense.
At least we get gore. Good gore: Most of the good death scenes are offscreen but the ones that aren't are OK & these scenes are effective so what can i say? Anyway we get lots of violence so gore fans won't be too disappointed. Good gore-strong violence.
All in all, Friday the 13th 2 is a bad movie complete with a nice ending but IS underrated & IS better than the original...it gets better every viewing, though.
I give it 2 out of 5 stars.
Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007)
Fun and cheesy sequel
OK...The story is about a lady named Ariel(played by Amanda Righetti from Friday the 13th (2008)) who is the sister to Sara Wolfe - the survivor from the first film. Sara commits suicide & the event captures Ariels attention. So Ariel & her boyfriend start investigating the case that lead to her sisters death involving & find out that she was studying the Baphomet, a relic worth millions which is layed in the depths of the House On Haunted Hill. But they get winded up in the middle of a group of criminals who will stop at nothing to find the Baphomet. Because Sara was studying the Baphomet before her suicide, the gang thinks that she might know something & enter the house, dragging the couple along with them.
In the house, they bump into a trio of pupils also searching for the relic. The criminals start to dominate the couple & trio yet everything goes red when they split up & one by one they are knocked off by the scary ghosts within the House On Haunted Hill.
Now, the story may seem complicated but trust me, it will all make perfect sense once you watch the film. Anyway, once you understand what is going on, you realize that the plot is really simple & could have been put together by a 12 year old. So the plot is bad.
Is Return To House On Haunted Hill scary? No. Nor is it smart, original or interesting. The acting has all been performed better millions of times before in film & none of the acting or actors stood out. Really wooden characters. +, the only actor/actress recognizable was Cerina Vincent from Not Another Teen Movie (2001) & Cabin Fever (2002) & she's only a b-grade actress. I did NOT care for a any characters. Also, the script could have also been written by a 12 year old. Not much dialog going on, either...AND the score was non-existent.
But the thing that makes Return To House On Haunted Hill another lame horror movie is that it is too unoriginal & heavily clichéd/predictable.
Another thing, the 1999 remake of House On Haunted Hill (1959) is better than this one.
Well, you have to give this flick some credit for having a good direction & nice FX for a low-budget picture & when you look at the bright side, the movie is entertaining & i was having fun while watching it but keep in mind, while it was entertaining & fun it is not a good movie. Though i don't think that this movie deserves the hate its received......it's not THAT bad.
At least we get some good gore. Actually we get some splatter as well. Still not as grisly as number one, though.
So i give Return To House On Haunted Hill 2 out of 5 stars.
Terror Train (1980)
Terror Train (1979)
From Roger Spottiswoode, the director of Stop!Or My Mom Will Shoot (1992), Tomorrow Never Dies (1997) & The 6th Day (2000).
A group of college students play a cruel prank on the resident nerd but it goes horribly wrong, sending the boy insane.
Three years later, the same group, along with the rest of the year, hold a fancy dress party on a private train. Everything goes wrong...dead wrong, as a disguised killer stalks the the halls of the train & bodys start to pile up.
The storyline is original but we get the feeling that it is all too familiar. However, it is played out very cleverly (if that is a word) & the atmosphere is real moody...it also gives you a creepy, odd feeling throughout the film. The score really helps & really works on you. It also builds up the tension on what is happening.
You get some pretty tense & suspenseful scenes involving the menacing killer & when i mean menacing, do i mean menacing-this killer was so creepy...so i guess the film works.
Now the acting. The acting is nothing worth mentioning incept for Jamie Lee Curtis & Ben Johnson (The Town That Dreaded Sundown (1976)), there performances were good (Curtis screams her ass off in this one) & there characters were similar to Laurie Strode (also played by Jamie Lee) & Dr. Loomis in this movies inspiration, Halloween (1978). Also, the man that played the killer was pulled off a really convincing act of...well i won't spoil it. Another thing, this slick pic gets bonus points for featuring a young David Copperfield whose magic tricks in the film are sometimes more entertaining than the film itself! I might add that the directing was better than Prom Night (1979) & was well done considering or not considering the fact that this was Roger Spottiswoode's first picture.
But Terror Train does have its bad points. I will not include my opinion that Halloween & Prom Nihght are better than this flick but i will include some minor ones.
First of all, the movie is slow-paced yet it leads to a bad-ass showdown between you-know-who & you-know-who. & how could the killer move up & down the train without bumping into someone? Speaking of killer, he does some clever things in the movie but Terror Train fails in maintaining the who-dunnit theme. It was just so obvious. At least the minor twist about the killers identity was not as obvious & kind of put me off track. +, there are clichés abound. One more little flaw is why would anyone keep a doll on a train? PS: that scene probably inspired the one from Halloween Resurrection (2002).
Let us jump into the gore, shall we? This picture has some good gore (for that time period). We get a sword driven into a stomach, a face hurled into a mirror, a girl is strangled then her throat is slit, a guy is stabbed in the chest, a decapitation, a bundle of swords are stabbed into numerous parts of a mans body, another guy is stabbed but this time in the back. So that gives us a total body count of 7. But all the death scenes are offscreen & all the violence filmed are showcased in the effective showdown. Good gore but not much violence.
All in all, a creepy, odd tale which manages to use the revenge theme effectively. Well done ending indeed.
3 out of 5 stars.
Prom Night (1980)
Prom Night (1979)
From Paul Lynch, the director of Humongous (1982).
Prom Night is about 4 16-year olds who are being knocked off one by one at Prom Night. 4 years prior, they accidentally killed one of there friends yet kept it secret. The death was blamed on the local madman. Could it be revenge? More importantly, who is it?
The storyline may seem unoriginal but this was the first slasher with this kind of plot. But the story was probably borrowed from Lois Duncans 1973 novel 'I Know What You Did Last Summer' which was later made into the movie of the same name (1997) based on the screenplay by Kevin Williamson, the writer of the Scream films (1996-2000). Speaking of Scream (1996), that film seems to have taken a page out of this classic...inspired?
Despite the the unoriginal plot, Prom Night is really underrated. I mean, it's better than Friday the 13th (1979).
Here are my points: Though they have very different story's, they are played out in a similar fashion. Also they have have similar structures. Both start with a murder(s).
While the beginning of Friday the 13th ripped-off Halloween (1978), it was OK but not as good or effective as the opening in Prom Night. When the films move on into the middle section, both try to develop the characters. Prom Night succeeds with one character: Wendy, the for-some-reason likable school bitch played by Anne-Marie Martin better known as Eddie Benton-her stage name.
She had everything-looks, personality & some killer lines. But Friday the 13th suffers by the fact that it can't produce any characters to care for. Instead, it creates a dumb girly-girl named Alice.
Now the confrontation in Friday the 13th...WHOA! in the bad way...but there were all the classic death scenes which were effective NOT SUSPENSEFUL like Prom Night.
How could the death scenes in Friday the 13th be suspenseful when you don't care for a single person? Prom Night, on the other hand, had some effective death scenes & Wendys death was really suspenseful & really inspiring towards the chase scenes in todays horror films such as I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997).
So in my opinion, Prom Night farts on Friday the 13th big time but cannot top Halloween.
Now back to Prom Night. It works real good.
The flick tells the story, then develops the characters while making you laugh & creeping you out, then they knock off the characters in a strong manner.
The use of clichés & the bad quality in Prom Night really lowered the films standhards & makes the picture dated but i can easily ignore them.
Entertaining it is. & kind of sad. & funny. & creepy. & more stuff yet the list would go onnnnn & onnnnn & onnnnn.
More bonus points: The score was fabulous, the acting, very good & very convincing, look out for Jaimie Lee Curtis, Eddie Benton & Leslie Neilson.
Another thing: Prom Night was one of the first horror movies to use the who dunnit formula. For me, who the killer turned out to be in this picture was a surprise......maybe i wasn't thinking hard enough.
The gore: You get a girl falling from a window, some blood, a slashed throat, multiple stabs in throat, car crash, an Axe killing, a nice decapitation & some mild violence. Might sound good but most of it comes at the prom & most of it is offscreen. Still, the gore was good for 1979 but may seem dated nowadays. OK.
3 out of 5 stars. A dated underrated slasher...you may not see it the way i do. If your someone who likes early 80's slasher films & doesn't mind soapies, than this is recommended...kinda hard to find a copy, but.
PS: Prom Night & Terror Train (1979) are not Friday the 13th rip-offs-all three were filmed in 1979 & all three were released in 1980 so it is safe to say that they are not Friday the 13th rip-offs but Halloween inspired films. & even if i am wrong, that only improves Prom Night AND Terror Trains semi-cult-following due to the fact that they are better than Friday the 13th.
Followed by a sequel, Prom Night II Hello Mary Lou (1987). (THE REMAKE OF THE SAME NAME (2008) DOES NOT COMPARE.)
The Cottage (2008)
The Cottage (2008)
It is hard to put the plot down in words because there's not really a storyline but rather a story unfolding yet i will try my best.
There are two brothers, David & Peter (played by Any Serkis & Reece Shearsmith). One day they kidnap Tracey (played by Jennifer Ellison) & take her to a selected country house where they commit ransom. But everything goes wrong so they, along with stupid fat man make another attempt to get money. Again it goes wrong. Deadly, even.
So the storyline seems to unfold itself. Also the storyline is unoriginal. Nothing good. AND the movie is kinda uneven. The first half contains a serious action/thriller plot & is played out as a black comedy. I liked that. Then, in the second half, it still keeps the dark humor but goes in slasher mode-UK style. I just think that the second half with the killer didn't really fit the film. The killer didn't really fit the film. The killer was boring & clichéd & obviously a bit too much inspired by Leatherface & Jason Voorheese. The same goes with this flick. The Cottage (2008) was obviously inspired by the horror classics from the 70's early 80's. But again, that didn't fit the film.
Don't get me wrong, the movie was really funny & made me laugh. Yet.........uneven. Anyway if i can look past the story, the villain, THE FACT IT'S clichéd & a plot hole we got a good movie. Of course, the direction, score & acting while not bad, didn't help the movie improve much, the film manages to keep the satire in both halves of this slasher. Another thing, the movie does have a tense scene & has lots of moments. AND, Paul Andrew Williams did both write & direct so that's a bonus point.
More points are that the script is funny but contains swear words in almost every line. & the movies characters like to say "fucking" a lot. Speaking of characters, the main 3 or 4 characters are really likable. One more thing, the movie trys to have a unsettling setting by constructing a dark light upon the film. Instead, it just makes the flick seem dull like other UK/England movies.
As for gore, there is a lot of gore in the second half & a lot of vicious violence. But some of the violence & death scenes are off screen. Shame.
All in all, 3 out of 5 stars.
An uneven UK slasher which for some reason is really likable & entertaining. I really enjoyed it.
Friday the 13th (1980)
Friday The 13th (1979)
From Sean S. Cunningham, the man behind the chase scene from A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).
In 1957, at Camp Crystal Lake, a young boy drowned. The next year, two of the counselors were murdered which lead to a fire. No one knows who done it. So the camp was closed.
Now in 1979, the 13th of April, a naive local re-opens the camp along with 6 other teenage counselors. Throughout the day, they fix up the place & have fun. But at night they are all doomed when an unseen person starts to murder them one by one after they sin.
This movie IS classic. It has inspired most of the horror films we watch today. It's also was one of the first slashers featuring teenagers having sex before they die in a rather grisly manner. But that doesn't mean this is a good movie. Does it?
Well the storyline is...OK...but really simple. Yet the killer's motive just ruined the whole story. Kind of. Anyway, Friday The 13th (1979) is just another Halloween (1978) rip-off. So that is partly why i don't like it.
The start of the film was swell, though the beginning ripped-off the beginning of Halloween (1978). Unlike Halloween (1978), this film was not suspenseful or creepy. Effective? Yes. But it takes more than effective death scenes to make a good slasher film. The direction IS NOT bad like other users have stated. The acting IS NOT bad like other users have stated. The score is really good. The atmosphere is raw like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). The script is not that good. I agree on that. Also, the villain is not scary like the masked villains from horror flicks before this such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), the underrated Alice Sweet Alice (1975, also known as Communion) or Halloween (1978). Maybe because the killer does NOT wear a mask...but still, the villain could have been better. Speaking of villains, the killer was an OLD LADY. The finale involving the confrontations between Mrs.Voorhees played by Betsy Palmer & the final girl, Alice played by Adrienne King were beyond me. She is an old woman! Just kick the beep out her! Instead, Jasons mother seems to be really strong and Alice seems to be really weak. Another thing frustrated me is that Alice never finishes her off. The stupid b#tch had all these chances yet threw them away. I was happy about her demise in Friday The 13th Part 2 (1981). The b!tch deserved it.
There are more stupid things that this stupid girl committed throughout the flick which i couldn't be bothered mentioning. So if you compare this character to Laurie Strode from the Halloween series, of course Laurie Strode is more smart/likable. She was a good, smart girl in the middle of all the this terror whilst Alice was a stupid girly-girl who wouldn't escape from the murderer even when she had the chances.
This picture does have an effective ending, i'll give it that. But the movie is just...bad. Zero story. Zero suspense. Zero characters to care for (encept for the 3rd victim Annie-what a shame she dies) Zero script. I could go oooonn & oooonn & oooonn but i won't.
Friday The 13th could have been an OK if the stupid character Alice & the stupid finale didn't exist. Yet they DO exist.........well it is entertaining!
At least the gore was good. Not good,-great! We get people getting stabbed, necks being cut & some more imaginative death scenes. But i warn you, the result in the gore department may not be as strong as todays standards so do not keep your expectations high. Anyway the movie is quite violent so...yeah. THE GORE IS GREAT!
2 out of 5 stars.
Followed by the superior sequel, Friday The 13th Part 2 (1981).
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
One year ago, on Halloween night, Michael Myers went on another rampage in the town of Haddonfield. 'He' killed a large number of locals just to get to his niece, Jamie Lloyd, played by the underrated Danielle Harris. However his doctor, Dr.Loomis, of all people, along with the help of the cops, put an end to the horror by shooting him 'till he was out of sight. But this was only the beginning as Jamie attacked her stepmother as soon as she settled home.
Now, it is Halloween night & 'he' has returned to Haddonfield killing randoms in order to murder hid niece. Yet every time he kills, Jamie can sense it which can help Dr Loomis, played by the late Donald Pleasence, to track Myers down.
Halloween 5 had potential to spin a twist on the then tired series but the takes the usual, routine direction...what a shame.
The plot is weak & tired & old. What's worse is that the movie plays out in the usual routine. What a bummer! So we get a weak storyline, weak direction, weak score, weak script, undeveloped characters...weak movie.
Also, the film is heavily clichéd & really predictable.
This film isn't even suspenseful, scary, creepy, spooky, eerie, tense, intense or any other adjective that should describe a horror film. Thankfully, i was not expecting much. This picture is pretty much a washed up retread of Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myres (1988) all over again. Pointless, really.
Despite all the above, Halloween 5 was quite entertaining & did a few nice touches. 1st, The Man in Black is introduced in the movie. Good idea.
But still, it lead to the stupid "thorn" subplot... Well there's always the fact that the acting, while not better than the previous installment, is OK. Though Danielle Harris's acting was really good. Ditto Donald Pleasence.
Another touch, the atmosphere...wait not the atmosphere (that sucked). The fact that this sequel makes nice attempts to be like or capture the feeling of the original Halloween (1978). You can tell. Michael stalks the girls while they have girl talk, he watches them & when you think he is gonna strike he doesn't. AND remember from number 1 in which the girlfriend thinks Myres is her boyfriend when it's actually Myres dressed up in a costume. Well, that happens in this slasher too, encept it's a bit fractured. Some other things too resemble but i can't remember. All i all i, liked the original Halloween's inspiration towards this flick..yet the original was effective.
Really, this flick is kinda like Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myres (1988) with the style of Halloween (1978). Cool style not played out well enough, though.
I almost forgot the gore! This flick has OK gore in it. We get some stabs, some stabs with other sharp weapons. We get blood. But the movie has a slow pace so much of it is tame. Hey, at least it is gorier & more violent than Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myres (1988). Violence abound. But the death scenes don't stand out much encept for the 2nd one. TAME.
I can't recommend it... but if you don't care, go watch it...that is, if you can find it.
2 out 5 stars.
Followed by the bad sequel, Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myres (1994).
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
When a Stranger Calls (1979)
From Fred Walton, the director of April Fool's Day (1986), I Saw What You Did (TV-1988) & When a Stranger Calls Back (TV-1993).
A man played by the late Tony Beckley murders two young children whilst repeatingly calling the teenage babysitter, Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane who is downstairs. When the stranger is about to attack Jill, the cops arrive...
Seven years later, the middle-aged man - we find out that his name is Curt Duncan, has escaped from the hospital he was put in & tries to start a new life in the city where he meets a middle-aged lady called Tracy played by the late Collen Dewhurst. He is attracted to the seemingly grumpy woman but his attraction soon turns into obsession as he starts to stalk her. Meanwhile, a compulsive cop played by Charles Durning tries to track him down in order to kill him rather than put him away. What follows is one of the most intense finials in the history of cinema.
When a Stranger Calls (1979) is an underrated classic, in my opinion. The movie contains a suspenseful, intense, tense, creepy opening. After that people state that 'the film goes downhill'. I can see why. But those stages of the film showcase some convincing acting & that part of the film IS entertaining. These people just get bored easily. The middle of the movie also kinda turns into a cat & mouse cop-thriller which is why some people dislike the flick. Still, the film manages to keep the uncomfortable atmosphere at that point & still manages to be creepy & somewhat scary... The finale is just as good as the opening in which it is suspenseful, shocking...the shock has even become a cliché in the genre of horror. It also contains a haunting ending. This flick involves outstanding performances by all cast members of the likes of Carol Kane, Tony Beckley, Charles Durning, Collen Dewhurst & plenty more. The direction is all right yet it didn't stand out much. But the score.........oh, the score. It was magnificent!
The story is partly based on the urban legend 'The Babysitter and the Man Upstairs' & the rest of the story isn't that original either...well there probably the only things wrong about this movie despite the lack of interest in character. Plus, all you get in the gore department is a blood-soaked shirt & some violence but the movie IS a suspense film which doesn't need to rely on gimmicks. So if your looking for gore, this is not the right movie for you.
Nice location to film the movie. PS: The movie kept me sweating!
If you liked Black Christmas (1974), Halloween (1978), Prom Night (1979) or even Scream (1996) the than you might enjoy this movie.
All in all this is a horror/thriller which beats the remake.
4 out of 5 stars. If your a horror fan who hasn't seen When a Stranger Calls (1979) yet, than go watch it now! if you can find it that is.........not availiable in Australia yet, but you can find some expensive imported copies.
Followed by the TV sequel When a Stranger Calls back (1993) & the remake of the same name (2006).
The Amityville Horror (1979)
The Amityville Horror (1979)
"Weird people."
That's a quote from this 'classic.'I could never agree more...
In 1974, Ronald DeFeo, Jr. shot & killed six members of his family. The massacre happened in an old house on the river's edge of Long Island.
One year later, a family of five (excluding Harry, the dog) moved into the house. Within 21 days, paranormal, possibly supernatural events took place in & around the 'home' which made the family flee from the house in horror to another state.
This film is based on the book by Jay Anson which is based on the supposingly true events above. What i'm saying is that this is an old fashioned haunted house movie. Regarded as a classic in the horror genre.
Well, i can see why this is a 'classic'. Though the story is simple yet unoriginal the flick has its moments. But not enough moments. Anyway the location & the house is really creepy. The atmosphere & score is really creepy. This whole movie is really creepy. It also contains a scary scene which involves a babysitter. The direction is very good. The acting is fine. But there are no characters to care for. Also the film just drags that it becomes kinda depressing. The dull picture doesn't help. And the movie uses at least one cliché & it was predictable at least two times. Yet the things that really bugged me about The Amityville Horror is that the not-so-developed characters do things that normal people wouldn't do. They also commit odd acts & act in a strange way but that wasn't the case with all characters (-thank God!). Also the movie as i stated several times before is really creepy. Creepy. Not scary or even spooky. Can you say overrated? I can.
I don't understand why this movie is more popular than the underrated but superior haunted house flick, The Legend of Hell House (1973). It's also very stupid that this movie has been rated 'scarier than The Excorcist (1972)').
.........you just can't compare this flick to the others mentioned.
I don't think that i could stand another viewing...2 out of five stars.
PS: There is not much gore in The Amityville Horror. You get some dead, bloody bodies, a bloody scene involving an axe, gallons (possibly) of blood, pouring all over the staircase & a little bit more. But it is a violent movie. People get shot, axed...but those apects of this movie do not stand out.
Followed by a sequel, Amityville II: The Possession (1981).
Alien (1979)
Alien (1979)
From Ridley Scott, the director of Gladiator (2000), Black Hawk Down (2000), Hannibal (2001), American Gangster (2007) & Body of Lies (2008).
A seven member crew are aboard Nostromo, a spaceship. Nostromo is returning to Earth from Thedus but on the way, they pick up what seems to be an S.O.S. They investigate the signal but a creature attaches itself onto one of the crew members face. Desperate, the other crew members take him back on the ship where the creature dies off his face. Soon a small alien finds its way out of his body & runs off into the depths of Nostromo. The crew members are ordered to capture the alien until they realize that the alien has has grown into the perfect killing machine.
Alien (1979) is a classic horror/thriller film. It is also known as the best science fiction film ever.
Anyway, let's get to the points to Alien. The plot is good and is played out better than the story itself. But the film just isn't scary. In 1979 it may have been scary. But now with all the sequels & crossovers...you just know what the alien looks like. So my advice if you haven't seen the sequels or crossovers then you must watch this first.........unless you get bored easily. Because this movie is extremely slow and takes extreme patience to sit through. Yet i'm not saying that Alien is a bad movie. It is far from being a bad movie.
Let me get you started. The acting. Very realistic and VERY good...this film won Oscars! PS the movie stars SIGOURNEY WEAVER. Her character was likable and very strong throughout the film. Funny too. The FX. One word. Incredible!!! Scary. No. But the Alien is scary & mysterious. Also the movie has it's moments. A lot of 'moments'. Suspenseful isn't the best word to describe this film. Intense it is. Tense scenes abound. Also some people have been bashing this film because it's clichéd & stupid & predictable. Well, the film is heavily clichéd & has it's stupid moments but this IS Alien. One of the movies that started the clichés. Let's move on. The location is outstanding. The atmosphere outstanding. Pretty much the whole movie is outstanding. BTW. Don't get over-hyped. You have got to remember, the movie is a very slow SCIFI flick and was made in 1979. So it involves complicated heavy dialog. Another thing, the movie has a classic-gory scene involving a chest & the alien. Also, the rest of the movie is gory but those scenes go quick so keep your eyes peeled. Kinda violent too.
All in all, an outstanding science fiction/horror CLASSIC.
4 out of five stars.
Followed by a sequel Aliens (1986).