Change Your Image
Gravedigger-2
Reviews
The Prophecy (1995)
Very good movie...
I'm not really a big believer in Christianity or the Bible, but I found this movie to be very good. Christopher Walken, Eric Stolz, and Elias Koteas gave especially good performances. Walken plays Gabriel. The notorious angel of death who goes against god when he becomes afraid of getting replaced by "talking monkeys". He opposed Lucifer once, but now seems doomed to become just like him. Despite being the "killer of first borns", he does have a tender side. When it all comes down to it, he only wants his creator's love and he'll do whatever it takes to be the one loved above all. Selfish, but for good reason. Our heroes are Simon [Stolz) and Thomas Dagget (Koteas). One of them is a good angel who opposes Gabriel, even though they were good friends before the war. The other, Dagget, is a failed priest-turned-homicide detective who has lost his faith in the word. Rounding it out, we have a school teacher, possessed native american child, and a suicide victim being kept from his death. The upsides to the Prophecy is a fast paced story where a lot of things happen. The characters are all good. The film is well directed. The score has it's cool points. It has a lot of good humor. And it has a moral to the story that could possibly turn someone back on to Christianity....not me, but probably someone else. For a religious person, this film could be either offensive or a senti-mental favorite. We also have Lucifer appearing...the best version of Lucifer I've seen on film. Pacino comes close.
The downsides is that the film is unbalanced. Much happens in the first half, but the second half seems to drag. The score has it's annoying parts, among the good ones. There is some cheesy dialouge that never ceases to get on your nerves. The ending could've been better.
Overall, the good outweighs the bad. The Prophecy is a must-see. If you like this, I suggest you check out the two sequels that followed.
The Terminator (1984)
One of the best movies you'll ever see...[spoilers]
The Terminator is a lot of things. For one thing, it's scary. Well, the movie itself isn't scary, nor was it intended to be, but the message it projects certainly is. It shows us a future full of killing, suffering, and pain. Another holocaust really. And we all brought it upon ourselves because we went too far with our technology.
It's exciting. The movie never gets dull. The action sequences really stand out from other films.
It's well acted. Arnie plays the emotionless cyborg to perfection. No one else could've played the T-800 but Arnold. Michael Biehn is probably the best actor in this film, showing many sides to his character. We really do get a sense of where he came from. Linda Hamilton was a great heroine as well and her character certainly develops well. Lance Henriksen and Paul Winfield play entertaining cops. Everyone else was adequate at least. Look for Bill Paxton as one of the earlier Terminator victims.
It's a mix of genres. We have the T-800 knocking people off like in a horror movie. He even walks in and slaughters a couple after they've made love. The action parts of the film is obviously. It's Sci-Fi, with the whole time travel + cyborg stuff. It's also a love story.
Speaking of which, this movie is also emotionally touching. The sex scene between Kyle and Sarah actually enhanced the plot rather than be an excuse to see some cleavage. Not to mention, the music for that scene was just right and so were the camera angles. And when Kyle died in the end, you really felt something. Especially when Sarah pulls him over and sees that he isn't breathing. Also when she sees him being zipped up in the body bag.
All in all, the Terminator is a reason why I love movies so much. It's a good, exciting, and touching story that makes you think...I highly recommend this to anyone.
Alien (1979)
A piece of art
Alien was probably the first really great film that I ever saw. The first time it freaked me out pretty good, but afterwards I knew what an awesome movie it had been. A great blend of science fiction [which I personally dislike] and horror. I taped it off of cable many years later and I realized I had forgotten how good of a movie it was. Let's dissect it, shall we?
Story: Simple, but with a good plot twist and nice resolution. It moves slowly, but it wouldn't have been as good if it moved any faster. I found the end chase scene to be kinda contrieved with Ripley going back to get the damn cat...but oh well...the first hour built up the characters and the tension until the Alien literally burst from Kain's chest and slithered into the dark. Then the Alien would systematically hunt down the crew until one was left...like a slasher film, only better. The ending, while flawed, was very tense with the death almost lurking around every corner until the final confrontation. It essentially uses the first hour to establish the characters, the story, and mood...the second hour is when all hell breaks loose. Slow by today's standards, but it works well.
Direction: Ridley Scott truly turned what could've been a bad move into a piece of absolute art...well except for Ripley going back to get that damn cat! But seriously, the atmosphere is what makes this movie as well as the direction. We never fully see the Alien, which stops it from becoming another cheese-fest with a guy in a suit popping out..Scott truly made one of the most tense movies ever,simply due to the atmosphere, the setting, and some slow direction....speaking of which...
Setting: The idea of chains hanging from everywhere around would make it into all the following Alien films and it works quite well here. The fact that the Alien blends into the dark side parts of the ship make it all the better.
Characters: Well acted and diverse characters all around and an Alien beast. Nuff said.
My last thoughts: I think the best movies are the ones with lots of emotion. In this movie, the emotions happen to be absolute fear and paranoia. The next two sequels were movies I enjoyed a bit more than the original, but all the Alien movies were different because they were made by four different film makers with four different styles and four different stories to tell. Other franchises should take a hint from the Alien series...3 out of 4 were excellent films [with Resurrection being weak compared to the others]...
All in all, if you have two hours to blow and you want to see a good movie that keeps your eyes glued to the scene and doesn't have a loud explosion every two minutes or doesn't have an sensitive back story, this is for you. A must see.
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
The most underated film of the series [spoilers]
This movie gets a lot of crap for many reasons. One is the beggining of the putrid Thorn storyline...well actually it was OK in this film...It didn't get really bad until the next chapter.
Firstly, I'd like to say that this is a step up from part IV. The acting was 80% better. The characters ranged from okay to likeable. And this is the only character development we've seen from Loomis or Michael throughout the entire series. This movie actually set up to do something different, using more a more psychological rather than the same tired old formula.
It takes place a year after Halloween 4, with Michael Myers apparently dead...Jamie Llyod under the care of a children's "clinic"...and all those affected by the previous rampages trying to get on with their lives. Hoewever, Halloween time is nearing and Loomis knows that Michael is still out there. How does he know? He's a recurring character...obviously he'd know!
This time Michael is becoming more and more agressively and Jamie has some sort of bond with her uncle. Now she can see what he sees. Michael uses this to sadistically torture his nine year old niece by killing off all her friends one by one and she can feel it every time it happens.
Another interesting storyline is Loomis trying to reach Michael's human side. Very, very good for a sequel.
But the bad stuff brings it down. Too much of the movie was used as a set up for the next sequel and it couldn't possibly stand on it's own very well. The Myers mask could've been better..
Overall, a very good slasher flick, just below the first two. If they had ditched the entire thorn thing and given us a more satisfying ending [like Michael simply being locked away in prison for the rest of his life] then this movie could've been better than the first two.
I also didn't mention the excellent directing, loads of suspense, and a very agressive interpretation of Michael Myers...that makes it a good movie too. Just don't except something too much in the vein of the first film because this one is different.
I prayed that he would burn in hell...but in my heart, I knew that hell would not have him!-Donald Pleasence
Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989)
The most underated film of the series [spoilers]
This movie gets a lot of crap for many reasons. One is the beggining of the putrid Thorn storyline...well actually it was OK in this film...It didn't get really bad until the next chapter.
Firstly, I'd like to say that this is a step up from part IV. The acting was 80% better. The characters ranged from okay to likeable. And this is the only character development we've seen from Loomis or Michael throughout the entire series. This movie actually set up to do something different, using more a more psychological rather than the same tired old formula.
It takes place a year after Halloween 4, with Michael Myers apparently dead...Jamie Llyod under the care of a children's "clinic"...and all those affected by the previous rampages trying to get on with their lives. Hoewever, Halloween time is nearing and Loomis knows that Michael is still out there. How does he know? He's a recurring character...obviously he'd know!
This time Michael is becoming more and more agressively and Jamie has some sort of bond with her uncle. Now she can see what he sees. Michael uses this to sadistically torture his nine year old niece by killing off all her friends one by one and she can feel it every time it happens.
Another interesting storyline is Loomis trying to reach Michael's human side. Very, very good for a sequel.
But the bad stuff brings it down. Too much of the movie was used as a set up for the next sequel and it couldn't possibly stand on it's own very well. The Myers mask could've been better..
Overall, a very good slasher flick, just below the first two. If they had ditched the entire thorn thing and given us a more satisfying ending [like Michael simply being locked away in prison for the rest of his life] then this movie could've been better than the first two.
I also didn't mention the excellent directing, loads of suspense, and a very agressive interpretation of Michael Myers...that makes it a good movie too. Just don't except something too much in the vein of the first film because this one is different.
I prayed that he would burn in hell...but in my heart, I knew that hell would not have him!-Donald Pleasence
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
A rather weak sequel
WARNING! Spoilers for the first two movies:
Let me start off by saying that this is a huge set up from Part III...though that isn't saying much. Truthfully, this movie is nowhere near as good as the first two.
The plot is rather simple. Michael Myers and Sam Loomis somehow survived the fire at the end of part 2. Now...I find that kind of strange since I'd be hard for a human being to survive that. But don't you remember that Michael was blinded at the end of part 2? And all of a sudden, he can see?
Anyways getting back to it, Mikey has been in a max-security prison for the last ten years. But since he's in a coma and he obviously isn't waking up any time soon **wink, wink**...they decide "hey let's move him to the same institution that he escaped from on this very night ten years ago...he isn't going to do anything."
In real life, they'd probably be right. In a horror movie...bwahaha...idiots. Michael escapes and goes on another killing spree, stomping a B-line to Haddonfield, this time in pursuit of his cute lil' niece Jamie. It seems that Laurie Strode has tragically died, along with her husband, in a car accident about a year prior to the events in this film. Jamie is all alone in the world, being taken care of by her new foster family, including the lead in the film, Jamie's foster sister Rachael.
Nice set-up, eh? Did I also mention Loomis is back in what may be his best performance in the Halloween series yet? Loomis is heavily involved in the beggining of the movie, but by the end he's almost non-existent. I think the flaws in this movie were not from the script, though it wasn't perfect.
One was the acting. Danielle Harris was okay, Donald Pleasence was great, and Beau Star was passable, but everything else sucked. Didn't the Rachael/Kelly/Brady love triangle simply stink of 80s television?
Another was that I didn't care for Dwight Little's style. He didn't capture the same dark feel that Carpenter and Rosenthal did, except for a few parts. Also it moves even slower than the first Halloween does and in effect, is less interesting. I also didn't like how Michael Myers was likened to Jason in this movie. Michael doesn't crush head. Jason does that. Michael doesn't stay standing after being shot the crap out of with assault rifles. Jason does that. See what I mean? Michael lost his scariness because he was simply too damn powerful. I will say that the ending was simply brillant, but overall if you have already seen parts 1+2, stop with those and forget about 3-7...
Attendant-Jesus ain't got nuttin to do with this place.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
Could you imagine a worse movie?
I can. It goes by the name of Dracula vs Frankenstein and it was made in 1971. Then there was also Godzilla's Revenge....but at least neither of those movies attempted to be serious. If you want a good example of how a movie series can go from above average quality to one of the top ten worst genre movies ever...see the original Halloween trilogy. Halloween I + II were both awesome, while this one simply was ninety minutes of my life foolishly wasted. Many say that this movie doesn't get the recognition it should because it was a Halloween movie and people were expecting Michael Myers...well I wasn't expecting Michael Myers and I absolutely hated it. The movie's set up was okay but from there the story became...well, boring. It wasn't to further the story, because there was no story. The male and females leads were lifeless and there weren't any amusing supporting characters to make up for them. Simply put, a movie that is a sure-fire cure for insomania.
Halloween (1978)
Halloween-A classic, but overrated
Halloween is one of the last in the "classic seventies horror" era before we went into the sequel-thon camp of the 80s and the toned down turmoil of the 90s...Now this movie is fairly entertaining. The story has already been explained tenfold so I won't bore you with the details. But some of the stuff in this movie is simply plain brillant. Firstly, the opening scene is pretty scary stuff with the Killer's POV and all [not Carpenter's invention but it was still a good idea to use for this scene]. Then 15 years later Mr. Michael Myers is all grown up and he's stalking three teen-age girls for some unknown reason. In hot pursuit, is Sam Loomis played by the great Donald Pleasence. Pleasence is hands down the best actor in this film but we also get good performances by Jamie Lee Curtis as virginal babysitter Laurie Strode and Nick Castle as the psychopathic maniac. The rest of the cast is actually quite decent with little to no bad acting. This movie is loaded with sex and nudity but surprising kept it low with the gore. Nowadays, it's the opposite. In my opinion, Blood in some scenes could've added to the atmosphere, such as the kitchen scene.
Besides being a movie with good acting, a fair story, and great visuals/directing, it did have it's flaws. At times I found the dialogue between Laurie & CO. very BORING. Fans will say it was to develop the characters. Well there is a thin line between dialogue meant to develop the characters and dialogue meant to take up space. Halloween goes back and forth. And because of this, the film gets very slow between the 20 min-50 min mark. The first twenty minutes are a great set up and the last forty are pure brilliance, but the inbetween isn't anything special. Plus the movie's influence is heavily overrated. Halloween proved that slasher flicks were marketable, but did not invent them by any means. Not the best horror movie ever and it doesn't crack by top ten, but still a must-see for those with an serious interest in the genre.
What's the Bogeyman?-Laurie Strode As a matter of fact...that was.-Sam Loomis
Halloween II (1981)
The Night he came home isn't quite over yet...
Spoilers:
When people said that the original Halloween will never be lived up to by any of it's sequels, I used to believe them. But I was mainly basing my opinion on the last five sequels. This one changed that. In some ways it's superior to the original. In others, it isn't. It balances out and to tell you the truth, Halloween II definitely lives up to the original.
Blasphemy you say? Not really. Rick Rosenthal did a better directing job than Carpenter did on the first film. And I'll stand by that. Halloween II created a different, but still creepy atmosphere. What really helped it was the hospital setting [a perfect location for a slasher film, the clean enviroment reminded me of the original Alien], the fact that the entire movie was set at night [it's hard to pull off "scary" daytime scenes, though the first Halloween DID to some degree], and the new reports, thus spreading panic through all of Haddonfield. In the first Halloween, the town didn't even know Michael was there. In this one, they know very well he's in their town...somewhere...but they don't know where. To me that is just as scary.
Now for the characters/acting. Again we have perfomances ranging from excellent to passable. Donald Pleasence did a great job as Loomis and I loved how he got more screentime in this movie and actually DID things instead of wandering around aimlessly. People complain of Jamie Lee Curtis's lack of screentime, but I don't. We already know Laurie from the first film and to have the movie totally center on her, like the first film, would be quite boring. Laurie was just used in the movie where she was needed most and it worked.
The murder sequences in this movie were gorier and well done. The gore was used tastefully, not over the top. And a few of them were just plain brutal. The last twenty minutes of the movie were really intense and the end was spectacular.
But there is one thing that heavily dragged the movie down....
Laurie Strode being the second sister of Michael Myers...
Lame! It really hurt this movie and even the original Halloween. It would also sow a seed that ruined the rest of the sequels [It should've ended with this one anyways]. I mean, Loomis just got through talking about pagan rituals and Samhain and suggesting that Michael was killing to satisfy his bloodlust and please the gods...then the nurse ends up spoiling the mood.
However, I'm content to not let five lousy minutes spoil the viewing experience as a whole. Halloween 2 is highly recommended to those who like the most serious 8-s horror flicks because this ranks among the best of them.
Loomis-Samhain isn't ghost or spirits or witches...it's the unconscious mind.
Halloween (1978)
Halloween-A classic, but overrated
Halloween is one of the last in the "classic seventies horror" era before we went into the sequel-thon camp of the 80s and the toned down turmoil of the 90s...Now this movie is fairly entertaining. The story has already been explained tenfold so I won't bore you with the details. But some of the stuff in this movie is simply plain brillant. Firstly, the opening scene is pretty scary stuff with the Killer's POV and all [not Carpenter's invention but it was still a good idea to use for this scene]. Then 15 years later Mr. Michael Myers is all grown up and he's stalking three teen-age girls for some unknown reason. In hot pursuit, is Sam Loomis played by the great Donald Pleasence. Pleasence is hands down the best actor in this film but we also get good performances by Jamie Lee Curtis as virginal babysitter Laurie Strode and Nick Castle as the psychopathic maniac. The rest of the cast is actually quite decent with little to no bad acting. This movie is loaded with sex and nudity but surprising kept it low with the gore. Nowadays, it's the opposite. In my opinion, Blood in some scenes could've added to the atmosphere, such as the kitchen scene.
Besides being a movie with good acting, a fair story, and great visuals/directing, it did have it's flaws. At times I found the dialogue between Laurie & CO. very BORING. Fans will say it was to develop the characters. Well there is a thin line between dialogue meant to develop the characters and dialogue meant to take up space. Halloween goes back and forth. And because of this, the film gets very slow between the 20 min-50 min mark. The first twenty minutes are a great set up and the last forty are pure brilliance, but the inbetween isn't anything special. Plus the movie's influence is heavily overrated. Halloween proved that slasher flicks were marketable, but did not invent them by any means. Not the best horror movie ever and it doesn't crack by top ten, but still a must-see for those with an serious interest in the genre.
What's the Bogeyman?-Laurie Strode As a matter of fact...that was.-Sam Loomis