Change Your Image
Heimpi
Reviews
Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975)
Utterly worthless
"Salò" is vile, the most disgusting, repulsive and worthless thing I have ever seen, a literal pile of sh*t. I recommend that anyone who thinks this movie is "art" should get their heads examined. That anyone can see anything in this "film", if I can even call it that, of any value or artistic merit is shocking.
Marquis de Sade was a sick and twisted individual, but it takes a pretty sick and twisted mind to make his work into a film. The director pretends that it has some kind of political connotations, and that also is shocking, a weak and lame excuse to justify his execrable pornography. All the film shows is the workings of a bunch of people sick and disturbed beyond all comprehension, and it took everything I had and didn't have to continue watching the despicable tortures to the end. There are films that are disgusting but compelling, others that are disgusting but watchable up to a point. This is almost unbearable from the first viewing. Yes, art can disgust us and shock us. But this, almost two hours of cinematic crap, with absolutely no "deeper meaning" is the furthest removed thing from "art" I have ever seen, and anyone who appreciates real art should certainly not appreciate this.
To anyone who wants to watch this - certainly do so if you wish, and judge for yourselves. But just make sure you're not eating while doing so.
Ai no korîda (1976)
Nothing but bizarre porn
To put it simply, this film is most definitely not "art", and I'm surprised that so many people think it is. Simply having some nice sets or costumes does not make a film "artistic." This film has absolutely no plot, as much as it tries to. There is not one scene in the film in which the characters are not engaging in some sort of bizarre sexual activity - as the movie progresses, these sex scenes just become stranger and stranger.
Stringing together a bunch of explicit scenes does NOT tell a story - it's simply impossible to make an "artistic" film this way. I am at a loss as to how a film can possibly be art if 99% of it is only sex. Let's put it this way - if a person disguised themselves as, say a duck, then one would clearly be able to see that the creature in question was a human masquerading as a duck. It doesn't mean that they actually are one! Similarly, this film masquerades as art, making a lot of people fail to see what it really is - which is quite simply, dull, bizarre pornography.
Art can have explicit sex. A whole bunch of explicit sex scenes do not make art.
1/10
A View to a Kill (1985)
Don't believe the haters; this is a great Bond film
I am at a loss as to why so many people seem to dislike "A View to a Kill." In my personal opinion, I think it was a great Bond film. True, the girl was a little useless (though not as much as Mary Goodnight in "The Man with the Golden Gun...") - however, the rest of it was very entertaining to watch, not too long, not too short, and had a fantastic villain in Max Zorin.
The final scenes in Golden Gate Bridge were spectacular, and of course, the very last scene with Bond and Stacey was hilarious as always (Just cleaning up a few details, sir...).
A lot of people complain about Moore's age in this film. I find this to be one of the lamest complaints about Bond ever. Roger Moore looks very good for his age, and even at 57, he can still do the exact same stunts and go with the exact same, if not larger, number of girls. I see no problem with Moore's age at all.
Overall, this was a great, very entertaining and funny Bond film.
7/10
Never Say Never Again (1983)
I like it better than Thunderball!
This film is extremely underrated. It might not be an official Bond film, but it has better girls and a much better villain than Thunderball. When I heard that this film was extremely bad, I just had to judge for myself, and the truth is that I really don't know what everyone finds so bad about it. OK, so Sean Connery is a little greyer and a little chunkier, he's still Bond!
I think Kim Basinger made a great Bond girl, and Klaus Maria Brandauer was a fantastic villain, better than Adolfo Celi. There's nothing to dislike about this film - it might not be official, but in my opinion, it definitely qualifies as a Bond film.
9/10 stars.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
All right...
OHMSS was an "OK" film. There was nothing special about it, and I honestly thought that it dragged on for way too long. It was interesting to watch, but I also didn't think George Lazenby made a very good James Bond. He doesn't look the part, and his clothes are absolutely terrible. He's a good actor, and he acts the way Bond would, but the role just doesn't suit him. That's the main reason why I don't think that this film is anything other than OK. Diana Rigg was one of the good parts about it though, she portrayed the heroine very well in this film. Another good part was that it was interesting to see why Bond never fell in love again.
The ending was very sad, and I really managed to feel sorry for Bond and his poor wife that time. It almost made me cry. That was something I liked about it, but apart from that George Lazenby is nothing special. Blofeld was a good villain, I have no complaints about him, and Irma Bunt was sufficient.
Tracy Di Vicenzo was a very beautiful girl, but she would have been better off with Sean Connery!
5/10 - worth a watch, but only if you're bored.
Casino Royale (2006)
Good action film? Yes. Good Bond film? NO.
This film was awful. Firstly, Daniel Craig is a pathetic Bond. In the end he was actually willing to resign for a girl. James Bond would NEVER do that. He would never fall in love, I know that for a fact. Secondly, there are no gadgets in the film either. I expected there to be many more. The movie also dragged on for way too long, and it didn't get any more interesting either. It was boring from the first second, and it stayed that way until the end. From the first five minutes I was already begging for it to finish.
The story is extremely confusing and very difficult to follow, and the romance between Bond and Vesper seemed ridiculous because there was no chemistry between them at all.
Daniel Craig is not the James Bond I know, he's an impostor. Blond, unattractive, and most importantly he's weak and screams when he's being tortured, he doesn't try to escape in an ingenious way. And he doesn't give a damn about how he wants his Martini!
Casino Royale is a good action film in itself, but it is most definitely NOT a Bond film. If they hadn't tried to make it as one, it would have been great. It really is a shame.
I really don't see what all the fuss about this film is about. I wouldn't waste my time or my money with this.
Open Water (2003)
Not satisfactory
I recently rented this film because I thought it might be interesting. How wrong I was. It was dull, and there was no real point in it at all. A couple gets stranded in the ocean, they talk a little bit, they occasionally get attacked by some form of sea creature, and eventually the husband dies after a shark attack. And we're never quite sure what the wife's fate was.
That, in my opinion, is a ridiculous excuse for a film. I've seen the sequel to this, Adrift, and found it a bit better because there was a point to it. But this had no point and was very uninteresting. I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone unless you are really bored. Don't waste your time otherwise.
Premonition (2007)
Very confusing film, but quite good anyway
This film really confused me a lot. None of it was explained at the end, as it should have been. At the end it seemed like Linda CAUSED her husband's death, but how could she have if she didn't know that he was going to die? Or something like that?! If, at the end, everything was explained in some way, then I would have liked this film a bit more, but I think that finally it just gets so confusing that not even the director can figure it out. I'm sure no one explained it just because they weren't sure of what really happened, just like none of the audience is.
On the bright side, Sandra Bullock is very good in this part, it really suits her, and I think she did great in the film. It's actually Julian McMahon that I found a bit cold. It didn't seem like they had a good relationship in the film. But I think it was supposed to be that way, so it doesn't really matter that much. What really matters is all the plot holes in the film and every element that's left unexplained, that stopped me from rating this film any higher than a 6.
Overall, I recommend this film if you're interested in this type of thriller - the kind that has something to do with time, and living your life out of order, that kind of thing. Because I am, and that's why I watched it. Oh, and another good note about the film, I think at the end it really makes you think about what's important in your life, and not taking it for granted.
6/10 - pretty good.
Magnolia (1999)
I'm not impressed
I have to say I don't know what people see in this film. For one, it was WAY too long. It was more than three hours and by the end of it I was practically begging for it to finish. It's also very difficult to get into the plot. I didn't even understand what was going on at first, where the plot was. It just seemed like lots of people were wandering around on screen without reason.
Secondly, it had so many swear words in it that it had to be turned into an 18, which I found unnecessary. The film would have been so much better without all the bad words. Also, another thing I didn't understand was the frog rain near the end! What exactly was that supposed to signify? All the sadness that was going on? What exactly did it mean? I would have liked it if that, and all the various stories of all the characters were explained a little better.
I wouldn't waste my time with this 3-hour film, you'll regret it. It's not worth it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Awful
Let me first start by saying that I am not a fan of Roman Polanski films. I find them all incredibly dull and very very strange. And this one was no better. The plot was absolutely ridiculous and the ending was horrible. A woman has a baby that turns out to be Satan...what kind of "classic" horror film plot is this? Mia Farrow is a great actress, but eve she can't save this pathetic excuse for a psychological horror film. I don't care what others say about this film, but I hated it more than any of Polanski's films and it is most definitely not a classic in my eyes. It's all incredibly boring and I almost fell asleep twice while watching it. It was too long, and for the whole film you were just waiting for something more exciting to happen, but it didn't, just like it never does with any of Polanski's films.
1/10 - don't waste your time.
Repulsion (1965)
Not very impressive
This was rather boring to watch. The only thing I liked about it was the music. Roman Polanski is a strange, bizarre director. And it would be nice if they actually told us what had happened to Carol at the end. Did she die? Did she get taken to prison? What on earth happened??? There was nothing remotely exciting or suspenseful about this film, and it's overrated in my opinion. There's nothing special about it and some parts of it are rather disgusting.
This is the second time I have watched a Roman Polanski film, and I don't think I'm watching any more.
Bottom line: Don't bother.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Quite good - you can watch it with a significant amount of interest
Well well well, what do we have here? A second Psycho! OK, well not exactly, and I don't know what other people think but to me this movie has Psycho written all over it. And it was actually kind of OK. Brian De Palma really is Hitch's biggest fan. This film even has a (kind of!) recreation of the famous shower scene.
I didn't suspect for a moment that Michael Caine would be the killer - that's got to be the first case ever of the psychiatrist turning out to be the murderer! It was a good film, but of course it will never be enough to challenge Hitchcock's masterpiece.
6/10 - watchable
Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
A good, entertaining TV movie
I saw this movie when I rented it on DVD and I liked it a lot. I love everything connected with Psycho, so this movie really appealed to me.
Lots of people don't like the plot in the present day, with Norman and Connie, but I think it was very good. The only thing I found a bit strange was how easily Connie fell into Norman's arms a few seconds after he was about to knife her to death. Apart from that though, I liked that part, and also the part where he burns the house down.
I really liked the flashbacks with young Norman Bates, it really showed what his relationship with his (alive!) mother was like. She was really horrible, and also that stupid boyfriend of hers was even worse.
Anyway, this was a really good addition to the Psycho series, and even though no one can beat Hitchcock's masterpiece, this one was sufficient and watched with interest.
7/10
Psycho (1998)
Cinematic blasphemy
This movie was the worst remake I've ever seen in my life. Apart from being totally pointless, it was practically a copy of the original. If they had done something differently, maybe I would like it more, but this movie disgusted me and it does not reach even one third of the standard and the suspense of Hitchcock's immortal masterpiece.
The new shower murder made me feel sick and Anne Heche was acting like a prostitute the whole time. It seemed like she was flirting with everybody, even the cop who stops her. Vince Vaughn was giggling like an idiot, when it just came naturally for Anthony Perkins. And since when exactly did Norman turn into Master Bates??? Trying to match Anthony Perkins' flawless portrayal of Norman Bates was also pointless. You know from the minute that you see Vince Vaughn that the guy is so obviously deranged. And you probably will have a rough idea of what the ending will be like as well. They're going to haul nutjob back to the nuthouse where he so CLEARLY belongs!!!
Lila was way too aggressive, and it seemed like she was always angry. And what was she doing winking at Norman like that? Marion's boyfriend was really annoying and weird, and I don't see how he could wrestle Vince Vaughn to the ground, especially with Vince being so muscular.
The actors were a bunch of people basically playing dress-up, and everyone spoke way too fast. And you could also tell from the first second that Norman is crazy. Marion was dumb to stay at the motel.
This film is an insult to the Hitchcock name, or at the very least a failed experiment. Gus Van Sant has failed miserably on this one.
Do yourself a favour and buy the original where you can enjoy one and a half hours of suspense, scares and screeching violins and don't waste your money on trash like this.
God bless Hitchcock!
-1/10
Psycho III (1986)
Nowhere near as good as the original and worse than Psycho two
I must say, I was rather disappointed by this film. I thought that since it was directed by Anthony Perkins himself it would be good. But it turns out, Anthony should definitely stick to acting! The only parts in this film that I liked are the parts with Norman and Maureen, I thought they were very sweet. And also the parts where Norman's talking with Mother are all right. The rest of the film is not good enough.
Anthony Perkins makes this look like a cheap thriller, with too much blood and explicit scenes. Psycho 2 was really good, a very good addition to the original, and I thought that maybe this one would be even better, but it turns out it's definitely the worst of the Psycho series.
The beginning is promising, but the rest of it just goes from bad to worse. It had a few scenes that made me laugh (and that's a good thing about it), but the rest of it makes me think how much worse it is from Hitchcock's masterpiece.
See it if you have nothing else to do on a lazy Saturday afternoon! Otherwise, avoid it and go straight to Psycho 4.
4/10
Rope (1948)
A very good Hitchcock film
Another great film by Alfred Hitchcock! I think that this might just be one of his best ones. It's certainly one of the cleverest ones. It's set only in one room, and that's extremely clever, how did Alfred Hitchcock think of that? There have been movies that I've enjoyed slightly more than this one, for example Vertigo or Psycho, but This one was fantastic too. I think maybe it got a bit boring in places because no one ever really does anything much, but the acting is very good which keeps you engaged in the film. So, apart from that, there's very little to criticise.
This film will keep you guessing until the end, "Will they discover the body?" And the ending was brilliant too.
So, overall, I really liked it.
8/10.
Psycho II (1983)
Very confusing
This film, as you can see from the title of this review, was extremely confusing. I've watched it three times and I still can't quite figure out who the actual murderer is. Norman? Ms Spool? Mary and Lila??? There were a few things I enjoyed, but I would have liked a different ending. And the way they portray Lila in the film was also completely unsympathetic, and I couldn't feel sorry for her the way I did in Hitchcock's masterpiece.
There was a possible romance between Norman and Mary, but they didn't act on it. That wasn't something that particularly annoyed me, but it just made the movie more boring. Also Mary was a bit too young for Norman at that time.
All that business at the end about Norman's mother and Ms Spool being insane was a little far-fetched. Maybe a happy ending would have been better. Then we wouldn't need any more sequels, which included the awful Psycho III. They should have finished it there and then. One sequel is enough, especially for a movie like the original Psycho, which in my opinion should just be left alone in all its glory, and shouldn't have any sequels at all.
Overall I call this movie "OK". See it if you're bored.
5/10
Dead End (2003)
All right I suppose
Hmm...what can I say about this movie? It was not satisfactory enough for me to say that it was a good horror movie, however it is not awful enough for me to say that it was a horrible horror movie. It's somewhere in between.
The only thing that I really liked about it was the fact that is has a satisfactory ending, so different from the endings of other horror movies. I never expected it I must say. However, all this just because one girl has concussion was not really satisfactory. It seems as if the only point of the movie is this dream that Marion is having, and all this scary stuff that happens to them really makes the movie look rather ridiculous.
Does this movie have a point to it? Maybe. How about "don't take shortcuts as you could be killed!" Of course that's not true and I don't mean to discourage anyone from taking shortcuts! This movie didn't scare me, supernatural events don't scare me, but if you are scared easily by movies like this, then don't watch it. It could keep you awake for weeks.
The acting was quite good...you could really get into people's characters.
Overall, no Alfred Hitchock but all right!
The Shining (1980)
OK-ish movie - brilliant directing and with a great actor, but the rest is rather disappointing
Things I liked about this film: I give this movie 4/10 stars because the directing was brilliant, since it was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and also because Jack Nicholson is a very good actor and excellent with his role of Jack Torrance.
Things I didn't like: But apart from that, this movie fails to impress me. I think that overall it was quite a ridiculous excuse for a horror film. Lots of parts made me laugh, for example the bathroom scene with the young woman turning into the old woman was quite stupid.
This film was, I admit it, one of the scariest I have seen in a long time, but it just doesn't scare me quite as much as it might some other people who thought this was a better film.
The movie overdid it with all the ghosts and blood and that sort of thing. And the little boy getting all these visions was another ridiculous aspect of this film. The only interesting part was the end, it's nice to see how they're trying to escape, and the ending was kind of satisfactory. They escaped and he died, so what had happened those years ago was reversed, let's say, but still I think it would have worked better if (I can't believe I'm saying this!) the movie had followed the Amityville Horror's example and made Jack go sane again once he left the hotel.
The ending could have been improved by making Jack return to sanity again once he escaped from the hotel, and the spirits from the hotel were coming after the family or something like that. That would have worked much better and would have helped me to enjoy it more, but like I said, this film is not a good horror film and I do not enjoy thrillers with supernatural happenings involved in them. I much better prefer thrillers with actual murderers.
So, all in all, I only recommend this film for people who would like to get pretty freaked out, but if you're not in that kind of mood, or if you're not in the mood to watch a supernatural thriller, then don't watch this film. If you don't get scared easily by movies, and are like me, who think that supernatural thrillers are all rather pointless and stupid, then The Shining is not for you. It's not a "good" horror film, but if you do watch it, make sure you don't watch it alone!
The Last Horror Movie (2003)
All right...
This movie was, I think, simply "all right." It was suspenseful, you really wanted to see what happens next, and the ending that it came up with was very clever.
Too much violence and blood though, and can't match the days when horror movies didn't suck. Too bad.
The main actor was again "all right" but everyone else was quite wooden.
You should see it if you're bored and have nothing else to see, but apart from that, this is really nothing special and not some kind of a must-see.
Psycho (1960)
There have been lots of Psychos, but only one immortal masterpiece
This movie was by far the best horror movie I have ever seen in my life. I watched it for the first time a few months ago, and I got addicted to it and everything connected with it - I've even written some stories about it.
Alfred Hitchcock is a genius and in this movie he does not fail to show it. This movie has so many deeper meanings, it's impossible to list them all. Some people even think that in the scene where Norman walks down the hill to greet Marion and even though it's raining he doesn't have his umbrella open, is a sign that Norman is impotent! Well, I don't know about that, but it's possible! I loved the twist at the end, and that smile...it's stuck in my mind. The movie has so much suspense it's amazing. It will keep you guessing right until the end. And you can really sympathise with Norman while watching it...it really makes you think that he's innocent. In fact, he seems very sweet to me.
There is absolutely nothing bad about this film, and it is my all-time favourite film. Every person who likes watching a true classic horror film, this should be at the top of your list.
Shot in glorious black and white, the cinematography, music and suspense in this film are all filmed to perfection. I'm shocked Hitch didn't get any awards for this amazing film.
I saw the film in May, and I am now waiting with anticipation to read the novel! This movie is highly recommended, I am sure you will love it. Watch this before anything else!!! 11/10, but since this is not an option, I'll stick with ten! My all-time favourite film.
Don't forget: there are lots of imitations of Psycho, but there's only one masterpiece! The only decent attempt to "do a Hitchcock" has been Brian De Palma's "Dressed To Kill," which is decent, but no one will ever match The Master.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Mediocre and slightly unsatisfactory
This movie was creepy and not as bad as some I have seen, but still it was far from what I call a "good" horror movie. It was basically just about a boy who sees dead people, and the twist at the end was rather confusing.
The actors are all a bit depressing, and maybe the movie is supposed to be like that or something, but M. Night Shyamalan has made much better movies than this, and I think the ghost scenes were all a little too exaggerated.
This movie would have worked a lot better if it was a psychological thriller, not with supernatural events, like it could have turned out that Cole's condition might have had something to do with his mind, like he thinks that he is seeing dead people, or something like that, something similar to what Gothika is based on.
This movie is OK to watch, and can get a little scary in places, but I still think it could have been a lot better without all these supernatural events actually being for real, it would have helped me to enjoy it a lot more, and the ending could have been a much better one, for example Malcolm helps Cole but realises that he's not actually dead and then gets reconciled with his wife or something. (I know this sounds confusing, but bear with me because I'm not a very good critic!). Anyway,I would like it if he talked with his wife at the end and then got reconciled with her, and it ended out that he's not dead. I would have liked that much better.
OK - 4/10 stars but I've seen much better
Signs (2002)
OK movie...good for a lazy Sunday afternoon
I rented this movie a few weeks ago and I thought it was quite good. OK, so it was not the best of horror movies, I've seen much better, but it was still a good attempt.
The suspense really builds up a lot towards the end while the aliens are getting closer, but one thing that was not so good about the movie was the ending. It was not quite so satisfactory as I had expected it to be. The only thing that happened was the father trying to save the boy who had asthma, and I don't think that was really enough. It was just sort of trying to show that God saved him or something like that, but the movie did not manage that very well, because technically it was not really God that saved him, and it just showed the family doing things to try and save him. That's what I think. Anyway, it was an OK movie because at least it has an ending! I think Signs is trying to ask you what kind of person we are, if you are a person who believes in God and miracles and things like that, or if you're the kind of person who believes that people just get lucky. I think the movie gives out that message in a pretty good way, and I congratulate Mr Shyamalan for that.
Overall, it was an "average" movie that is worth watching and quite enjoyable.
5/10
Gothika (2003)
A very good psychological thriller
Gothika was a great horror movie. Halle Berry was brilliant as Miranda Grey, and I also liked Robert Downey Jr's character as the doctor who wanted to have an affair with her.
The reason I liked this movie is because the theme was a psychological one, and the involvement of ghosts and other similar things in the movie was extremely limited, and the director does manages to involve ghosts in such a way that it does not make the movie look ridiculous, and I congratulate him/her for that.
I think that the stupid thrillers are the ones that people laugh at. You are not supposed to laugh at something that isn't funny, and if you do, it just goes to show how ridiculous it really is. For example, I laughed plenty in Scary Movie 3. I cannot imagine a David Zucker type film of Gothika, and I would never laugh at it.
This movie has a lot of suspense that builds up more and more throughout the movie, and it will make you ask hundreds of questions, "Why is she seeing ghosts?" "Why did she kill her husband?" "Is she really crazy?" and that sort of thing. It will make you want to continue watching and make you deeply involved in the movie. It will keep you guessing until the end, where (luckily!) all these questions are answered.
Gothika succeeds in making people scared because it has scary things to do with normal things, and it does not involve anything that makes the movie look stupid. This horror movie surpasses many that I have seen and heard about in recent months.
I would love to see more horror movies like this one, but currently directors just seem ignorant and prefer to make supernatural/stupid movies, such as Silent Hill, that will make you so confused that by the end you will be wondering, "What the hell just happened?" While Gothika makes you confused but in a good way, in a psychological way, and it succeeds in playing tricks with your brain and making you scared in plenty of places. It's been long since a movie has managed to do that to me.
I watched it a few months ago, and at first I wasn't so sure I understood it, but then I got the true meaning of it but I soon understood it.
The only (slightly) bad thing in the movie was that maybe they could have found a different way for Miranda to figure out who the murderers are, not by a ghost, but then that would not even make Gothika a proper movie. Apart from that, there's very little to criticise.
I recommend this title! 8/10 stars
The Amityville Horror (2005)
Rather a disappointment
I rented this movie a few weeks ago thinking that it was going to be scary. Unfortunately, it was not scary, and I was rather disappointed by it. There were plenty of scenes that caused me to laugh instead of getting scared, for example the scene with the babysitter in the closet and the little girl, what was up with that?
All this movie concentrated on doing was making scary and supernatural scenes, which resulted in making the movie look rather stupid, and the plot not anything much. The only part I truly liked was the beginning, which explained what happened, because it was realistic. I didn't like the rest of the movie because it was unrealistic and ridiculous, and it doesn't have much of a plot.
There are also a lot of unnecessary scenes, for example the sex scene near the beginning and then the little girl hanging from the noose - there was no need to put that scene in the movie, and it would have been much better without some of these scenes, or at least replacing them with some decent ones. And why do scary things happen when the clock strikes 3:15? Why not midnight or something?
Also, there is a lot of blood and gore involved in the movie, for example the creepy guy in the bathroom and the little boy, and then the blood running from the tap. I would have been much more able to enjoy this movie if there were not so many unrealistic and gory happenings.
The ending was rather unsatisfactory. Yes, the family did manage to escape from the house, but it doesn't mention what happened next. Anyway, they didn't lift the curse in any way, so it will now terrorise the next family living there. It would have been much better if something had happened to lift the curse in some way.
Watch this movie if you have nothing else to do, but it's rather a disappointment. I call it silly, or to be nice, mediocre. This is far from the best horror movies and I do not recommend it.
Things to praise - a very good beginning and interesting to see how they're trying to escape, but that's about it.
2/10 stars.