zaheer69 Reviews

Shockumentary (2015 Video)

Maybe the worst movie I have ever seen

[1/10 · 9 December 2023]

I only know of this movie because I know the guy who owned the video store seen in the film. He showed me his copy of the film and... wow. Probably the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Or at the very least in the top 5. I feel like my biggest issue with this film is the astonishingly short runtime. I have a hard time even calling this a "movie". While it is true that there is no set minimum runtime, movies generally are 90 minutes (an hour and a half) long. This movie only lasts for 70 minutes. And that is counting several minutes of trailers at the beginning and ending of the film, as well as an intro and outro from a sort-of Elvira parody called "Grindhouse Ghoulia". This runtime also includes end credits that move slower than any other end credits I have ever seen in my life. It was clear to me that the director, Dustin Ferguson, attempted to drag this turkey out as long as possible so it would feel more like an actual movie. If you ignore the trailers and snail's pace end credits the movie is only about 60 minutes long. The pacing of the film is also incredibly boring and the story is thin at best. Here is the major scenes of the film and roughly how long they last:

**SPOILERS**

The opening shows two characters at a fair for 5 minutes. At this point, Jennifer is kidnapped. After Jennifer's boyfriend hangs up a bunch of fliers to find her and we get a brief introduction to our characters, the two male leads go to the video store for 5 minutes. The two female leads then go to the grocery store for another 5 minutes, and the four leads party for like 7 minutes (while listening to the dumbest song ever and playing with a barrel of monkeys). The four leads watch a shockumentary (all reused footage from other shockumentaries) for 11 minutes. After seeing Jennifer die on the tape, our heroine (I guess), Sky, has a dream/nightmare for 5 minutes. Then after a pointless call to her mom, Sky goes on a walk for another 5 minutes. The two male leads return the movie and ask if it's a snuff film. Big surprise, they don't get an answer. But a shady customer tells them to meet him at the bar for the truth. After this, Jennifer's boyfriend kills himself. Our 4 leads go to the bar for like 5 minutes, where they get drugged. Then they wake up in the basement and get killed in a snuff film. We see a couple guys renting the sequel, "Shockumentary II". The end! Roll the incredibly slow credits.

This film was barely an hour long but I felt like I was watching it for days. The characters were unlikable, had no traits at all, really. I didn't care about any of them at all. There were a couple of scenes that were shot and scored kind of interestingly (Sky's nightmare and walk scene), but even those scenes were too long and ultimately pointless. Everything else was painful to watch. Do not recommend. Giving one star for the video store in the film and the two scenes that showed potential. I also found out that apparently the repetitive song and the video store scene from this movie were later copy-pasted into other Dustin Ferguson films. Nice to see that he's making Bruno Mattei-esque rip offs of his own movies.

The Mighty (1998)

One of the most underrated movies of all time. Poignant, funny and sad. All around great.

[10/10 · 3 April 2014]

The Mighty is a relatively simple film. It involves the strong friendship between a small boy with Morquio syndrome and a large boy who had a killer for a father. Together the two grow in friendship and empathy for one another.

I could go on and on for the specifics of the plot but I don't really need to. The plot is simple but complex. Here that is a good thing. It's about two misfits that go through good and bad times. This film is truly marvelous. It's a rare film that can touch your heart in a way that most cannot. Really The Mighty is just about life and what you make it.

The Mighty is based off one of my favorite books: "Freak the Mighty" by Rodman Philbrick which got an adequate sequel, Max the Mighty. I honestly think the movie is superior to the book. The film has a fantastic script and an amazing cast. What really surprised me was Sharon Stone's performance. She really can act and it's a shame that she isn't in more films like this.

Anyway, just find a copy of this film and check it out. It's a truly great movie. Every time I see it I laugh, I cry and I learn what it means to live. I think that this and 2004's Man on Fire are two of the most underrated movies of all time. This film is truly great and one of my favorite movies. Just find it and watch it.

Alien Apocalypse (2005 TV Movie)

Surprisingly a ton of fun. Perhaps the best Sci-Fi original movie.

[6/10 · 27 March 2014]

Okay, first of all, this movie isn't good. The script is nothing special, the acting is pretty horrid (with the exception of the two leads), the effects are pretty atrocious, the weapons silly and the direction poor.

But hey, it's a Sci-Fi original movie. And a pretty damn good one at that. It must be expected that this film will have plenty of flaws about it just because it is a Sci-Fi channel movie. After all, this is the same studio responsible for Sharknado, Sharktopus, Boa Vs. Python, Lake Placid 2, Lake Placid 3 and more atrocious films. However, they have made decent movies before. Kaw wasn't terrible, The Insatiable was pretty creative and Sabretooth is a guilty pleasure of mine. There have only been a few of these Sci-Fi Channel original movies that have been decent. I mean, they're all so horrid only a few are remotely enjoyable. I think all of these movies were filmed in Bulgaria (which is only famous for producing bad movies), so all of them have bad acting because the actors are foreign and don't know English so their lines had to be dubbed over in post-production. This explains most of the bad acting in this movie. The effects are obviously bad because of the small budget but as bad as they are, trust me, they could have been WAY worse or even CGI, which is as bad as it gets when Sci-Fi gets involved.

The plot of this film is fairly unique, and Bruce Campbell absolutely steals the show. It's certainly fun to watch and even though it is no masterpiece, this film works as a fun way to spend an evening mainly because it doesn't take itself too seriously but also wants to tell an entertaining and enjoyable story. It's worth a watch, or maybe even a few. Like I said, just don't expect a masterpiece like The Godfather or Citizen Kane. For what Alien Apocalypse is, a Sci-Fi Channel original movie, it's not half bad.

Gravity (2013)

GRAVITY is amazing! Don't listen to the haters!

[10/10 · 21 November 2013]

What can I say what people haven't said already? This film certainly lives up to the hype!! What I cannot grasp is how there are people who actually do not like this film. They argue that it is only good for the effects. These people are surprisingly common. Trust me, DO NOT LISTEN. They just want to tear down something that so many people love because they are wannabe critics.

You really have to see this one in 3D or the front row of IMAX in order to get the full experience, but you feel like you are IN space while watching it, especially in 3D. This film is absolutely unbelievable. The effects are breathtaking, the music shatteringly climactic, and the acting compelling. I just can't say more about this film other than the fact that it takes a simple tale of survival and adds so much drama and action to it.

If you want character development that is said through long-winded dialogue and takes the whole film, watch the Godfather. This film is able to show us who these people are and get us to care enough that we do not want to see them die an excruciating death in the airless vacuum of outer space without spending time telling us what we already know. Yeah, I know character development is important, but we already have this development and any more would just hinder the film's pacing.

While it is true that George Clooney pretty much just plays suave George Clooney in a spacesuit, a lot of these moronic "critics" argue that George Clooney's character was "too calm". In case they didn't know, NASA only selects the very best people to be astronauts. Look up how astronauts actually react in a crisis. They stay calm so they can figure a way out of it. Ryan Stone was NOT an astronaut. She was a medical engineer that invented a scanning device used on the Hubble Space Telescope. It is stated clearly in the film that this was her first time in space and she had only been there for a week, so naturally she would be freaking out. Sorry, but these people find stuff to criticize and they cannot do it right.

Of course, I would have done certain things differently, such as having the entire movie take place in the vacuum rather than space stations, but I suppose things had to keep moving for the sake of fluent pacing. Not that I blame the filmmakers for this, but the film could have been a lot more terrifying than it turned out to be. The film seemed to run on more things going wrong at an alarming rate rather than the slow, terrifyingly impending doom I was expecting. Again, not that this is a bad thing, I just see a different way to make a space film darker and more unforgiving and hope to do this someday.

This is a film so complex and breathtaking that it must be seen to be believed. The details are intricate and loving. Every time I learn more about this film, I find something new to adore. The fact that the writers were inspired by Spielberg masterpieces like Duel and Jaws to create a compelling film that took place in a single location or the fact that the entire film was intricately choreographed since the actors were literally acting in front of a green screen just makes me wonder how complex it must have been to make this film. And do you know what that tells me? That tells me that the filmmakers CARED. They actually wanted to work hard to do a risky gamble of a film just because they wanted to do something that had not been done before to fulfill their visions. I can't imagine pitching this to a studio, which just gives me more respect for how this film was put together. The 3D is stunning and surprisingly doesn't exploit the use of 3D technology. This is coming from the guy who hates anything 3D. Let's face it. It was a stupid, cheap gimmick back then and it's a stupid, expensive gimmick now. But not for Gravity. This film uses 3D as a tool to get you invested and make you feel like you are there. Most 3D films just sell themselves out for cheap shots of things coming at the camera obnoxiously to constantly remind you that the film is in 3D. Not Gravity. This film is far too classy for that.

Alfonso Cuaron once said that most movies can be seen with your eyes cosed and you will hear the entire film. This is one of the major reasons he wanted to see a picture like Gravity, to show people how it felt to see the very first movie in a nickelodeon, that movies don't have to be just passable entertainment. Movies can be an experience that requires many of the senses to truly respect and understand. This film is living proof that cinema isn't dead. If future films are as great as Gravity, there is a hell of a lot more to look forward to! Time Magazine once said that Gravity shows us the glory of cinema's future. Since the only good films to come out in the last decade or so are children's films or films that were based on true events or books, films didn't take a lot of creativity to come up with, so I wholly agree with Time. Gravity is a film that dared to show us something we had never seen before. Even if no more films come out that dare to do something different and put effort into something that isn't a boring remake or derivative drama, I can just keep watching Gravity with hope restored that filmmakers in the future still care.

And that's just fine with me.

GO SEE IT.

Home Alone: The Holiday Heist (2012 TV Movie)

Awful, but at least more effort was put in than 4.

[2/10 · 14 November 2013]

What can I really say about this film? The kid is stupid (he didn't even know he had to pay at a hardware store) and annoying, the entire plot revolves around ghosts (?) and overall the film was pretty much painful to watch. Luckily I had friends there so we could play MST3K and ridicule the film's stupidity. This film is only really fun if you are drunk or prepared to laugh at it. I would go into a rant about how awful this flick is, but it's so forgettable and ridiculous that I don't have much to say. What I will say, though, is that it at least is a better effort than 4, but it's still a God-awful movie and one that deserves to be quickly forgotten and buried in an unmarked grave.

...Stick with the first three.

Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)

The best of all John Hughes's films. A classic comedy.

[10/10 · 24 September 2013]

Sadly, John Hughes has been typecast as a "teen angst" filmmaker, with the overrated 16 Candles and Pretty in Pink. Among the best of his films are Home Alone and The Breakfast Club, but they still make John Hughes look like an immature stereotype. Sadly, the "brat pack" films were what defined comedies of the 1980s, while films like A Fish Called Wanda, Clue and this one, remained underlooked.

At some point in his career, Hughes must have realized that he was better than the films he was confined to, so he decided to make an adult-oriented film. That turned out to be, Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

What a fantastic movie this is! Spawning so many inferior imitators and numerous clichés, this movie was and still is comic gold. The scene at the hotel, going the wrong way down the interstate and, of course, the car rental scene, have become staples in American culture.

Hilarious comedy, superb drama and ground truth - few movies would even dare to try and combine these themes. Planes, trains and automobiles does, and it succeeds brilliantly. Martin and Candy deliver stellar performances that work at all of these levels. Definitely one of the best movies ever, and vastly underrated. The real strength of the movie is that just below the surface, the chemistry of the two leads. The two can be hilarious and heartwarming at the same time, and some parts are genuinely hilarious, others genuinely tragic. The ending of this film brought tears to my eyes. PTAA is a drama and a comedy, but the drama is so subtle that you don't notice it at first. Unlike other "dramadies" which smother the film in drama and ultimately fall flat on their face, PTAA is the real deal.

I could go and sum up the entire film for you, but I can't do that. This is a film that must be experienced. And since everyone else has either ratted out the ending or described the plot to a T, there's no need for my involvement, so that's that. John Candy gives his best performance here (and his personal favorite), going from gut busting hilarity to somber loneliness the next scene. It's truly an amazing performance. Steve Martin gives another great performance, as a man so consumed with cheap success that he lets it control his life.

The fact that this film takes place at Thanksgiving is no coincidence. The whole movie is about not taking your life for granted, as Martin's character is doing. Candy's character has little yet he is one of the happiest people you'll ever meet. At the end of the film, Martin's character learns that he has to appreciate what he has before it is gone, and Del even remarks "You're a lucky guy, Neal.", to which Martin responds "I know."

PTAA is a simply hilarious comedy as well as a superb drama. Might I also add that the film's soundtrack is marvelous, and only helps this film to succeed brilliantly. Definitely one of the best movies ever, and vastly underrated.

Swindle (2013 TV Movie)

This movie was.... horrifying.

[1/10 · 24 August 2013]

There are some adaptations that can get away with omitting and changing some parts from the book it is based on. For example, Jurassic Park, I Am Legend and Jaws make pretty major changes from the source material but does so in a fashion that maintains the overall structure, style and message. Gordon Korman's "Swindle" one of my absolute favorite books, but the adaptation of Swindle is horrendous. This film is by far the worst film adaptation I have EVER seen. Not only was Swindle one of the best damn books ever written, but everything in the book worked in a way that made total sense. The movie barely retains the structure of the book it is based on. This would be forgivable if Swindle was 400 pages long, like Jurassic Park or the Lord of the Rings. Obviously you need to omit some material. BUT Swindle was a modest length children's book, so why this movie felt the need to make ridiculous amounts of unreasonable and senseless changes to the PERFECT book. I'm not some twelve year old writing this review, and I'm not acting like everything Gordon Korman wrote was a masterpiece, but when Korman got it right, he got it right. Why even make an adaptation of one of the greatest children's novels ever made when you won't do it right? I'm sixteen nearing my seventeenth birthday and I can firmly say that Swindle is one of the greatest children's books ever written. It knows its audience, has a great structure, original plot, refrains from clichés, flamboyant, developed characters and a realistic method of retrieving the card. This film has neither the charisma of the novel nor its intelligence.

EXAMPLES: 1) In the book, S. Wendell actually fools them into selling the card to him by explaining that it is a worthless replica. In the film, they need as MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN GET because Ben (not Griffin) is moving to Montana. Also for some reason a hole is punched into a wall and they need cash fast to cover the costs. So when they sell it to Swendell not only is it painfully obvious to our ignoramus protagonists (in the book they were intelligent and likable) that Swendell is lying but he later actually admits that, get this, HE WAS LYING!!! He then raises the price from $10 to a shattering sum of $350. Obviously knowing that Swendell can't be trusted, our protagonists cleverly look up the price of the card and discover its true value, right? WRONG. They, despite knowing it is worth more than Swendell said, they ACTUALLY SELL IT TO HIM. In the book our protagonists were intelligent and only were fooled because S. Wendell was confident and actually sounded like he knew what he was talking about. 2) One of the biggest changes comes from making Griffin from a regular whiz-kid into a suave and stuck-up cool kid. Also, Ben's dad is the inventor and Ben (whose narcolepsy is taken out) is the one moving. Also instead of being a practical fruit picker for farmers, the invention turns out to be a lame extending arm made for lazy people who can't get their ass off the couch to turn off the lights or grab the remote. The characters are also made to be in their late teens as opposed to middle schoolers in the book. Swindell is also made to be an incompetent and irrational monster (he pushed a nun down a steep hill) as opposed to the selfish and sneaky character of the book who was too intelligent to do something like that. The character of the book was also a great liar whereas the character of the film is such a terrible liar that anyone with an IQ over 40 would realize they were being screwed over. The character's names, genders, specialties and dialogue are changed beyond belief but perhaps the BIGGEST flaw is when they change the final heist from S. Wendell's house to a CROWDED EXHIBIT HALL. Instead of being a fresh and suspenseful heist from a house in the middle of the night it goes from being a predictable heist in a crowded hotel ballroom. 3)There are THREE Call Me Maybe references. In the final scene, Darren and Savannah sing Call Me Maybe. What was the point of this? Nothing, nothing at all. But while the book will still hold up in three hundred years, the movie will be dated. 4) The ending of the book taught us that money doesn't matter as long as you have friends. Here they sell the card and each of the talentless group members actually get $25,000. The movie literally spat on the book.

To say I was disappointed by this film is an understatement. And you may criticize me for comparing the two works but think of it this way: Perfection cannot be topped unless you are going to at least try to replicate the original. This film DOESN'T EVEN TRY. A childish, predictable, preposterous, unrealistic, rushed and overall boring film that tried to capitalize on one of the greatest books for children ever written. Did you like the Cat in the Hat? If so, this film is probably for you. But if you DIDN'T because a simple morality tale from Dr. Seuss was superior to Mike Myers in a cat suit, you WOULDN'T like this slapstick bullshit film adaptation, mainly because THERE IS NO STRUCTURE. It happens SO FAST and there is no challenge for our protagonists. I barely realized this was based off Swindle, because it was so untrue to the book (which is a good thing if done correctly) but it was childish and mind-numbing to watch. I wish this movie hadn't been made. Gordon Korman and anyone over the age of six would HATE this movie for not even trying to relate to its target audience or tell the story in an effective and suspenseful manner, as the book did so well.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

We Need to Talk About why this movie is all about style and no substance

[5/10 · 10 April 2013]

My mother rented this movie because she thought it would be a scary movie. I watched it with her, although I had reservations as soon as I saw the title. Movies about the one psychotic child have always had excellent titles, like The Omen, The Bad Seed, or Rosemary's Baby, but this title was bland and unimaginative. It sparked no interest in me and rather seemed to be the title of a screwball comedy about parenting. And maybe this is a nitpick, but it wouldn't bother me so much if they actually TALKED ABOUT KEVIN! The dad is totally clueless. The mom knows of Kevin's true nature, but does she try to convince anybody? Nope. She just waits until a massive tragedy happens. Hmm, maybe if you had actually talked about Kevin, this wouldn't have happened.

While watching the film, I noticed that the entire perspective was told through choppy flashbacks. For the entire first half of the movie I had no idea what was going on. This film is trying to be artsy and further the director's (who also wrote this piece of trash, shocker!) career. I absolutely loathe films that do this. They don't focus on the story, only how interestingly complex they can tell the story. And this doesn't further the story, it only muddles it, because you're too distracted by the direction style and wondering why this director hasn't done more for herself. I quote from the director's Wikipedia page: "They (her films) are low on dialog and explicit story exposition, and instead use images, vivid details, music and sound design to create their unsettling worlds." This proves my point. It's trying to be artistic, not tell a story. There are reviews who say that this film is a portrait of a deteriorating mind, but it isn't. This film portrays Kevin as bad to the bone from the day he is born, which is not only preposterous, but also proves that this film knows nothing about what a deteriorating state of mind is. You aren't born insane, nor do you become insane overnight. It takes years of pressure on a fragile person. I guess you could argue that Kevin has Asperger syndrome, but this is not elaborated on. Also, a child with bipolar disorder or Asperger's does not hate one parent but love the other. This just proves how random and confusing this film is. It isn't trying to portray a deteriorating mind-frame, it's trying to exploit it, portraying Kevin as "evil" from day one.

Let's compare this to a favorite of mine, The Shining. The character of Jack Torrance isn't portrayed as evil, just an unhappy man who is fed up with his uneventful life. The Shining doesn't create a madman, it reveals him. He's already half-crazy, he just needs the final push. In this film, the kid is crazy from day one. No development, no questions, no hints to why, just crazy. And this film expects us to buy that. The Shining is grounded in reality, which makes it so unsettling. There is a part in The Shining where Jack talks to his son about how much he loves him, but you know he doesn't. They are just cold, empty words without affection. That is truly disturbing, and simple atmosphere-driven scenes like that are really what portray a mind unraveling. This film has none of those complex and disturbing scenes. Just pretentious scenes of a mother worrying about her son. That isn't scary or tragic. It's just boring and further proves my point about how this movie isn't trying to accomplish anything new.

The director apparently feels that she can just rehash an old story without caring about how it turns out, just as long as it's cool to watch, right? The Shining was a landmark in visuals as well, but here's the difference between the two eerily similar films, The Shining actually uses these visuals to its advantage. They have something to do with the story, they further the atmosphere. The visuals in this film, while thought-provoking, do nothing for the story at all. Like I said, they're just there to look cool. Nothing more, nothing less. If you really examine how much development the mother and son characters have, it is little to none. This film isn't about them, now, is it? It's about how interestingly we can PORTRAY their relationship in shambles.

I loathe this movie. An interesting premise that is both tragic and harrowing, that is completely undermined by a weak script and a self-important director. If you like psychological thrillers like The Shining or Session 9 that TRULY exist to explore a deteriorating mind-frame, skip this. It doesn't even try to deliver on that, and only exists to further its own conceited "style". This is more of an exploitation film about bad seed children than a study of them. I only give this a five because of the masterful acting of Tilda Swenton and Ezra Miller as the two leads. They do the best they can with a weak script, and John C. Reilly even manages to give a realistic and surprisingly serious performance. Kudos to the acting. The rest is artistic garbage that tries to be a subtle and unnerving, but falls flat on its face.

I agree with critic Richard Brody, who said it: "masquerades as a psychological puzzle but is essentially a horror film full of decorous sensationalism."

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

Better than the first one? No. Just... no.

[6/10 · 4 November 2012]

The blazing suspense of Die Hard is to this day nearly unmatched by any other action movie. I think that it's the best action movie ever made. In the sequel, McClane fights off terrorists that have taken over an airport. The very next day, I rented it. And... it wasn't as good. Maybe that's because it was more of a psychological form of suspense with a race-against-the-clock feel, which is what the original did not rely on. Despite its flaws and not as good of pace as the original classic, it was still a great sequel with a great premise. And then when my dad said that DIE HARD 3 was probably the best, I had to see it. It took me a while, but I finally got around to seeing it, and I... didn't love it! DIE HARD 3 is seriously overrated. I came into it with gigantic expectations, and I came out slightly disgruntled. Let me explain why. DIE HARD 3 features a hungover John McClane, who is called by a mysterious bomber named "Simon" who tells him that he will use liquid binary explosives to blow up various locations around the city of New York, and if he doesn't want that to happen, then he'll have to play his twisted version of the game "Simon Says". This is ingenious, but I feel that they did not focus enough on the games, instead focusing on what the games were created for.

John is forced to do various humiliating, difficult, and strenuous tasks to save innocent lives and this is where the film needlessly introduces Samuel L. Jackson, McClane's partner, (for some reason) and the two fight for the whole movie. Jackson does do a great job in this film, like always, but... how is that charming? It isn't. Yet people seem to say that their chemistry is "superb", but pretty much for the whole movie they're arguing about race issues when there's a psychotic bomber on the loose. Simon, played by Jeremy Irons, is amazing and by far the best part of the film. Halfway through the film, it is revealed that Simon is actually Hans Gruber's brother. Hans Gruber, who was played by Alan Rickman, was the main villain of DIE HARD. This is ingenious, since Jeremy Irons both looks and sounds like Rickman. Irons has the charisma and chops to live up to Rickman, but his lines are silly, and he can't even measure up to Rickman's amazing performance. This isn't Irons' fault, but he isn't given much to work with.

Simon reveals to McClane that he didn't even like his brother, so revenge isn't his motive. He actually only wants a bunch of gold from The Federal Reserve bank and is using the bombs to distract the police force while his massive army )?) and his bizarre girlfriend, I think, steal it. This is also pretty clever, unfortunately it is never explained what exactly he wants this for and the audience is left to assume that the Gruber brothers must just be gambling addicts. It is very unexpected to put a twist on the whole 'revenge' scenario, but, again, this film even has vengeance in the title. Besides, there has to be motivation as to why Simon wants all this money. This is a very complex plan, doesn't he have some higher reasoning for this heist? I think another reviewer put his motives best: He wants revenge for his brother! Oh no, he's just a terrorist. Wait, he's stealing the gold. No, he's going to sink the gold. Oops, no, he's taken the gold and killed his boss... and apparently wants to buy a country? But the two discover Simon's true motives and try to stop the dastardly Simon from going through with his ambiguous plans. And the ending just comes out of nowhere. It isn't spectacular, groundbreaking creative, or awe inspiring like the other film's endings. It's just sort of over, which is weird, because the film goes from having way too much action to too little.

What happened to Die Hard With a Vengeance? It had such a brilliant premise! Well, that's anyone's question, but the bigger question is why everyone loves it. It does have some really good scenes and a superb direction (John McTiernan who did 1). Otherwise, it's just a confusing mess. I could barely follow the last half of the movie at all, because it was so poorly written and explained. The cinematography wasn't as good as its predecessors, either. There's no sense of claustrophobic wonder that the other two did so well. It certainly is more creative than 2, but it is so poorly executed that it can't be considered more than a wasted opportunity.I guess I can admire McTiernan for trying to take the series in a different direction that makes you think, rather than mindless action sequences in a building. But unless you're good at math or riddles, you won't get what's going on until after a second viewing or so. In the end, it's just too crowded, unclear, and empty to be a worthy sequel to either of its predecessors.

Not saying that I hate it, because it is a great movie, like all the others, but it really takes a couple viewings to appreciate and understand the film, and that is definitely a sign of weakness for this. Go see it, but don't get discouraged if you get confused, because it's bound to happen. Definitely worth a viewing, especially if you're a Die Hard fan. You won't be disappointed with it, but you do have to watch it a couple times to understand it fully. This isn't a bad thing, it just isn't as effective as its predecessors. Still, the premise is very clever, and I suppose that overrides the film's flaws, especially if you can make sense of them with a second viewing. Probably better than Die Hard 2 overall, but it has muddled pacing.

Dante's Peak (1997)

James Bond from GoldenEye and Sarah Connor from Terminator team up and to stop a gigantic volcano

[7/10 · 10 February 2012]

Okay,tell me, that just by reading that brief summary, that you INSTANTLY want to see that movie. I know I did. It all started when I saw The Poseidon Adventure. Then I saw the Towering Inferno. On that disc was a copy of Volcano. I watched it and thought it was fantastic. Tommy Lee Jones was cool and the special effects were pretty great. So, I bought this used for half off and it completely blew (ha ha ha) Volcano out of the water. Here's why. First off, Dante's Peak skillfully builds up tension and interest by slowly introducing the characters. Dante's Peak has been criticized for being too "slow", although there is a volcanic eruption in the first scene.

Basically, there's this geologist (Pierce Brosnan) who travels to fictional Dante's Peak, Washington to oversee the local "dormant" volcano. The mayor (Linda Hamilton) is happy since the town has recently been named one of the most desirable places to live in America. This hot spring is turned into acid because of the volano (No joke, that's possible) and the geologist saves the mayor's kid. The mayor is grateful, and the geologist slowly bonds with the family. However, when the geolosist realizes that the mountain is giving off sulfur dioxide and that it is a ticking bomb, ready to explode. The geologist and the mayor both order an evacuation, but not everyone's exactly too eager to leave, as there is no proof that the volano is ready to blow. But it does, and it creates lahars (mudslides), tephra (airborne rocks the size of semi trucks), pyroclastic flows (gigantic clouds of heavy, superheated, pressurized gases), and ash (little shards of glass). Can they escape Dante's Peak, before the volcano buries them all? Okay, there are a few pros about this film. One, the special effects are awesome. There isn't too much lava, so it looks completely realistic, the tephra looks like it is coming at me, and the pyroclastic flows actually look like they are leaping off the screen. The acting is superb, not over-done, not under-done. Pierce Brosnan gets the perfect amount of root, sympathy, and depth. Hamilton gets the same. The problem is the kids. They are so whiny, stupid, and idiotic that they make me laugh. But other than that, the acting is superb. The plot is something we've all seen before, the "unexpected" romance, but this film, unlike Twister or Speed, actually makes it work. They actually build up to it, they seem perfect together, and they are pretty realistic characters.

Okay, sure it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I loved it.

Worth a watch.

Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid (2004)

Sssssssuperb!

[8/10 · 9 December 2011]

I honestly can't understand why so many people hate this movie. Sure, not very many people die, in Anacondas, all but three were left! But this film spaces out the deaths perfectly to build suspense. Another criticism is that anacondas and tigers aren't native to Borneo. But, if you were to take movies like independence day and Jurassic park for inaccuracies and plot holes, you would have much longer lists than anacondas. This film remains one of my favorite movie purchases, at 3 dollars, along with toy story 2, which I got for only a dollar, because it was missing the bonus disc. But the only reason I really wanted to see this movie was because I saw an ad for dish that advertised it. When I finally saw anaconda several years later, I remembered the ad and rented it. (Actually, it isn't an official sequel.) Although the cover was neat, the tagline and the title were cheesy. However, upon watching, I noticed that the director was Dwight h. Little, the man behind how awesome Halloween 4 was. He made it realistic, but other films, 5 and 6 for example, don't feel like the setting is Illinois. The acting was superb, with a cast playing cringing and squeamish executives, scientists and researchers. The special effects are awesome, and in my opinion, this film is better than anaconda because it is more believable and suspenseful.

Okay, in my opinion, there are few creature features worth watching. Jaws, jaws 2, deep blue sea, python, anaconda, abominable, arachnophobia, the Jurassic park trilogy, red water and the carnosaur movies (guilty pleasures) and anacondas: the hunt for the blood orchid.

New Nightmare (1994)

Why does this have such a high rating???

[6/10 · 22 November 2011]

Okay, first of all, let me say that I am not one of those people who doesn't "get" movies if they aren't "edge of your seat". For example, 2001: A Space Odyssey could have been good, but it just was too boring and had no explanation for the monolith and not enough focus on HAL 9000, the freaky antagonist supercomputer. Basically, most of the movie was shots of space with classical music. And everyone tells me that I didn't "get" it. No, I can't get it because there is no explanation, and it's too boring! BUT, I did love Hellraiser: Inferno, and In the Mouth of Madness. So, what's the problem with New Nightmare??? Okay, first of all is the fact of Freddy. I actually love his new look, the jacket and hand, although the sweater and hat looked kind of funny and I didn't understand why they put the greenish-red rings around his eyes. They went to so much work designing this new, evil looking Freddy and he can't have more than 20 minutes of screen time. Yep, just a little bit more than Freddy's Revenge. And yes, I know that Pinhead had just about as much screen time in Hellraiser: Inferno, but they didn't redesign Pinhead in that one. Okay, I do love psychological thrillers, but this was just BORING! It starts off with an all metal, robotic glove coming to life on the film set of a new Nightmare on Elm Street movie. The glove kills several special effects crew members and is about to kill Heather Langenkamp (Nancy)'s husband. And then she wakes up. Okay, that was awesome! Good, frightening, and all a dream. And the next forty five minutes or so have NOTHING going on for the movie! I will admit, the interview scene and the limousine scene were somewhat interesting, but the rest of it was just boring fluff. And also, we get a few decent shots of Robert Englund in this movie, but we don't see near enough! The entire movie revolves around two characters, that just can't carry the film. The kid is just annoying. He isn't creepy, he's just annoying. Some of the dream sequences are pretty freaky, but other than that, he's just a normal kid talking in a stupid voice. Also, the vomit scene was pretty much stolen from The Exorcist. So, by the end of the movie, all of the characters are referring to Heather as Nancy, but this is never explained. And then there is a showdown at the "boiler room", which looks more like an ancient Greek temple than a power plant mechanical room. Okay, this scene was too tacky. And Freddy actually extends his arm to get the kid, tries to "eat him", and wraps his tongue around Heather before burning to death and turning into, get this, the devil.???

I will admit that I liked how it came to the real world, and we do get some pretty decent shots of Wes Craven and Robert Englund, and even a few other stars, but, like Freddy, they just don't have enough screen time. And some of the dream sequences are pretty creepy. But, I have two HUGE problems with this movie. First off, the fact that Heather has to wait until, like an hour and a half (around three days in the movie) after her kid tries to commit suicide, has seizures, nightmares, and tries to kill her before taking him to the hospital. Also, her kid is terrified of nightmares and she shuts the door so he is in the dark! ??? Worst mother ever! And it also isn't about Freddy on a film set, it's about him stalking Heather and her kid for two hours. This movie was so slow paced that it seemed like Titanic. Not to mention a hilariously low body count, with Freddy having a brand new glove, but breaking someone's neck! ??? Judge for yourself, but I thought it was boring. The kid was annoying, there wasn't enough Freddy, and Heather Langenkamp is just not an interesting character, unlike Nancy Thompson. Overall, this film is just TOO slow. I mean, Wes Craven had a really good idea here. Very original, just like the first Nightmare movie. But he didn't execute it very well. The kid was annoying, Heather Langenkamp looks bored and "worried" throughout the movie. And some of the dialogue is just ridiculous. Like how Wes all of a sudden knows what the new Freddy is is kind of ridiculous, because he couldn't possibly know that. Not to mention that in Never Sleep Again, he showed drawings for a "Freddy mobile" that he was going to put in the movie.

Scream 3 (2000)

The only thing that needed help in this film is Gale's hair....

[9/10 · 12 November 2011]

First of all, I must say that I did not have high expectations for this film. All of the critics (which I usually don't agree with anyway) and even fans of the series have stated that this is the worst in the series. There is no such thing as a bad Scream film. Each film is awesome. So, needless to say, I walked into this without high expectations. I was planning to rent a copy from Mr. Movies, but needless to say, I found a free showing on AMC. The actual film exceeded my expectations. I absolutely loved it. Sure, it wasn't as violent as others in the series, but that's because of the Columbine High School massacre. Basically, Sidney, who is in hiding, is lured to Hollywood by a new copycat Ghostface killer, onto the set of the new Stab film. David Arquette as Dewey and Scott Foley as Roman are at the top of their game in this. Roman is one of my favorite Ghostfaces, simply because he is just so freaking hilarious. He doesn't over do it like Freddy Krueger, but he makes it all so enjoyable, and I was so shocked to see Roman as the killer, but man, did he have a motive! Parker Posey is a real treat to bring in, and so are Patrick Dempsey and Jenny McCarthy. This entire cast is amazing, though I hated to see Cotton Weary (Leiv Schreiber) die, even though he was a sleaze. I also have no idea why everyone is hating on Ehren Kruger. Sure, it isn't Kevin Williamson, but I think he is a worthy author to the Scream series, using the same style as Williamson. I thought that this was a very worthy entry into the series. Roman is easily the smartest Ghostface, who brings a new, high tech voice changer to the picture, and since it is Hollywood, you get to see some of the best special effects, including a fake corpse Roman uses to trick everyone.

All in all, I thought, that though relying more on comedy and suspense then its predecessors, you can't really blame it. I mean, violence in cinema was really controversial at the turn of the century. I was happy with it, and I was honestly surprised more people weren't.

Tales from the Darkside: Halloween Candy (1985) Season 2, Episode 5

AMAZING!!! I was on the edge of my seat!!!! One of the best!

[9/10 · 13 October 2011]

A nasty old man hates being disturbed. He is not patient, kind, and he hates children and Halloween because kids constantly disturb him by ringing the doorbell and asking for candy late into the night. His son, Michael, who lets him live with him, even leaves candy with the man, to make sure his home isn't vandalized, and leaves for the night to do some late night paperwork at his office. However, the old man is so unpleasant, that he even refuses to give the candy out. When kids try to t-p his house or spray paint on it because of this, the old man threatens to call 911. Yeah, because old misers who call 911 24/7 on Halloween because they think kids are "robbing" them by asking for candy give the holiday a bad name. Jeez. Well, pretty soon, it's midnight, and the old man has fallen asleep. One more kid arrives, asking for candy, and the old man mixes it with glue, mayonnaise, and honey and dumps it into the kid's bag, calling it "goblin candy". The kid is grossed out by this, of course, and flees. Moments later, the doorbell rings again. He attempts his usual "go away, the police are already on their way" routine, but a very deep and freaky voice answers "trick or treat". That's right, an ACTUAL goblin has now showed up, and will proceed to torment the old man to teach him a lesson. The old man's small house becomes his prison as the beast violently taunts him with hallucinations, horrific Halloween candy bags filled with maggots, and a cockroach infested kitchen. As he wasted all of his candy with the "goblin candy" trick, the man has no way to bribe the goblin, and the man continues to suffer as the goblin appears outside his window, and the man realizes that he is vulnerable. Also, he is cut off from the outside world because the goblin has cut his phone lines and is trapping him inside.

Besides The Last Car, which was about a girl who was trapped on a train to nowhere with strange passengers, or perhaps The Cutty Black Sow, this episode is probably my favorite. I am not usually scared easily, and this one was honestly hard to watch. The close-ups of the static on the TV screen, the leaves blowing across the porch, the weird doorbell, and the creaking porch swing compliment this well-written and highly likable entry in the series. Also, you never really get a good look at the goblin, which only makes it visible by window glimpses and shadows, which makes it very mysterious and horrific. If you love the "claustarophobia" feeling, you will like it, and that is one of the many factors that contributed to it being so scary. See it, (it's online) if you can muster up enough courage.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Now I'm Playing With Power!

[7/10 · 27 September 2011]

I have had the displeasure of watching A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, as I am in the process of watching them all in order. I had high hopes for it, as I had enjoyed The Dream Master so much, but I was sadly disappointed by the boring, silly film. So, naturally, I took a look at the reviews for Freddy's Dead, which were all very poor. However, I would not lose faith in Freddy, so I watched it anyway. And I am happy to say that I was actually not disappointed! Possibly because the filmmakers scrapped the concept they used with 5, to make it dark, and embraced the humor of the series. Which worked terrifically.

Let's begin with the acting. Robert Englund is amazing in this film, and does not disappoint. He has managed to do something he hasn't for the first time in a long time, which is being both funny and scary! The part where he kills his wife after she discovers his secret room with the gloves, he genuinely looks psychotic, and still creeps me out. He was also fantastic in the climax when he taunted his daughter and attempted to trick her by reverting back to his original form, before he was burned. Lisa Zane is amazing and thoroughly steals the show. And the little girl who played her as a kid, she was better than the teenagers in The Dream Master! This also marks the first film that Breckin Meyer was in. Also, the acting by both other actors that both played Freddy were also equally creepy as Robert Englund, looking just plain crazy.

Now onto the plot: Freddy is back, now less Gothic and funny again, who attacks John Doe, the only child to ever survive his murder spree. He orders him to track down a girl by the name of Maggie Borroughs, who is actually his daughter. Now with all the children in Springwood, Ohio "taken care of", Krueger finds her at a rehab clinic for troubled kids, where she is a guidance counselor. He very creepily gets the kids, showing off his abilities to completely dominate, wisecracking all the way. Now Maggie falls asleep to confront Freddy, pull him out into the real world, and kill him. But will it work? I absolutely adored the plot, and thought it was very creative. (Although the film could have done without the 3-D) I do love the part where she goes into his brain and sees the snake demon sculptures. (Which were fantastic and realistic puppets) Now onto the comedy: The film is as funny as ever, and although Freddy pops a few too many wisecracks, they are still very funny and clever. People who think the film is silly need to realize that, like Bride of Chucky and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the film is meant to be goofy and scary. Which it is. The power glove scene where the stoner by the name of Spencer is pulled into a television (featuring a cameo by Johnny Depp who is doing a 'your brain on drugs' public service announcement when he is promptly hit in the face with the frying pan by Freddy) Who proceeds to make him into a video game, having some fun with him. This is a very fun scene, though not very scary. It is just a fun film, but also manages to be disturbing.

As a Nightmare on Elm Street fan, I thought that this film was very good, much better than previous entries, managing to successfully be both funny and scary. I know I am part of a select minority who enjoyed the film, but I think that the film is a highly underrated sequel, and very fun to watch. If you want my advice, see it. Hopefully you will like it, like me. :) My rating: 7 out of 10.

Red Water (2003 TV Movie)

Campy, but not as bad as you might think.......

[7/10 · 11 August 2011]

Red Water is one of those movies that can definitely be classified as a B-Movie. No doubt about that. The average rating for this film is 3, which is a shame, because this movie wasn't that half bad. (To me) Red Water has a pretty original plot. It features a small Louisiana river that is suddenly plagued by a twelve-foot freshwater shark known as a Bull Shark. The shark begins killing all sorts of people, when it is finally driven upriver where it encounters a small oil rig that has recently hit it big. Lou Diamond Phillips is the lead, who speaks in a southern accent, plays the kind John, who hates oil rigs because he feels responsible for the deaths of four men due to a blowout at a rig he was once managing. So, his ex-wife, played by Kristi Swanson, and his friend go to take a look at the said rig, which suddenly becomes the subject of armed thugs who are looking for dumped money nearby.

First of all, it's a made-for-television movie. The special effects and acting won't be that good. However, they manage to get a pretty good anamatronic Bull Shark in there, a decent set, and a decent cast. (I know that the acting is bad, but I've seen worse.) It has some pretty big names, such as Lou Diamond Phillips, Krisit Swanson, and Coolio.

Red Water isn't that bad. Sure, some of the cast sucks, but the three big name leads aren't that bad, and are pretty convincing at times. They have feelings just like everybody else. The drunk scenes featuring the two thugs are sort of funny, since they mock each other. Red Water has some pretty disturbing scenes, like a pretty teenage girl who ALMOST makes it to safety before she is gobbled up kind of gorily, just like an elderly fisherman. Adding action to sharks works fairly well here. The CGI towards the end sucks, but the effects shark wise are above-average for a TV movie. The shark is pretty convincing when it is anamatronic. And the shark death is creative, just like the Jaws movies. Also, they appear to get back together at the end of the movie, and it has a happy and satisfying ending.

Is it perfect? No. I've seen much better. MUCH better. It's real campy, some of the performances suck, but it's pretty suspenseful and keeps you interested in what's going on. It isn't worse than Jaws the Revenge, or Jaws 3, which is sort of obvious, since it has a higher rating than them, and they had budgets of 20,000,000 dollars and more. Above-average movie done on a small budget.

I hear it's even better to get drunk and watch it on "crappy movie night". =D