Reviews

This film is one of the most original horror films of the late 70s and the 80s. At a time where the horror genre seemed no longer to be able to produce anything original we got a pretty inventive movie.

It was original because it didn't focus on a maniacal killer or any zombies, not even the persons are the most essential thing in this film. More important are certain themes in the film like wishes and desire. The story evolves on a psychological level rather than on a physical. It's fundamentally different from almost every other horror film I've seen so far. The atmosphere that is present throughout the whole movie should be described as unsettling, it is not scary in the conventional sense.

For anyone who is not interested in the story there are still several gore-effects that are excellently done. The five Cenobites are very interesting creatures but they hardly appear which makes Hellraiser even better and more mystical.

My major complaint about this film are the characters. They were rather unpleasant to watch and I didn't find myself rooting for any of them.

Overall one of the better horror films, refreshingly different from the rest.

My rating: 7/10 (watch "Candyman" if you liked Hellraiser)

With all the negative critics I've read before seeing this movie I was expecting a really dumb movie full of dumb heroism. But it turned out to be nowhere as bad as I feared.

The plot, nah, let's forget about the plot, there wasn't any unless HUMAN VS ALIEN can be called plot. But the acting was... well, it could have been worse. It was kind of "Starship Troopers"-acting, with the slight difference that "Starship Troopers" was fun to watch BECAUSE the acting was so bad. If the acting in Wing Commander would have been more exaggerated it could as well have been fun, but it didn't bother me very much the way it was because I wasn't expecting Oscar-worthy acting anyway.

Ah, I finally remember something that was actually good: the special effects, somewhat PC-game style, but that's not surprising since the film is based on a computer game. The action sequences were pretty intense too.

So if you can overlook the estimated 117 weaknesses of this movie you might even enjoy it for its action and special effects.

My rating: 4/10

Just to get down the negative critics list right at the beginning, so we can talk about the things that are good in this film (which is, in my opinion, a lot):

1) Yes, the plot is pretty weak compared to the first Mission: Impossible. But activate your brain for a moment, would you? Do "James Bond"-films have a great plot? What about "Die Hard", "Con Air", "The Rock"? If you open your eyes and take a closer look you'll find that even "The Matrix" doesn't have as great a plot as most people claim, in fact it did copy a lot from other films. The story of M:I-2 doesn't have any major flaws and JOHN WOO perfectly covered up the weakness of the plot.

2) Going into the same direction is the predictability of the film. It was fairly simple to recognize whether a character was wearing a mask or not. But the expressions on some of the person's faces were intentionally created in a way that would allow us to find out about the disguise before the characters did.

Well, that's about everything negative I could possibly find.

Now let me ask you, all you people who gave this movie bad ratings: DID YOU EVEN SEE THIS MOVIE? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA; WHAT ACTION IS ABOUT?

Action is not about blowing everything to pieces Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer style. It is not about shooting as many people as possible just to see that it's done. And it is definitely not about throwing some computer-generated effects & explosions at the audience.

And what's that crap about the action in M:I-2 not being possible in real life? Of course it isn't! Otherwise, why would we go see films in theatres and pay money for it? Wake up! Get real! Name one big blockbuster action movie which was actually realistic! Anybody? Just because there is no Matrix (some of you would probably say: "How would you know?") doesn't mean the film s****!

It's sad that the majority of people don't appreciate JOHN WOO's work. No other director did or will get close to what JOHN WOO has achieved. He's not just a simple director, he's more than that. He's a virtuoso, a master of his field. His films are PURE AESTHETIC ART! He's the only one with the feeling for it, the only one capable of doing anything like M:I-2. JOHN WOO is the best thing that happened to Hollywood in a long time.

I am a big fan of JOHN WOO, actually I consider him the GOD OF ACTION, not mainly because of films like "Broken Arrow" or "Hard Target" but rather because of his Hong Kong masterpieces (i.e. "The Killer", "Bullet in the Head" etc. etc.). I always thought that he didn't reach the level of the aforementioned Hong Kong films in Hollywood yet, because those Hong Kong films contained not only lots of action but - even more important - themes like friendship, loyalty and love.

"Hard Target" was very good, "Broken Arrow" was visually astounding, and "Face/Off" was simply outstanding. For a long time I would consider "Face/Off" the best action film (along with "Terminator 2"). Just a few hours ago JOHN WOO made me change my mind, when I saw the showdown of his newest masterpiece. I was amazed, the action and dynamics of the movie were way better than anything I had ever seen, it was gripping and at the same time BEAUTIFUL, it was SHEER BEAUTY that came off the screen right at me (and the pigeons are beautiful too, over and over again, this time even more than in his other films). This is JOHN WOO's first American film which can actually compete with films like "Hard Boiled" or "The Killer" (both by JOHN WOO, of course) in terms of action & choreography. I wasn't sure if I would ever be able to say that.

Like I said: the action is beautiful. When there are cars exploding, they're not just flying away with much noise, filmed in a rather clumsy slow-motion as in Michael Bay's typical video-clip imagery (he's an excellent director, believe me, I like him, he's just nowhere as magnificent as JOHN WOO). Instead, in M:I-2, scenes like the car explosions are filmed in a way that's as close to perfection as it will probably get. The camera angles are well chosen, the cuts are at the right places in the film, and the camera speed fits perfectly. Also the beginning of the film where we see Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) climb up the wall, is perfectly filmed. Check out how wonderfully the camera moves in towards the actor right at the beginning of the scene!

Another highly exciting scene is the shoot-out in the lab. The music (by Hans Zimmer, the god of soundtracks) is combined with the imagery so ingeniously that it felt like a dream, an ecstasy of pure beauty (again this word; sorry, but it's the word that best describes JOHN WOO's style).

Many people have criticized the acting in the film. Of course, none of the actors will be nominated for an Oscar, but on the other hand the acting was not that bad either. Tom Cruise was very convincing, Thandie Newton did a decent job and so did the villain (Dougray Scott), although he was not as charismatic as movie-villains usually are. But if you hate the acting in M:I-2 so much, then let me tell you one thing: except for very few movies (one of them being "Face/Off") there are nearly no Hollywood action films with a superb cast. Take "The Matrix" ("Why always this film?" you might ask. Well, because I think it is an excellent film but, in my opinion, generally overrated) for instance: Did this film have good acting. You think it did? Well I think it was just very good at pretending that it did by throwing in cheesy statements like "it is the question that drives us" and "what is real?" etc. trying to give the characters some profundity.

Personally, I think M:I-2 should set a new standard for action in Hollywood (but I'm afraid it won't). I saw this film today and likely, I'll watch it again tomorrow.

Overall: BEAUTIFUL, LOVELY, AMAZING, WONDERFUL...

My rating: 10/10 (Thank you, JOHN WOO)

Well, I don't really feel the need to explain that The Faculty was just another film trying to draw the Scream-audience into the theatres (although it is from the same studio that brought us "Scream"). But contrary to "Urban Legend" or "I still know..." The Faculty is quite a nice attempt.

The Faculty is not really a horror film, it is a fairly entertaining film about teenagers with just a few elements of the horror genre that should be called a thriller-comedy rather than a horror film. It is therefore nowhere as suspenseful or scary as "Scream". It is evident that Kevin Williamson wrote the screenplay because the film shows us many allusions to other horror-films like "Body Snatchers" or "The Thing", though, again, not in such a clever way as "Scream" did.

Probably the most interesting thing about this movie is the cast. Young people of the new generation of actors (e.g. Josh Hartnett, Elijah Wood) were combined with already well-known people (e.g. Robert Patrick, Famke Janssen, Salma Hayek). It was fun to see these two generations fight each other in the movie.

While the film is not very predictable the whodunit-question is not very effective in this movie and so the main interest does not lie within this point. But if you are young this film might entertain you anyway.

A harmless but entertaining, nice little film that won't totally disappoint you.

My rating: 8/10

...but not worse than the first Dentist. Actually, I think this sequel is even slightly better than the original (a rare thing to happen in the horror genre). Sure, there's nothing new about this film, but as I already told you: it's not worse than the first.

Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has escaped a mental hospital and continues his work in a small town called 'Paradise' after getting rid of the local dentist. But soon his itchy drill finger starts to mutilate his patients in another series of disgustingly elaborate drill & kill scenes.

Again, Corbin Bernsen does an excellent job as the psycho-dentist. And again, this film delivers very weird entertainment and gore galore. The ending leaves the possibility of another sequel.

If you have a slightly sick sense of humor you might like it, especially if you liked the first Dentist.

My rating: 4/10

I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.

The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.

If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!

My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)

While reading the reviews to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer here at IMDb I realized that most of the people misunderstand this film and do not see it for what it is.

This film is NOT a conventional horror film trying to give the audience a few cheap scares. Although it does contain a high amount of violence it is NOT meant to satisfy the blood lust of some narrow-minded gorehounds out there. Anybody who rents/buys this film because he (she) hopes that the film will "deliver the goods" is a primate!

Okay, I'm feeling relieved now.

This film is one of the most disturbing films I've seen so far. During the whole 83 minutes there's not one pleasant moment. But I would rather call it a documentary (or a portrait) than a horror film. This documentary shows us Henry, a serial killer who kills people for no obvious reason. He is joined by his pal Otis. The difference between Otis and Henry is, that Otis seems to like killing people whereas Henry is absolutely indifferent; he kills with the same indifference as one would light a cigarette.

This film contains scenes of rape, incest, mutilation and murder in such a realistic way that it becomes very difficult not to believe the content. It is filmed in a documentary style, the word 'portrait' is quite suitable in this context.

However, something's missing in this film. There's always a reason why a person kills another creature. It can be an act of revenge, jealousy, enjoyment, financial reasons or another reason. None of this descriptions fits for Henry. Henry lacks a certain mental consciousness of the difference between good and evil. He knows that he is committing crimes (that's why he always changes the killing method, because he doesn't want the police to find a pattern) but he doesn't feel bad about it. A human life does not have any value, there's no reason for Henry to protect it. The film doesn't fully succeed in explaining this attitude of the killer but it is still a successful attempt to describe the impulses that drive a serial killer.

I recommend this film to everybody who can stand the scenes of violence.

My rating: 9/10

Freddy's Dead-The Final Nightmare would have been a good film IF it wasn't part of a horror series and IF it was intended to be funny - but unfortunately it DOES belong to a horror series and it WASN'T intended to be one big joke. Almost unbelievable they wanted to end one of the best-known horror series with such a below-average final sequel. I'm glad Wes Craven decided to shoot a 7th Nightmare-film to fill the hole this movie has left.

Maybe if I wasn't expecting a horror film I would have liked Freddy's Dead. It was not catastrophic, it just wasn't A Nightmare on Elm Street. There are some nice plot twists and Freddy does his usual games with his victims. But there are just too many of those twists and turns, it got very confusing and ended in a complete mess. And on top of everything they forgot what they should have made: a horror film.

Instead we see Freddy playing Nintendo games with his victims (hey you screenwriters, what drug does it need to come up with this stuff?) and delivering about a dozen stupid one-liners. That's not Freddy, that's more like Bugs Bunny (as another IMDb-User has written, I'm not the first one to discover so).

Sure, the effects are (again) outstanding, but that's not enough to make a movie a good movie. There are a few other good things though: the cameo appearances of Roseanne and Tom Arnold are a nice surprise, so are the flashbacks, and the 3D-sequence was quite a good idea too, even though I think they focused too much on the effects and therefore neglected the plot.

Just slightly better than part 5, but overall a mediocre entry in the series.

My rating: 5/10

I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.

Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).

The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.

Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.

My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)

I can understand why this film caused so many reactions back in 1973 now that I've seen the film myself. There are few horror films that attain to be realistic. The Exorcist is one of them and it does it in such a shocking and powerful way that even nowadays, over 25 years later, it has the ability to scare the viewer or at least make him feel very uncomfortable. The fact that the film is based on a true story increases this feeling even more.

The Exorcist is closer to perfection than almost every other movie I have seen. The acting is exceptionally good for a horror film. Especially Jason Miller (as Damien Karras) in his first feature film role does an excellent job and never loses his credibility. Linda Blair is simply amazing as Regan/the demon. Another strong point is the location (Washington D.C.) because the evil is not in a dark forest somewhere far away, it is among civilization.

State-of-the-art special effects (like the spinning head) make sure that the film doesn't get ridiculous, something that often happens when the plot is more developed than the special effects. William Friedkin, the director, demanded the best from crew and cast. Everything that wasn't exactly as he wanted it to be just wasn't used in the film (in the BBC-documentary you even learn that Friedkin threw the original soundtrack over the street (no kidding!) because he didn't like it). That's why this film became an all-time classic, because every single element was driven to perfection.

Everybody should see this film, not only fans of the genre.

My rating: 10/10

Let me start by saying that the third installment in this highly successful trilogy was not worse than Scream 2. On the other hand it wasn't much better than the first sequel, well, maybe a little...

When I heard that the Scream-team had to do without Kevin Williamson as screenwriter I was rather sceptical. But I have to admit that Ehren Kruger did a decent job. He copied the style of Kevin Williamson instead of trying to come with new aspects and I was glad he did so because many other sequels in the horror genre failed because the screenplay contained new ideas which ruined the film. Scream 3 has a solid screenplay, not as clever as the one of the original, but without any major flaws.

The body count (although it is not a very gory film) is higher than in its two predecessors. And this time the killer is able to make his voice sound like the ones of his soon-to-be victims. I think this was supposed to increase the suspense (is it the killer or is it the person it seems to be?) but personally, I think it was a rather lame and somehow "cheap" idea.

The characters: Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) looks better than in Scream 2, Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox-Arquette) looks like a skeleton with messed-up haircut, Dewey (David Arquette) returned back to normal state of mind, Carrie Fisher has a nice cameo and Lance Henriksen is cool as always (too bad he wasn't given more on-screen time). Any questions?

In Scream 2 I really hated Kevin Williamson for killing off my favored character Randy (Jamie Kennedy). I always thought there was something wrong about his death. I was positively surprised by his appearance in Scream 3, even if it was just on videotape.

Overall, Scream 3 is a good sequel. However, the ending should have revealed anything more spectacular than what it actually did. This trilogy should have ended with a big surprise, something that would stay in your mind (remember Randy in Scream 2?: "I'd let the geek get the girl."). The film wasn't as scary as the first two, the only eerie scene was Neve's first vision of her mother.

Watch this one if you liked the first two films, if you haven't seen those yet, watch them first.

My rating: 7/10 (I gave Scream 2 a 6/10)

Many IMDb-Users have commented that this is the movie who brought the horror genre back to life. I disagree. What Scream really did was to invent a more or less new kind of genre. It definitely has horror elements in it but more important are the teenagers that are all over this film. All right, "Halloween" (1978) did have teenagers too but still the film was about the killer (Michael Myers) himself and not about the kids he happened to kill.

What I'm trying to say is that Scream is a good film. But after the huge success many other studios tried to make money with other teen-horror flicks that were aiming at the same audience. And that's where it got really stupid. Scream could have been unique but unfortunately it spawned a whole generation of similar films that fed of the same basic idea but just failed to be original. The makers of Scream were lucky to publish the film at a time where there were almost no good horror films anymore and that's why it attracted that many people.

Scream is a good combination of horror and comedy/parody, there's no question about that. The general problem with this kind of film always was that it is very difficult for a film to be scary and funny at the same time. Craven and Williamson avoided to mix comedy and scares in the same scenes and separated these two elements. That's the reason why Scream did what others haven't been able to do.

The film is by no means as scary as the "true" horror films (Halloween, The Evil Dead, A Nightmare on Elm Street and others) but has its scares. The opening scene is very intense and sadistic but we already get some allusions to other horror films. This scene is more intense than the whole remaining 100 minutes. There are other scenes where the killer is very sadistic when killing his victims but it never gets really scary. Although the killer looks great in the white mask I didn't have the impression that he was as dangerous as good old Michael Myers or Fred Krueger. The idea of a 18 year old psycho-boy hiding behind that mask didn't make it any scarier.

But of course Scream wasn't supposed to be plain horror. More important are the allusions to other horror films and these were done very good. Some of the jokes were a little too obvious but I guess otherwise most of the ignorant viewers out there wouldn't understand it. On the other hand I think I still haven't noticed them all myself.

Another important aspect is the who's-the-lunatic-behind-the-mask question. We have the time to get to know all the persons including the one(s) that is/are responsible for the murders. Honestly, I didn't have the slightest idea who would be the killer (I didn't think about it very heavily though). Some persons have commented that they found the film to be predictable. They are either very clever or lying and I tend to say the latter thing is true (no offence included).

I hope I didn't make it sound as if this movie was mediocre because it isn't. It is clever, suspenseful in some places and very amusing in others. Overall it is one of the most original films of the decade and perfect to watch with a group of friends.

I highly recommend this movie but also advise you to stay away from the imitations that followed.

My rating: 10/10 (Don't expect the sequels to be equally clever!)

This is definitely one of the scariest movies ever and also belongs to my top ten horror films! However, not everybody seems to like this movie as much as I do.

Candyman is almost flawless. Among all the horror movie villains Candyman is one of the most frightening and fascinating. Tony Todd does a terrific job. There is no point in the film where Candyman gets ridiculous. Luckily there were no scream-until-even-the-killer-himself-is-deaf teens. Instead we get Virginia Madsen who adds a psychological component to her role.

The plot is very solid too. The idea of a killer coming when you call him is very interesting because it is different from what we have seen before. Although the story of Candyman is somewhat surreal there is a solid motive for what he is doing. That's a point that many other films of the genre lack.

Another element that adds to the very moody atmosphere is the directing. There are some amazingly exciting shots, especially the aerial views of Chicago which are unique. The mood makes the film somehow disturbing and fascinating at the same time and that's why there isn't any other film like this one. There are some pretty gory scenes but the brutality here is never used to entertain. The soundtrack which is one of the best in horror films also helps to create the atmosphere mentioned above.

Candyman gets a lot of bad reviews although it is one of the best in the genre. Give it a try!

My rating: 9/10

The Thing is Carpenter's best work right after "Halloween" (which is almost impossible to surpass). It was also the first film of J.C. which he did for a big studio and on a rather large budget. Contrary to other films Carpenter was given much more time to complete this masterpiece. What he achieved has since become a true classic in the horror genre even if it is quite different from most of the other films that were made in the 80s.

The Thing is not just a normal horror film trying to scare the audience with cheap thrills but is also some kind of a psychological drama. Throughout the whole movie you can never be sure who to trust. The thing moves from body to body imitating the victims perfectly and that's why anybody among the men could be possessed. The theme of paranoia and mistrust is very strong in this film and cleverly done.

The Thing is set in the Antarctic (in fact it was shot in British Columbia). It is made clear to the viewer that there is no possibility of escape for any of the members of the research crew. The location also creates a feeling of loneliness and isolation where each one of the dozen men is basically on his own and therefore contributes to the paranoid undertone.

And of course the film has state-of-the-art special effects and lighting. Rob Bottin simply did a great job. There is lots of gore and some very inventive scenes were the thing changes its shape. Some of the effects had to be done several times and others were deleted because Carpenter and Bottin didn't want the effects to be laughable or cheesy. The effects are outstanding and astonishing even for today's standards. They are much more interesting to look at than modern computer-animated special effects.

But the most important thing that made this film believable are the actors (it is a male-only film by the way). Each and everyone of the cast was convincing which is a rare thing. Although there are twelve or so men in this film who are almost equally important (with Kurt Russell becoming some kind of a leader) Carpenter managed to give each one of them an own character in a very short time. He didn't even need to include much dialogue to make the persons seem real.

I recommend this film to anyone who is interested in Carpenter's work and/or horror films and doesn't have a weak stomach.

My rating: 10/10

I bought this film without even having the slightest idea what I was going to see. But I was positively surprised by this movie! John Carpenter proves that he is still capable to make very good films even if they're not busting through the roof of the box office.

Unlike John Carpenter's classics like "Halloween", "The Fog" or "The Thing" I think this movie was not intended to be scary. And it definitely wasn't meant to win an Oscar for best screenplay or acting! This film is not just a horror film but also a cool road-movie. The scenery is very enjoyable throughout the whole 108 minutes. I loved the aerial shots of the desert-like plains at sunset. The locations give the film kind of a free and romantic feeling.

But the romanticism stops where the fights between vampire and man begin. The film was surprisingly gory considering it was 1998 and the MPAA wasn't on vacation (hey, nobody said that I didn't like the gory scenes). The film is not based on computer generated effects but on nice stunts and cool gore effects. But that doesn't mean there's nothing else to like about Vampires.

The acting is not outstanding but decent enough for this kind of film. James Woods was perfect for the role of ruthless vampire slayer Jack Crow. Thomas Ian Griffith was very convincing and looks good even if disguised as a vampire. Daniel Baldwin does okay and Sheryl Lee is a hot...uhm...actress.

A very enjoyable film overall, not scary but perfect to spend your Saturday evening with.

My rating: 8/10 (if you want more information: DVD contains an interesting audio commentary by John Carpenter himself!)

First of all I have to admit that in my opinion Martin Lawrence is really one of the most gifted comedy actors and definitely one on the way up. Both in "Bad Boys" and "Nothing to Lose" he gave a good performance showing that he is a born comedy actor. Blue Streak isn't that funny though. Before watching it I knew that it was not going to be as hilarious as "Nothing to Lose". I was right.

The film provides some entertaining scenes but on the other hand there were plenty of jokes that weren't that funny because Martin Lawrence exaggerated while trying to be amusing (for instance in the pizza delivery scene). The action isn't that good either (there's a word for this: mediocre).

They did another mistake by leaving the whole film in the hands of Lawrence. In "Nothing to Lose" as well as in "Bad Boys" Lawrence had a partner to make fun of and to be made fun of by. Martin Lawrence and Will Smith/Tim Robbins made a good team but Blue Streak contains a certain monotony because there is no important person beside him. Dave Chappelle's role was far too small to contribute much to the film. Anyway he had to play a slightly retarded person and so he became pretty annoying too.

This movie isn't bad but it isn't outstanding either. So if you don't have any other film to watch you might as well spend a few dollars on this one. The comedy is good for a few laughs and the action is okay (unless you're really hard to satisfy). The ending is quite nice too.

I do not recommend that you buy this film but you can't do much wrong if you rent it.

My rating: 6/10

Let's get this straight: A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master is NOT a horror film but some kind of teenage comedy flick (reminds me of Scream etc.). The film was a last second product and as far as I know they didn't even have a complete screenplay. The lack of time while shooting this movie and the incomplete story are evident. Ironically, this one did better than most of the other Nightmare-films at the box office.

After the enjoyably dark atmosphere of the first three Nightmare-films this one went in a new direction. Suspense and scares are non-existent. The film is (too) colorful which minimizes the suspense. The direction of Renny Harlin is pretty inventive but too restless for this kind of film and that's why the camera-movements create a feeling of rush instead of tension.

The acting is below average (except for Robert Englund, of course). It seems that they had to take the first actresses and actors they met to cast the film because of the lack of time. Why else would someone engage Tuesday Knight? Beside this the plot is more like an accumulation of holes and mistakes. There are several scenes in the film where the story jumps from one point to another without anything connecting the two situations.

Not everything is bad in this movie though. The special effects are (once again) outstanding and also different from the effects that can be seen in the other Nightmare-movies. Freddy's killing methods are pretty inventive too. The whole film is entertaining but not at all scary.

If you want to kill time then you might like it, if not: avoid. Just know what to except.

My rating: 5/10

The good thing about the second installment in the series is that it got very difficult to make a sequel that is even worse than Freddy's Revenge and so this is definitely the worst in the whole series. It seems to me that they took the original and subtracted plot, suspense, logic and acting. They did almost everything wrong that could be done wrong.

There are some basic mistakes which ruin everything the original built. The fundamental thing about Freddy is that he can't get into real life by himself. The pool scene contradicts to everything the first movie was about. I suppose that the writer of the screenplay didn't even see A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The acting is terrible too (especially Mark Patton in the leading role). The homosexual allusions really bugged me (what the heck is the matter with the people who come up with this stuff?). And why did Freddy kill the coach? He never killed at random before. To complete this mess of a film they took away Freddy's glove.

There are few good things though. The effects are good (not as good as in the original) and the movie was very dark (good atmosphere but no real suspense or scares). Freddy was still enjoyably sadistic and not the joker he was turned into later on in the series. As far as it concerns the rest of the film there's not much worth seeing it except for two, maybe three slightly entertaining scenes.

I guess I have to blame the screenplay.

My rating: 4/10 (Part 3: Dream Warriors is much much better!)

Dream Warriors is a very good sequel indeed. Everything got better compared to Part 2. It doesn't repeat the mistakes of #2 like bringing Freddy to daylight. It is obvious that Craven was involved with this one. The story is not a repetition of the predecessors but adds new ideas to the series.

Freddy is again very sadistic (although he was a little too comical for my taste) and he uses the fears of the teenagers to torture them. It has more spooky scenes than Freddy's Revenge and the plot has no holes or weak points this time.

Heather Langenkamp and John Saxon appear in this one and give the film a connection to the original. The fact that there was Freddy's Revenge is completely ignored in this film and personally I think this is the right thing to do. Beside Langenkamp and Saxon there are other good (young) actors and actresses with Patricia Arquette being the key to defeat Freddy Krueger.

In addition there are some excellent special effects, good dialogues and the characters are not as one-dimensional as in most of the other films of the series.

Overall one of the three best Nightmare-films.

My rating: 8/10

The good thing about the second installment in the series is that it got very difficult to make a sequel that is even worse than Freddy's Revenge and so this is definitely the worst in the whole series. It seems to me that they took the original and subtracted plot, suspense, logic and acting. They did almost everything wrong that could be done wrong.

There are some basic mistakes which ruin everything the original built. The fundamental thing about Freddy is that he can't get into real life by himself. The pool scene contradicts to everything the first movie was about. I suppose that the writer of the screenplay didn't even see A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The acting is terrible too (especially Mark Patton in the leading role). The homosexual allusions really bugged me (what the heck is the matter with the people who come up with this stuff?). And why did Freddy kill the coach? He never killed at random before. To complete this mess of a film they took away Freddy's glove.

There are few good things though. The effects are good (not as good as in the original) and the movie was very dark (good atmosphere but no real suspense or scares). Freddy was still enjoyably sadistic and not the joker he was turned into later on in the series. As far as it concerns the rest of the film there's not much worth seeing it except for two, maybe three slightly entertaining scenes.

I guess I have to blame the screenplay.

My rating: 4/10 (Part 3: Dream Warriors is much much better!)

After "Halloween" (1978) there were many horror films trying to be successful. Many succeeded. But the people who were making the imitations also tried to be original. Nearly no one succeeded. A Nightmare on Elm Street was one of the rare exceptions. Sure, there are similarities between "Halloween" and this one. But A Nightmare on Elm Street was far more original than any of the other slasher horror films. The idea of a mass murderer killing people in their dreams is very exciting and very original. Freddy Krueger is one of the best and most sadistic persons in the history of horror films. Unfortunately they turned him into a comedian in most of the sequels.

Robert Englund is great in the role of Freddy. He was born to play this part (that's why they never replaced him). Heather Langenkamp is very believable and not one of these blond and dumb girls that can be seen in other films of this genre (Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode was an exception). The opening sequence shows us right at the beginning what the film is about. There are no flaws in the film and it never gets lame. It is unpredictable because you can never be sure if you are in a dream sequence or in real life.

The film is very intense and scary and the special effects are gripping. I still wonder how Wes Craven and his crew were able to shoot this film and the effects in it on such a small budget.

A must-see for any true fan of the horror genre and anybody else who likes being scared and entertained at the same time.

My rating: 10/10 (I don't recommend Part 2: Freddy's Revenge to anybody who is not a passionate fan of the series)

I didn't know what to expect of this film but I was positively surprised by it. It was very, very dark and contained nearly no pleasant scenes. It is therefore very different from what Hollywood normally delivers.

The story is not completely new but more original than in most other films around. The film is not predictable and never loses its tension. It is also very cruel at times and that's why it made me feel uncomfortable (a rare ability of today's films). The actors did a good job and Denzel Washington is credible (as usual). The minor roles were cast very well too, especially John Goodman and Embeth Davidtz seemed very convincing to me. Another strong point is the direction which creates an interesting and exciting atmosphere also supported by the score.

This film doesn't get the attention it deserves. It is one of the best mystery-thrillers of the last years. In my opinion it doesn't show any weak points. I'm glad that it is still possible to shoot a movie that doesn't have to fit into the normal clichés because that's the way we get really interesting experiences.

Watch it if you're tired of all the other (standard) films.

My rating: 10/10

This film is so extremely gory, disgusting, sick and nasty that I was either laughing myself sick or sitting in disbelief in front of the screen. Everything that can possibly be chopped off eventually got chopped off and the film is just...red! The amount of blood is unbelievable, I can't imagine how it could possibly get any gorier.

A Kung-Fu-priest, zombie babies, killer intestines, baby-in-the-blender, a rat-monkey, a lawn-mower massacre, people being dismembered, a love story (!) and far more sick things, that's what this movie will give you. No leg, no arm, no head stayed where it was supposed to be. If you have a weak stomach you will probably throw-up after the first five minutes.

The film shows you how NOT to treat a baby, how NOT to eat pudding, how NOT to use a lawnmower and how NOT to let a party end.

Unfortunately no one can be told what Dead Alive/Braindead is, you have to see it for yourself!

My rating: 9/10 (If you liked this film, watch "Army of Darkness" to see less gore but more jokes!)