Change Your Image
TrickyTheHorrorFreak
Reviews
Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)
Acceptable sequel that hasn't learnt from the originals flaws.
I was quite excited to hear that "Jeepers Creepers" was getting the sequel treatment. The Creeper is a great character and deserves to get some more screen time, and while the first one certainly had its flaws, it was entertaining throughout, particularly during the first half. I was even more eager when I found out Victor Salva was directing once again, yet none of the original cast (apart from a cameo from Darry) took part this time round. Now that I've seen "Jeepers Creepers II" a couple of times, I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed. There's no doubt that Victor Salva knows how to shoot some intensely gripping scenes, but he hasn't learnt from any of the mistakes he made the first time round.
Once again, the movie starts off well enough. The opening scene is filmed really well and gives us a very good idea why Jack Taggart (played by the ever dependable Ray Wise) dedicates the rest of his life to bringing down The Creeper. From here we move to a bus carrying a gridiron team as they make their way home from the state championships. And that's where we stay for pretty much the next hour and a bit. The football team is filled with clichés. Tough guys, bimbo cheerleaders, racial tensions etc. etc. The movie becomes as much about the real-life bonding of the team for survival as it is about The Creeper's unstoppable killing resolve.
The best parts of "Jeepers Creepers 2" all involve The Creeper being on screen. He looks fantastically horrific and takes out victims quickly and efficiently. When he's there, things are exciting and unpredictable. But when he's not on screen, things drag out, with the constant bickering between characters and clunky dialogue really testing patience. But my biggest gripes are the same as they were in the first film. While The Creeper doesn't whistle the theme song this time round, the scene where he winks at intended victims and licks his lips just doesn't sit well with me. There's always this underlying sense of humour that I feel this series could do without. And then there's the psychic cheerleader! The psychic woman in Jeepers Creepers pushed the realms of cheap storytelling, but the cheerleader scenario crosses the line. One minute she's a normal, everyday cheerleader and the next she's a psychic that knows everything there is to know about The Creeper, his history and his purpose. Surely the writers could come up with a more realistic device for getting the story across.
Flaws aside, "Jeepers Creepers II" is an OK sequel. It's not as good as the first film but then not many sequels are, particularly in this genre. Some of the set pieces are enjoyable and worthwhile, but I still feel there's a better movie to be made with the story and The Creeper. In the meantime, this is acceptable, if not essential viewing.
Jeepers Creepers (2001)
Fantastic, intense first half is let down towards the end. A fine creature feature regardless.
"Jeepers Creepers" is a fairly stupid name for a horror movie. It certainly didn't inspire confidence in me that this would be anything but another lame teenager based slasher flick. As it turns out, "Jeepers Creepers" is much better than it sounds, and while it falls a bit short of classic status, is certainly not to be underestimated.
Darry and Trish Jenner are traveling home for spring break when they are violently harassed by a seemingly psychotic truck driver. Soon after they witness the same driver dumping what appear to be bodies wrapped in sheets into a drainpipe. From this point on, the siblings are torn between helping the victims and escaping this malevolent madman intent on tracking them down. To make matters even worse, it soon becomes apparent that their attacker is far from human.
I'll start with the positives here. The first half an hour of this movie is sensational! If it had managed to keep the standard set in this early period for the entire running time, it would indeed be a fine horror movie. Darry and Trish have fabulous, believable brother and sister chemistry. Their acting may not be award quality, but it's far above typical horror genre fare. When the terror starts, and it starts within the first few minutes, the viewer already has a connection with these characters and that's a credit to the actors and the direction of Victor Salva. These first scenes are seriously intense and I love it. To continue with the positives, the creature itself (The Creeper) looks fantastic. They really created a horrific and fascinating being. Without giving too much away, the filmmakers slowly reveal more and more features of The Creeper as the movie goes on. By the end of the film, you can see him in all his glory and it's a quite a site to behold.
So why don't I consider this to be a classic? Basically, it goes downhill in the second half of the film. I've always been opposed to the use of psychics to tell a story and "Jeepers Creepers" is a classic case. With no easy way to tell the audience of the monster's history, nor his reasons for killing, the writers created a psychic woman that for reasons completely unexplained, has a complete knowledge of not only The Creeper but can also see into the future. I admit, it's not done terribly, but it does annoy me. Secondly, "Jeepers Creepers" can't quite decide whether it takes itself seriously or not. In my opinion, the first half worked so well due to its intensity and the seriousness of the scenario. Once it starts making self-referential gags and The Creeper starts whistling the Jeepers Creepers tune, I feel it loses that intensity. There seems to be quite a market at the moment for movies that mix comedy with horror. I just feel this wasn't the movie to do it.
Do the positives outweigh the negatives? Yeah, I think so. I really enjoy the movie as a whole and recommend it to any fan of creature features and horror in general. The sequel also has some merit and I hope we see more of The Creeper in years to come.
The Haunting (1999)
A haunted house movie that's high on budget, but low on scares.
"The Haunting" came out back in 1999 and is directed by Jan de Bont (Speed, Twister). The story is set up when Dr David Marrow convinces three insomniacs to spend the night in a mansion. He does so by telling them that he is studying insomnia in an attempt to help individuals such as themselves. What he's really doing though is studying the effects of fear and how different people react in very diverse ways. Sure enough, the group begin to show signs of paranoia and fear. But are they imagining things or is there something far more sinister happening in the house? I thought this version of "The Haunting" had a fair few things going for it when I heard about it. Firstly, it's based on a successful 60s film that was really very good. You'd think that with an increased budget ($80 million) and standard in both audio and visual effects, they'd be able to improve on the original. It also has some big names in it with Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Owen Wilson all included. Even the house that the film takes place in is suitably massive and creepy. Surely all these ingredients would add up to an above average fright flick! Well unfortunately, it didn't work out the way it should have. The reasons for this aren't all that easy to define. I mean, the acting is OK (Owen Wilson shouldn't play these roles though, he should stick to comedy), the house itself is perfectly designed and the audio is filled with creepy sounds and disturbing whispers. But even with all this, it's just not frightening in any way. The movie spends the first hour setting things up and your patience will seriously be tested. When things actually do start happening towards the end of the film, it feels contrived and even unintentionally humorous at times. The dialogue is fairly atrocious, the first death scene is ridiculous (will you just move!) and there's nothing subtle about anything that occurs. This is the main difference between the original and the remake. The 1963 version worked on the viewer's nerves through suggestion and believability. It was all about what you couldn't see that was frightening! Instead, the creators of this version decided to show us everything, and considering how fake a lot of the CGI appears, it only lessens the effect rather than improving on it.
As you can tell, I'm disappointed in this film. It's not a complete waste of time and I've definitely seen worse. But I can't really recommend it as a must see film. I know it has been said a thousand times already, but "see the original instead".
The Gift (2000)
A good horror / thriller with some great performances.
"The Gift" was a pleasant surprise for me. On reading the plot, my hopes for the movie were not particularly high. The main reason for this was due to the whole story revolving around the main character's abilities as a fortune teller. I've always seen this as a rather bad storytelling device, mainly due to so many recent movies utilizing "visions" and "clairvoyance" to allow characters to know things that the writers can see no other way of expressing to the audience. Check out "Jeepers Creepers 2" for a perfect example. The creators were struggling to let the audience know the history of the creature involved, so instead of figuring out an ingenious way to do so, one of the cheerleaders suddenly starts to have flashbacks and visions for no obvious reason. Anyway, seeing that Sam Raimi, the director of the cult "Evil Dead" series and more recently the "Spider Man" movies was at the helm for "The Gift", I thought I'd give it a shot despite my concerns.
When a young woman (played by a very sultry Katie Holmes) disappears, the police are baffled as to what has happened to her. In desperation, they grudgingly seek advice from the town clairvoyant Annie (wonderfully portrayed by the extremely talented Cate Blanchett). With the help of her psychic powers, Annie leads the police to the property of Donnie Barkwell (Keanu Reeves in a surprisingly cast role). But is Donnie a killer? And can Annie's evidence against him hold up considering its psychic origin? There are a few things that make this movie work. Firstly, the acting is mostly superb. Cate Blanchett is just staggering as Annie. I mentioned earlier how difficult it is to use psychic phenomena as a plot builder, and it takes a seriously talented actor to be able to pull it off. Cate's performance is completely believable, which is just as well, as the whole movie depends on it. Besides Blanchett, Greg Kinnear, Giovanni Ribisi, Hilary Swank and Katie Holmes all put in good performances. But Keanu Reeves is the surprise packet for me. I know he can act when given a role that allows him to do so. "The Devil's Advocate" showcased his abilities to some extent. But I never would have thought he could ever play a villain role, or in this case, a dangerous tough-guy redneck. While he's nowhere near as impressive as the movie's star, he puts in a dominant performance with the help of good direction.
Speaking of direction, Sam Raimi does an awesome job crafting a tight thriller with supernatural and horror elements. His dabbling experience in different genres is really paying off now with an ability to pull A list actors and still make movies designed to creep you out and scratch your head in equal doses. "The Gift" is a really enjoyable horror themed thriller that will keep you glued to your seat. If it wasn't for the highly dubious climax (which I won't give away here except to say that it pushes the boundaries of what the audience should be willing to except) and the occasional cliché characters (the police are always idiots in these films), I'd give this even higher marks.
What Lies Beneath (2000)
Blatant homage to Hitchcock, but a fine film in its own right!
"What Lies Beneath" will always be remembered as Robert Zemeckis' homage to Alfred Hitchcock. From the opening credits to the stunning climax, the techniques of the master are unashamedly paid tribute to. The music, the camera-work, the building up of suspense, the characters names etc. are all straight from numerous classic Hitchcock films such as "Vertigo", "Rear Window" and "Psycho". But while it may seem quite stupid to try to copy such a brilliant director's work (the "Psycho" remake comes to mind), Zemeckis has surprisingly created a great film here.
Clair and Norman appear to be a happily married couple. They clearly have money, a beautiful house and a daughter heading towards her own successful career. But when Claire suspects her neighbor of murdering his wife, her world suddenly begins to crumble around her. Not only is she constantly spying on the suspicious activities next door, but she also becomes aware of a presence within her own house. While those around her (Norman included) believe her to be losing her sanity, Claire searches deeper for answers which inevitably leads her to repressed memories that, with the help of beautiful girl long dead, lead her to a shocking revelation that sends her marriage and mental state into turmoil.
When reading the above plot, you may feel that this is nothing new. There have been countless movies over the years with ghosts attempting to communicate with the living to reveal the cause of their demise. In fact, there are plenty of cliché moments in "What Lies Beneath". But the film is so beautifully and lovingly made that it is thoroughly entertaining nonetheless. Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford are both fantastic and completely convincing throughout. Pfeiffer in particular has a tough role to get through here, having to be both extremely vulnerable and steamily sexual at various times. She is always beautiful, but at the age of 42, she is simply stunning and captivating as Clair. But it's Zemeckis' direction that stands out as exceptional. The film is quite long at 2 hours, but this running time is used to build up the intensity. What starts out as reasonably cheap scares, turn into genuinely frightening ones by the second hour. There are some great set pieces (the bath scene in particular is a classic) and CGI is seamlessly utilized throughout, particularly as a tool for camera trickery.
I know this film has its detractors and I can honestly understand the qualms that they raise. But a good film is a good film in my book, regardless of its origin or blatant worshiping status. "What Lies Beneath" gave me exactly what I wanted with some great scares, masses of suspense and intrigue, topped off with fantastic visuals, sound, acting and direction. What more could I possibly ask for in a thriller!?
Ringu 2 (1999)
A decent yet over-complicated attempt at a sequel.
After "Ringu" knocked my socks off a few years ago, I was very much looking forward to the sequel, but not really sure where they were going to take the story. It would have been all too easy to simply take the Sadako character after the immense impact she had to the climax of the first film, and make a horror movie where she goes on a rampage of death and destruction. As it turned out, the creators took a much more subtle approach, choosing to continue with the first films creepy atmosphere and mystery. Unfortunately, "Ringu 2" doesn't match up to the original on almost any level and I feel it massively over-complicates the scenario.
The good news is that the film "feels" very much like the first one. Nearly all of the actors have returned and the story just continues exactly where it left off. The police are still trying to figure out what is behind the strange deaths and who the body that was found in the well belonged to. Scientists are also looking into the phenomena, which brings a different spin to it. One of the survivors from "Ringu" can be found in the psychiatric ward, petrified by TVs. Reiko (the star of the first film) and Yoichi (the little boy) are also involved, and this all makes "Ringu 2" a living, breathing part of the series. The challenge was always going to be finding a way to scare the audience a second time and this is where I feel they have failed. But not through a lack of trying! With "Ringu", once you accepted that someone would die a week after viewing the tape, the rest of the film (apart from one of the main character's ability to read minds to move to plot forward) was intensely frightening and real. The second film unfortunately takes further liberties, with another couple of characters suddenly gaining special powers and Sadako starting to appear in random scenes for shock value alone. A character that died in the first movie appears as an apparition to help Mai and the little boy appears as an apparition even though he is still alive. This just doesn't work as well in my opinion with the viewer's ability to suspend disbelief made far more difficult. I can't help but think they should have stuck to the world they'd created in the first movie, without over-complicating things. There's no need to explain how Sadako does what she does and yet they spend far too much time analysing it instead of letting her mystery and shocking appearance do its work.
These flaws included, I still found the film to be somewhat creepy and mildly entertaining. The minimalist approach to music and sound still works well. The acting is passable in the most but certainly not exceptional. I don't completely understand everything that happened, particularly towards the end but I get the general idea. It's simply another case where the cast and crew have made a decent, honourable attempt at a sequel, yet fallen a fair way short of the original, which turns out to be exactly what happened to the American remakes as well.
Ringu (1998)
Highly influential and creepy film that's enjoyable despite its flaws.
"Ringu" came out back in 1998 and caused quite a stir. It's really the film that kicked off the run of Asian horror movies that have since garnered a massive following and become the inspiration for umpteen American remakes. I think I'm one of the fortunate ones that picked up on the sensation early enough and saw "Ringu" long before the remake was released. Those who watch them in reverse order may be a little disappointed as they simply lose out on the effect that this unique (at the time) experience held. I'm not suggesting that "Ringu" isn't worth viewing. It just has flaws that the creators of the remake were generally able to rectify and having the knowledge of what happens at the end definitely takes away from the result.
The plot involves a videotape containing bizarre and creepy imagery. When someone watches the tape, they immediately receive a phone call and the countdown begins. They will die in seven days! The reasons for this are completely unclear for the majority of the film, but the main characters (who are attempting to save their own lives after watching the tape) slowly unravel the mystery to discover who is behind the curse and why. When I first heard this plot I thought it was stupid. Describing it to friends that haven't seen it still gets the same response. Yet "Ringu" is convincing enough to really get under your skin. The tape really is creepy for starters! It's far shorter than in the remake, yet the combination of grating sounds and atmospheric visuals that you just can't quite figure out works really well. The music in the film is minimal to say the least and it really only kicks in when something scary or important occurs. It's certainly not utilized for shock value like in so many American movies these days which is a breath of fresh air. Without a doubt though, it's the shocking finale that the viewer will never forget. I nearly soiled myself on first viewing and I consider myself to be a fairly difficult person to scare.
As for which version is better, well in most cases I find remakes fairly pointless exercises and nearly always disappointing. Yet "The Ring" is in my opinion far superior to "Ringu" for the following reasons. The acting is much better, the story doesn't rely on one of the main characters being able to read minds to unravel, and there's a whole heap of new background information on the characters involved. But even with all these flaws, I still really enjoy "Ringu" and suggest fans of the remake check it out to see where the whole thing started. If you haven't seen either, I highly recommend watching the Japanese version first for full appreciation.
The Cell (2000)
A visually astounding film that works on most levels that it attempts.
"The Cell" is a rather difficult film to classify. If you read the plot outline, "a psychotherapist journeys inside a comatose serial killer in the hopes of saving his latest victim", you might think it's a thriller with a touch of science fiction. But that doesn't really do this movie justice. There is a fantasy aspect within the sub-conscious minds that is stunning, with lavish visuals and incredible mind-tripping scenarios. There is drama as the aforementioned psychotherapist (played by Lopez prior to her becoming a solely romantic comedy component) makes contact with the child within and witnesses his terrifying upbringing. And there is most definitely a horror facet due to the sickening actions of the serial killer's evil persona. The movie attempts to function on many different levels and crosses genre boundaries at will. While I feel it ends up being a reasonably bizarre experience, I find it to be completely fascinating.
Right from the opening credits, with Lopez riding a horse through the desert stunningly clothed in a white dress, you will know that you are in for a visual treat. Every time the audience leaves reality and follows her into the sub conscious depths of her "patients", they are guaranteed a feast of visual and aural delight. The costumes are wonderful creations of angles and colour. The camera leaves regularities at the door and traverses a world where up and down are the same. The characters become rulers of their own domains and transform into creatures worthy of such stature. If you don't enjoy anything else about "The Cell", you will surely be impressed with the work put into these scenes.
The casting is top notch also. Jennifer Lopez is in her element here, utilizing her natural, compassionate and almost maternal sensibilities, while combining her own striking looks with the lush surroundings, makeup and costumes. She is incredibly sexy and I personally wish someone would find another role for her outside of the rom-com world she has been typecast into that would allow her to experiment further. Vince Vaughn is fairly convincing as an FBI agent that will do anything to save the life of a young woman. But it is without a doubt Vincent D'Onofrio that has the biggest impression here. It's an extremely difficult role as he is required to bring out multiple emotions within the viewer. We are disgusted at his actions, yet sympathetic towards him due to the trauma he has experienced during his life. He looks magnificently powerful within his realm, yet insecure and vulnerable within the real world. It's a great performance from an underrated actor.
While "The Cell" doesn't work as well on every level it ambitiously attempts (some of the actions of the characters are not believable) and while it is all based on some fairly flimsy scientific logic, it is an occasionally shocking, visually astounding head trip that rewards multiple viewings.
The Prophecy (1995)
Ambitious and entertaining film with fascinating performances.
This is one ambitious movie. Not only does it cover some seriously controversial territory, it does so with style and an abundance of talented actors. I recall the first time I saw the movie back in the nineties and just how fascinated I was by the whole thing. Watching it now in a more critical way, I realise that it is certainly not without flaws, but nothing can take away just how interesting the plot is, nor how wonderful a couple of the performances are.
Angels come to Earth to continue a war that has been raging in Heaven. The angel Gabriel seeks a soul that he will use to end the war and subsequently open a new Hell. The angel Simon also seeks the soul, but with the purpose of hiding it from Gabriel. It's not surprising that humans become entangled in this battle and it is left to a former priest and a little girl to stop Gabriel, with some help from the least expected of beings, Lucifer himself.
This may all sound fairly ridiculous, and if you really study it, I guess it kinda is. But the style of the movie and the performances make it work. The angels are fascinating creatures. Their way of perching on top of things like a bird is such a simple way of distinguishing them and immediately marks them as different to the humanity surrounding. While the flashes of the war in Heaven may not look as amazing as a bigger budget may have allowed, it certainly gives the viewer an idea of the horror involved, with screaming angels dying upon massive spears.
There is no doubt that Christopher Walken makes this film! He gives Gabriel such an amazing amount of charisma along with such a threatening persona. His regular sniffs, licks and head tilts are both disturbing and fascinating and every piece of dialogue that omits from his mouth is given life and importance. It's just a stunning portrayal of a powerful being and displays why he is such sought after villain these days. Eric Stoltz is also very good as Simon, yet he simply doesn't have the presence of Walken. Viggo Mortenson on the other hand displays his scene stealing abilities that would become even more prevalent as Arigorn years later. It's not often that an actor would get the chance to play the angel of darkness, and even less often that the character would be fighting on the same side as the movie's heroes. It's inspired writing combined with inspired casting.
Although I obviously thoroughly enjoy "The Prophecy", there are certain aspects that stop me from calling it a classic movie. I do feel the creators of the film did wonderfully well with the budget they had, but a movie of this scale could so easily have been made monumental with a bit more money for special effects and sets. Most of the film is situated in the desert, which is a rather strange setting for such a dark film. I can't help imagining how effective this plot would have been had it been located within a major city, with the heavenly battle breaking out into the lives of a large population. But that's being greedy.
Some of the writing also could have been better. The occasionally dodgy dialogue is generally saved by the performances, but there are also quite a few plot holes and lack of explanation that stop the film from rising above being a very good B movie. But I don't want to nit pick "The Prophecy" too much, because it's a thoroughly entertaining and ambitious horror movie, sprinkled with comedy and action. If you're a fan of religious context horror or Christopher Walken, then this is a must see.
Pitch Black (2000)
Really good science fiction film made better by the character Riddick.
"Pitch Black" is the perfect example of a film that clones most of its elements from a previous classic (in this case it's "Aliens") and yet still manages to be entertaining and amazingly appear somewhat fresh. Both movies involve a group of people stuck on a distant planet being hunted by an extremely dangerous species. After the initial onslaught, both movies then see the remaining characters attempting to survive while desperately working to get off the planet as soon as possible. So how can "Pitch Black" possibly seem fresh despite all these similarities? Well, the difference is in the details.
When a spaceship is critically damaged by some sort of asteroid storm, the pilot is forced to crash-land on a desert planet that has three suns. Due to at least one of the suns being above the horizon at all times it at first appears as if the planet exists in constant sunlight. Soon after they arrive it becomes apparent that the survivors are not alone. A species of creature takes a few of them out before they have a chance to figure out what's happening. This reptilian looking animal appears to have a severe reaction to light of any sort and so the climate seems to be ideal for the marooned travelers to avoid contact. But when the three suns and a planet all align in a massive scale eclipse, the creatures are free to roam the planet, attacking any life-forms that they come into contact with. The crew will soon come to realize that they need to rely heavily on a convicted killer they were previously transporting if they are to have any chance of survival.
The setup is a good one. The suspense builds dramatically as the light begins to fade away. But the thing that takes the movie to another level completely is the cast and the special effects. The effects are awesome, particularly when you consider that "Pitch Black" did not have a huge budget. In particular the initial crash scene is grippingly intense and kicks proceedings off with one heck of a bang. The creatures look real and frightening and the use of light and shadows works well for both the story and the budgetary constraints. The movie was filmed in Australia yet the planet appears alien due to the strange overexposed lighting used throughout the daytime scenes as well as the alien looking skeletal remains that dot the surface. Each member of the cast has a distinct persona as well as their own story to tell. Carolyn (Radha Mitchell) is an attractive young woman that comes awfully close to intentionally killing most of the crew during the crash landing in an attempt to save her own life, only to be considered a hero when they all live to see another day. She struggles throughout the movie with this cowardice and the undue praise that followed. William (Cole Hauser) is a morphine addicted mercenary intent on making sure a convicted criminal comes to justice. But the star of "Pitch Black" is undoubtedly Vin Diesel as Riddick, an escaped prisoner that the rest of the crash survivors rightfully fear. Diesel doesn't say an awful lot during the movie, yet every time he is on screen, he simply demands attention. I do feel that the creators tried perhaps a little too hard to make Riddick appear insanely dangerous, yet it's a credit to Diesel's performance that the audience still finds themselves in awe of him as well as hopeful to see more of him in action. The character was so successful that there is now a sequel called Riddick as well as a computer game based on him alone.
"Pitch Black" is most definitely ripping off previous films as stated above, but it does what it does tremendously well. Considering the amount of dreadful monster films that have come out in recent times, the grittiness, setting and Riddick make this movie a complete success. I highly recommend it to any fan of science fiction and horror.
Urban Legend (1998)
Great premise that delivers what it promises.
The movie "Scream" has an awful lot to answer for really. The amount of teenager packed, pop culture filled horror movies that have been released in its wake is astonishing. Movies such as "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Urban Legend" are a direct response to the above movies success. Each involves fantastic looking people being killed one by one by an unknown executioner. They manage to include sex, comedy and popular music and the audience are subjected to cliché scenarios and inevitable twists and turns. It would be so very easy to just dismiss them all as redundant, money making exercises, but to be honest, when they're done well they are thoroughly entertaining despite the obvious plot holes, unrealistic acting and overuse of cheap scares. "Urban Legend" is a very good case in point.
When students at a fictional university are being slaughtered one by one, it becomes apparent that the killer is using common urban legends to take each of them out. The movie starts with a young woman having her head cut off by someone that had been hiding in the backseat of her car. It's a very effective scene utilizing a story most viewers would have been told at some point, with great camera angles, a thunderstorm to create the appropriate atmosphere and a suitably creepy Brad Dourif whom makes it work. You know what you're in for from this point onwards and while not all the scenarios work as well as this opening they are all reasonably well done. Over the course of the film, the creators manage to make just about every single member of the cast appear to be the assassin. A combination of red herrings and coincidences regularly come into play to confuse and sidetrack. I must admit that the first time I saw the film I had no idea who the killer was until it was revealed, which is a credit to the cast and crew involved.
"Urban Legend", as is the case with many modern horror films, doesn't take itself too seriously. There are clichés all over the place which I guess can be excused considering the theme of the film. It's a little difficult to make things seem fresh when most of the film is actually attempting to clone other well known stories. There are a few too many cheap scares for my liking. You know the ones! A girl walks into a dark library and thinks she's alone. She walks slowly around saying "hello, is anyone there?" Then she backs down a corridor only to wander straight into an innocent bystander while the music raises several decibels in an attempt to make the audience jump. Repeat several times throughout the movie and it just becomes really predictable. I guess directors of these horror movies that contain so much comedy really find it hard to build up creepy atmosphere so they simply have to resort to regular little shocks. The movie isn't excessively gory, yet it does include decapitations with axes, people being run over with cars and hangings. There's actually not a lot of blood and most damage occurs slightly off screen. It's also worth noting that a couple of horror legends get some screen time during all the fun. Robert Englund (Freddy Kruger) and the previously mentioned Brad Dourif (voice of Chucky) are welcome inclusions.
Overall I'd have to say "Urban Legend" is an entertaining horror movie with a really great premise. Pretty much none of it is believable (the killer seems to be in two places at once several times and the killer appears to be immortal by the end) but then it really doesn't try to be a serious and realistic film. Its purpose is to give you a fun night in, a few good jolts along with some awesome eye candy for both sexes. I believe it succeeds in exactly what it tries to do and therefore recommend it for those inclined. You know who you are.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
A unique study in terror that requires a little something from the viewer.
I really wanted to love "The Blair Witch Project" when I went to see it at the cinemas. I'd read the Internet hype after it came out in the U.S. back when not everyone realized it was fake. The reviews called it "the scariest movie since the Exorcist!" and stories of people screaming and crying in the cinemas really brought my expectations up to an unattainable height. I'd talked it up to myself as well as to friends and colleagues, telling them all that they had to go see it when it came out. But by the time it actually hit our shores (I'm an Aussie), everyone had been made aware that it was fake and all the magic of early reports had been replaced by negativity and mocking. But I lined up, paid my cash and went in to find out what it was all about.
I must admit, that first sitting was the epitome of disappointment. The camera jumped all over the place and made me feel frustrated and a tad ill. The constant fighting of the characters got on my nerves more than a reality TV show. But the worst part of it was that I didn't find it at all to be scary. Here was this so-called holy grail of scary movies and people were actually laughing in the cinema rather than screaming. I walked out feeling completely let down after months of looking forward to the event.
A couple of years later I decided to watch the movie on DVD. I picked a cold, dark night, turned all the lights out, took the phone off the hook and sat down on the couch. I'd made the decision that I was going to watch "The Blair Witch Project" the way the first viewers had seen it. Forgetting everything I'd ever heard about it, I would delve into it with a clean slate. I'm really glad I did! While I didn't completely freak out and lose my lunch in fear, I certainly found a new appreciation for it. In fact, if the viewer simply allows themselves to become involved in the situation on screen, it can become quite psychologically jarring. I really believe one of the reasons that so many hated the film, myself included, was due to both expectations and an inability to actually put themselves in the place of the actors. To actually experience the movie! It certainly didn't help that the audience I saw it with was laughing. If you can take that step, then "The Blair Witch Project" is a very effective and clever film. So the question is, is it OK to ask the audience to commit so much of themselves to a film for them to be able to have an emotional reaction (other than boredom). The more I think about it, the more I think the answer is yes. The problem has been created over an extended period of time, with more and more blockbuster movies that require nothing of the audience whatsoever. No thought, no belief, no experience
nothing! That being the case, when a movie such as this one comes around, it's understandable that people may just find it boring as they have lost the ability to actually "experience" it or in some cases, simply choose not to let themselves.
No, I haven't done a complete turn around and gone from a Blair Witch basher to a Blair Witch lover. It's not a perfect film by any stretch of the imagination. The epileptic camera movements still make it hard to watch, the inability to hear what's going on in the forest and some of the bickering still gets on my nerves. But I must admit it all makes it far more realistic and it's all very intentional to get the desired effect. The acting is actually pretty damn good. The fact is that in all likeliness, normal people would fight and cry and scream and carry on exactly the same way these guys do. There are moments of absolute terror in their voices and sheer emotion on their faces which is a credit to the actors. I can't say there's anything I could suggest they should have done differently that would make it any more realistic than it is and for that reason alone I consider the movie to be a success. It is a movie to be experienced alone in the dark though. Nothing else would do it justice.
American Psycho (2000)
Fantastic performance by Christian Bale brings a disturbing character to life.
"An American Psycho" is one of those films that people seem to find very difficult to come to grips with. Is it a masterpiece deserving of praise? Is it a completely boring, insensitive piece of sick trash? Or is it something in between? Through all this argument though, there is one thing that cannot be denied. That this film will provoke a reaction from the viewer whether it is feelings of disgust, praise, amusement, unease or all of the above. Well, unless of course the viewer is in a similar state of mind as Patrick Bateman that is.
You see, Patrick Bateman externally appears to be everything a man could want to be. He has a body to die for, a big earning job and all the worldly possessions that come with the territory. Yet despite all this, Patrick finds it difficult to feel anything. He states in the film that he feels no human emotions other than "greed and disgust" and it's this complete lack of connection with the world that drives him to violence. However, even these extreme outbursts of gruesome bloodshed still can't make him feel anything but empty and only distance him further from humanity, driving him towards madness.
Christian Bale's performance as Patrick is simply stunning. He fills the character with humour, anger, charm, intelligence and copious amounts of vanity. Christian makes even the strangest of scenarios in Patrick's existence appear to be completely realistic for him. An example of such bizarre behaviour is the way he verbally critiques Huey Lewis and the News while murdering a colleague. Or when he decides another colleague should die for the simple fact that they now have a better business card than he does. These occurrences are as funny as they are unsettling but never unintentionally so. The direction is perfectly understated and considering the extreme nature of the book it is based on, the screenplay is as loyal as decency (amongst the general movie going population anyway) and budget would allow. I should point out though that I have not yet read the book and this review is based only on the movie itself and not the quality of the adaptation.
"An American Psycho" is not for the faint of heart and yet there essentially isn't all that much on-screen gore. Not to say that killing people with chainsaws and axes isn't gory, only that these brutal acts of slaughter are mostly either only suggested or just out of the cameras view. But more than the acts themselves, many viewers will find the nonchalant, motiveless way in which Patrick conducts them far more disturbing, not to mention his degrading use of women as self gratifying objects.
I thoroughly enjoy this movie. Despite all the disconcerting aspects of the story it remains an entertaining film and multiple viewings have definitely been rewarding. The only way in which I feel this film is not a complete success is in the ambiguousness of its final moments. Although it certainly makes a great discussion point post viewing, I can't help but feel it to be frustrating and slightly unnecessary. I have my views on what it all means, but I won't mention them here as I don't want to ruin things for those that haven't seen the movie yet. Besides, I have to return some video tapes.
Ginger Snaps (2000)
An intelligent and unique werewolf flick. Who would have thought?
"Ginger Snaps" is a low budget werewolf flick from Canada but that statement hardly does it justice. What we have here is one of the most intelligent horror flicks that have been produced in recent times. What it lacks in special effects it more than makes up for with superb writing and a cast that's capable of making it all come together.
Ginger and Brigitte are teenage sisters that are struggling through the very awkward years of puberty. They help each other through all the confusion and trials by imagining morbid fantasies of their own suicides and making pacts that they will stay together forever whether living or dead. But things become far more taxing when Ginger is bitten by a werewolf and starts to turn. Her pubescent changes are now exacerbated by her gradual transformation into a lycanthrope. With her growing power comes a previously unknown popularity at her school that separates her from Brigitte along with her concern and help.
The choice to combine both feminine pubescence and lycanthropy is pure genius. "They don't call it the curse for nothing" is the tag-line of the film and really displays this films split themes. It's both a story about growing up and a horror yarn based on werewolf mythology. The cast are simply fabulous! Emily Perkins' Brigitte suitably appears insecure and apprehensive about life in general. Her character struggles to look people in the eyes and has an almost pathetic look that she cowers behind. Katharine Isabelle is also awesome as Ginger. She oozes both adolescent nonchalance and sexual energy throughout the film. I found myself laughing hysterically several times throughout due to her morbid one-liners and looks of disgust at the world around her. While her transformation into a deadly beast may have been a difficult one as an actress, she pulled it off beautifully, remaining both expressive and sexy in equal doses. The other actress that deserves a mention is Mimi Rogers, not simply due to her being the most well-known of the cast, but due to her role as the sisters' mother. She portrays an extremely caring mother that's totally detached from the reality of her children. It's a demanding role and she performs admirably.
"Ginger Snaps" is almost totally devoid of clichés and manages to be both very funny and quite horrifying at times. It's not all that gory (although dogs do not fair well in this film), but it is a little bit disturbing in its use of violence and teenage struggles in tandem. For such a low budget movie I think the special effects are really very good, yet those used to Hollywood blockbusters should not go in expecting too much. The transformation effects are fantastic, yet the actual werewolves once completed are rather fake looking. But I'm willing to accept that due to the unique qualities of this film and find it to be thoroughly entertaining as a film that traverses several genres. Check it out if you haven't already.
Final Destination (2000)
A decent idea turned into a fantastic horror movie!
"Final Destination" caught me completely by surprise. After watching the trailer I figured it to be another typical teenage driven horror movie with little substance or unique qualities to set it apart from the pack. I'm really glad I gave it a go after reading a few good reviews though, as it turned out to be so very much more than that. This is a rare and wonderful case where an at most decent idea is turned into a really fantastic film due to good performances, direction and great scripting.
Without giving too much of the story away, let me just say that Alex manages to avoid death under very strange circumstances. In doing so, he also saves the lives of five of his schoolmates as well as his teacher. But when one of those near-victims then dies soon after, Alex starts to fear that perhaps by cheating death, Death itself is coming back to set things straight. Sounds silly right! Well I guess it is, but it works really well in "Final Destination" and that's a credit to director James Wong and his cast and crew.
When any and every normal item and scenario suddenly becomes an opportunity for Death to end your existence, life itself becomes a terrifying experience. The creators of this movie had a huge amount of fun with the setup, constantly placing obvious dangers in front of the characters only to have them harmlessly pass them by. Over and over you will find yourself thinking "he's turned the radio on in bathroom, he's gonna get it!" or "that gas has been on for far too long for her to light it, this is it for her!" only to have nothing happen. There are some brilliant scenes in "Final Destination" based on this uncertainty and each one finishes with highly creative and often unexpected death scenes.
The cast are great and in particular Devon Sawa and Ali Larter in two of the main roles. But everyone plays their part in the scenario successfully except for perhaps Seann William Scott who funnily enough went on to be the most successful actor. He hadn't quite perfected his goof-ball antics at this point and while he's mildly amusing, he far more regularly appears to be quite pathetic and annoying. Tony Todd (of Candyman fame) has an unforgettable cameo which was a nice touch also utilizing a legend of the genre.
There's a real sense of fun to proceedings even though death is a rather serious topic and that's due to the creators not taking things too seriously themselves. They are playing with you as an audience and rather than frustrating everyone as could so easily have occurred, you'll find yourself happily going along for the ride. This movie was a complete success and with two sequels already released to both financial reward and fan praise, we may not have seen the final Final Destination just yet.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Mildly entertaining Dracula tale in modern times.
The whole idea of modernizing the Dracula story is something I quite like. It would need to be done very well though as unfortunately, I just don't think today's setting works anywhere near as well as the less technological times of the original tale. But Patrick Lussier decided he was going to give it a real good go and bring The Count into the year 2000, along with all the sex, drugs and rock and roll that permeate this age.
The story has Dracula locked away in his coffin by Van Helsing, whom has kept himself alive for 100s of years by injecting himself with the immortal vampire's blood. He has dedicated his borrowed eternity to try to destroy the seemingly un-killable Dracula. But obviously (otherwise the movie would be rather bland), Dracula is about to escape captivity and enter the world as it exists in the new millennium. Is it worth your time? Well that depends on what you're looking for really.
If you're hunting for a really "good" movie then well, this isn't a very sensible place to be looking. The acting is average at best. The dialogue is corny and filled with unrealistic reactions. The script tries to be really clever with the whole Judas thing but it's not terribly convincing. The action is a strange mix of Matrix style wire-works and almost laughable Gothic visuals. All in all, the Academy wasn't staying up late considering whether Dracula 2000 deserved any nominations.
If you're looking for a dark horror movie, then you'll most likely be disappointed also. Apart from an occasional smattering of blood, there really isn't anything particularly scary or gory about this film. The very few scares that occur are terribly telegraphed and the vampires are trying really hard to be either sexy or funny. Neither of which gets the hair up on the back of your neck.
But, if you're really into the whole Scream thing and prefer your "horror" movies to be filled with teenagers, sex, comedy and heavy metal, then this could be a fun night in with a couple of friends. If you even remotely enjoyed "Queen of the Damned" or "Cursed", then this will be right up your alley. From what I have read in the reviews here, women seem to find Gerard Butler as Dracula to be insanely sexy. Although I can't vouch for that due to my inherent maleness, I did find him to be acceptable, if not very comfortable, in the role.
Personally, I prefer my horror movies to be filled with actual horror rather than the above teenage excesses that have seemingly become the norm for the darker side of theater these days. But I can't deny that this was at least entertaining and so I'll give it 5 out of 10 for that.