Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I’m also a big fan of cult films, both popular and obscure, but leaning more towards the obscure side. This is why I do a lot of my shopping for new (to me) movies at thrift stores. You never know what you’ll come across in those endless stacks of VHS tapes and dusty DVD’s.
I will write reviews from time to time, but you shouldn’t expect much in-depth analysis. I don’t rate movies based off of a “critical eye” or anything like that. If I enjoy a movie, I will rate it fairly high, whether or not it’s a “well-crafted” movie. I watch movies for fun. I’ve never understood the type of people who go into a movie on the lookout for things to complain about. On the contrary, many movies I’ve come to loathe over the years are considered “classics” such as A Clockwork Orange and Blue Velvet. I guess there’s some weight to taste being subjective, huh?
As my screen name implies, I am a semi-devoted viewer (and collector) of the VHS format. I buy/watch movies on an array of different formats ranging from VHS to Blu-Ray and Netflix, but I enjoy watching many older movies on VHS as, for me, it adds another element of immersion. Immersion into the film or the time period? Well, A little of both, I guess.
I’m also a huge fan of the Attitude Era of the World Wrestling Federation, as well as the Ruthless Aggression Era that followed. I quit watching around 2006/7. From the look of things, I’ll probably never return to being a regular viewer.
1. John Carpenter
2. Martin Scorsese
3. Wes Craven
4. George Romero
5. Tommy Lee Wallace
6. Rob Reiner
1. Leonardo DiCaprio
2. Donald Pleasence
3. Tom Atkins
4. Kathy Bates
5. Robert De Niro
6. Tom Cruise
7. Joe Pesci
8. John Goodman
9. Al Pacino
10. George Clooney
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Halloween II (1981)
A very enjoyable horror sequel; perfect for a double-feature
I saw both Halloween (1978) and Halloween II (1981) in one night, back when I watched them for the first time. I was a little worried going into it that it might not be as good, since people enjoy crapping all over sequels before giving them a fair shake, but I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it.
Donald Pleasence's performance as Dr. Sam Loomis is just as legendary and memorable in this film as it was in the original. It's safe to say, in my opinion, that his role in these films was just as important (if not more important) as Michael Myers's.
This film picks up right where the original left off, only this time, we spend most of our time in a hospital. I think the setting for the hospital is very unique, but certainly could've been handled a little better. For one, it feels very, very empty. On one hand, I enjoy the emptiness of the hospital, because it adds another element of eeriness and suspense. But on the other hand, it does feel pretty unrealistic, even if Haddonfield is a small town.
Jamie Lee Curtis's role in this film is quite minimal. Not awful, but not good, either.
The budget was much larger with this film, and it definitely shows in certain scenes. The gore was also upped, which some people seem to gripe about, but I thoroughly enjoyed the goriness. I disagree that gore is a cheap way to get scares, and that it ruins suspense, like so many people here claim. You can have suspense and gore in the same film.
The ending is also very satisfying, both in plot and aesthetic. All in all, I suggest jumping straight into this film as soon as you finish the original. Easily the best double-feature you'll ever experience!
Dazed and Confused (1993)
A true love-it or hate-it film.
I adore these types of plot-less films, and to my surprise, that seems to be the biggest problem people have with this film. The truth is, not everything needs to be intricate and complex, or to fall into a specific genre. In order to make up for a lack of story, a film should certainly heighten its other senses. Dazed and Confused certainly has those heightened senses: it's beautiful to look at, relatable on so many levels, nostalgic, and most of all, it's fun.
If you absolutely need a plot in your films, then, yeah, you can probably skip this one, man. But if you enjoy these plot-less, relaxing palate cleansers between the overly-elaborate movies constantly pushed down our throats, go for it. You'll have a great time with this 70's throwback.
The Money Pit (1986)
Why wasn't this a hit?
The physical comedy in this film is hilarious. Just when you think they're about to slow down, the hits keep on coming. Though, it must be said, this film is pretty much carried on Tom Hanks' back. The other performances are fairly forgettable.
It's also a little cliche in some areas, but a lackluster story is almost expected with some of these comedies--after all, we're here to laugh, not to be blown away with an intricate plot.
Give this little unknown 80's comedy a shot. It's worth your time.
Absolute fan service
A must see for fans of this cult classic. Very informative.
An 80's cult film in an endless search for an audience.
Firewalker is the story of Max and Leo, longtime friends and adventurers, searching for ancient treasure alongside a woman named Patricia, who has the map but needs assistance with manpower and navigation.
Honestly, after I watched this film, I expected to see at least 20,000 - 40,000 votes on IMDb. But only 5,000 and an average score of 5.2?! Ridiculous!
Now, it is very obvious that they weren't working with a $20mil budget like Raiders of the Lost Ark was working with, but that doesn't mean you should write this movie off as a lost cause without even giving it a chance. What this films lacks in budgetary restrictions it makes up for with good ol' fashion fight sequences, comedy, story, decent acting and great cinematography.
This is a perfectly good film for 80's fans and treasure-hunting-film fiends alike.
A Quiet Place (2018)
An idea that would've benefited from someone else at the lead.
The idea for this film is certainly original, and it's not dreadful to sit through, either. Also, it's beautiful to look at. And the acting is good. But I felt like I was constantly waiting for something to happen, and each time a "climax" would hit, it was lackluster at best. Even the ending was disappointing.
If you're a fan of straight-up horror, you can probably skip this. If you're more of a thriller fan, you might enjoy it, but don't believe the hype--there's nothing groundbreaking here.
'Crocodile' Dundee (1986)
Great 80's fun
I'm not sure how I've lived this long without seeing this movie. I'd heard of it, of course, but no one ever urged me to watch it, and I guess that's how it slipped under the radar for me for so long. I'm glad I finally sat down and watched it. Funny, romantic, adventurous, and a nice, fresh setting for a film.
Paul Hogan and Linda Kozlowski are fantastic together. Their acting chemistry is great. Unfortunately, both of their filmography's are quite small.
If you're looking for a fun comedy, a "fish out of water" type story, or just an enjoyable 80's film, you can't go wrong with Crocodile Dundee.
The versatile Carpenter
It's so odd to see a film like this in John Carpenter's directorial filmography. But, man, what a surprise! I absolutely loved this film. Funny, romantic without being cheesy, and some really, really stellar acting performances, especially from Jeff Bridges.
For all the fans of Carpenter's horror and action films, give this one a try, and go in with an open mind. You'll be glad you did. I know I am.
The best film ever made.
Even when this film was released, there were plenty of Italian mafia films to watch and enjoy. Some good, some bad, and some severely overrated. But only Goodfellas, to this day, has ever handled the subject matter with such an unforgiving amount of raw, revealing truth. This is what "The Life" really looks like. It's beautiful, it's enticing, but most of all, it's brutal and depressing. And this film captures all those elements perfectly without adding a bunch of circus-like, drama theater nonsense for the sake of aesthetic. Being authentic and ruthlessly accurate to the subject matter naturally forms its own unique aesthetic; one many film goers could identify with because it wasn't trying to be flashy--it was trying to be real. And by God they succeeded.
This film follows the rise and fall of one Henry Hill, a half Italian, half Irish mobster who got his start (as a pre-teen) in the 1950's by parking wiseguys' Cadillacs and Lincolns. His involvement only stayed innocent for a short time. Soon, he was peddling stolen cartons of cigarettes and even blowing up cars with Molotov cocktails. Although the man himself participated in activities many of us view as despicable, he never shied away from telling the truth. His honesty is admirable, and without it, it could've been decades later before we truly had a first-hand account of what it was really like being a mobster during the golden age, and the eventual downfall. Henry Hill passed away in 2012 from complications related to heart disease, one day after his 69th birthday.
Henry Hill is the star of the show, but he's far from a one-man band. Joe Pesci's performance as Tommy DeVito shows us how truly psychotic some of the men were in the mafia; willing to murder someone in a split second over something normal people would shrug off without a second thought. At the same time, he can be lovable and down to earth; showing us the facade many of these men could put up at a moment's notice. One moment he's brutally murdering someone, and the next he's having a pleasurable dinner with his elderly mother who's busting his chops about not settling down with a nice woman. All in the same day!
Lorraine Bracco plays Karen Hill; Henry's wife. Seeing her get sucked into The Life so easily is quite honestly terrifying. She couldn't have been further from what Henry was, yet the flashiness of the mobster lifestyle attracted her like cartoonish characters on the front of a cereal box would attract a grocery cart full of kids. And once she realizes how deceptive The Life can be, it's already too late. She's in. And there's no turning back.
Robert De Niro's performance as Jimmy Conway is quite possibly the one that sticks with me the most. He's the perfect example of how paranoia can turn you into a completely different person; causing you to flip out and cause a scene over something as banal as a man's wife wearing a nice coat after a heist. Or going to devastating lengths when you start wondering, "Who can I really trust?" Of course, for many true paranoids, the answer is: No one.
This is Scorsese at his best. While many of his films are amazing, and also 10/10's, the lightning in a bottle captured in this film will most likely never be replicated. Not by Scorsese, or anyone, for that matter. This is a film everyone should watch. It's enjoyable as all films should be, but eye-opening unlike any other.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
The definition of a FUN movie.
This film is proof that not everything has to have a point, or an underlying philosophical theme that's meant to be dissected and manipulated. It's simply fun. Outrageous scenarios, even more outrageous characters and dialogue--you'll be quoting this movie for the rest of your life.
It's been twenty-two years! Watch it already!
A timeless classic.
This is the show I come back to time after time when I'm either not sure what to watch next, or just want to relax with something familiar. I've lost count of how many times I've watched this wonderful show from start to finish over the years. At this point, I can recite certain episodes verbatim--as can many other fans, I'm sure.
If, somehow, you haven't sat down and given this show a fair shake yet, I implore you wait until you have a considerable amount of time on your hands. The hours will fly by without much notice.
Family Guy (1999)
It pains me to rate this show so low.
I happened upon this show in the year 2000, when the Road to Rhode Island episode aired on FOX. I promptly began watching episodes whenever I could, and bought the seasons on DVD when I had enough spare money.
Unfortunately, this show has gone completely downhill over the years. One reviewer on this site called it, "A shell of its former self," and I'm inclined to agree. If you watch episodes of this show from the first four seasons, then watch the newest ones, it's like a completely different show. They depend too much on edgy shock value now. I think the limits of what they could do on FOX in the late 90's and early 2000's really forced the writers to be more creative.
As for the first four seasons, I'd give this show a 10/10. But I can't ignore how awful Family Guy has become.
A show that has simply overstayed its welcome.
As a huge fan of The X-Files, discovering this show was like a dream come true. Likable characters, a new case in each episode with an underlying story to keep people tuning in week after week, and lots of twists and turns to keep the viewer on the edge of their seat.
But this show was intended to end after season 5. I won't spoil the ending of said season, but it's a very solid finale, and if you turn it off afterwards and pretend the other ten-thousand seasons don't exist, this can be a great show.
Unfortunately, we horror fans are willing to sit through a lot of crap in the hopes for things to get better, and this show simply doesn't. Time after time, this show breaks its own set rules in order to keep it alive and going. It's almost as if the writers of this show are scared to kill off any characters. Granted, when a character actually DOES die off it's surprising, but again: this show'll do anything to keep itself going, and one of those things is constantly reviving dead characters with excuses that a nine-year old could come up with.
Watch until season 5, accept the finale, and promptly pretend the other seasons don't exist.
Halloween II (2009)
An absolute embarrassment.
I hated the first film, but I could at least respect Zombie for taking it in a different direction. I didn't understand the overly huge Myers, the unnecessary backstory, or this fantasy land where everyone swears after they've said two other words. But again: I could at least respect him for taking it in a different direction. Who am I to shame someone for having a vision?
This film, however, is nothing more than an illogical, convoluted ball of nonsense. Why make an unnecessary, convoluted film? Because of money. Now, every film is created with the rooted intentions being to make money, sure, but this? This is one of the most blatant cash grabs I've ever seen. It's painfully obvious that not only did they have no clue where to go with this sequel, but they didn't care, either.
Got a Halloween itch that needs to be scratched? Go back to the originals. You're only going to get more itchy after watching this lump of garbage.
Never understood the overwhelming amount of hate this movie receives.
Back in the mid-2000's when I was on my initial Halloween franchise kick, I was admittedly a little nervous to try this one out. Why? Well, the general consensus back then from most outspoken horror/Halloween fans was that Halloween 6 was a complete dud, only slightly better than the debacle that was Halloween: Resurrection. So when I finally decided to bite the bullet and try this movie out, I told myself to go in not expecting much. I'd already been a little disappointed in Halloween 5 (certainly didn't hate it by any stretch; the laundry chute scene from that film will forever stick in my mind) so it wasn't hard to go in with a neutral state of mind.
And because I went in with such a let's-not-get-too-excited-here head space, I was completely blown away by how much I enjoyed the film. Does the film have issues? Sure; of course it does. One of the biggest issues for most people is the fact that Danielle Harris does not return as little Jamie. I'll be completely honest: While I thoroughly enjoyed Danielle Harris's acting in Halloween 4 and somewhat in Halloween 5, I saw her level of acting in the 90's through other outlets (like in the television sitcom Roseanne) and was not all that impressed. And therefor, I didn't really care all that much that she wasn't in this film. What does suck, however, is the entire backstory as to why she wasn't in this film. I won't rehash the entire thing here, but it is rather unfortunate and I felt bad for her.
Where this film does disappoint is the fact that there are two different versions, and both of them leave things out that could've been better if handled by a better editor. I would recommend watching the theatrical version, and if you enjoy it somewhat, then seek out the producer's cut. As for the longtime fans out there, I recommend looking into the Blu Myers Cut, which intertwines parts from both cuts into a great, truly fan-servicing cut.
As for this film itself, the atmosphere and set design is probably the best since the original, and dare I say, better in certain areas. The problem with the original film is that it's filmed in sunny southern California. Couldn't they have at least gone a little north? Anyway... Halloween 4, 5 and 6 were all filmed in Utah and it really, really shows. These movies are supposed to take place in the mid-west, and it doesn't matter how much you doctor-up southern California, it's always going to look like southern California. Utah, however, is much closer to Illinois in atmosphere and setting. The way the neighborhoods are decorated will feel familiar (and even nostalgic) for anyone who's lived in a suburban setting before. Lots of fall leaves and Halloween decorations; exactly what a film like this calls for. During the night scenes, the atmosphere feels dipped in this dreary blue and it really helps pull together the isolated-among-many feeling a slasher film should have.
The characters and acting performances in this film are great. No cheesy dialogue, no corny one-liners, nothing to make you cringe and say, "Oh, my God, did they really just say that?" These characters feel real. And that's because you know these characters. They're everyday people; struggling single mothers, college kids, arrogant, boozy husbands/fathers, weird guys demented and haunted from their past, young kids dealing with living in a dysfunctional family... I mean, you KNOW these characters! While all the performances in this movie are good, I have to specifically point out Bradford English's performance as John Strode. This guy makes playing a rude, arrogant middle-aged man look easy. You really want to lay into this guy while watching him perform - that's how good he is!
The score/soundtrack in this film is stellar - especially in the theatrical version. It's dark and gritty, and stands out among the others in the franchise. It's debatably the best in the franchise, however I still prefer the somber, darker than the original, Halloween 2 score. Of course, most purists will refuse to acknowledge any other score in this franchise being better than the original.
The most well known fact about this movie is that it's Donald Pleasence's final on screen performance. In fact, he passed away 8 months before this film hit the theaters. It's one of the many reasons why I hate that so many people crap on this film any chance they get. He was one of the most well-respected actors of his generation, and he never turned down a Halloween role. He knew how much this franchise meant to the fans, and he took the role of Dr. Sam Loomis as serious in his final performance as he did in his first. That kind of commitment among well-known actors is rare.
All in all, if you're a fan of Halloween and have been on the fence about trying this film, I implore you give it a shot; going in with an open mind.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
The most overrated film in cinema history.
I've seen this film three times over the years. The first time I saw it, I was completely blown away by how awful it was. Surely I was missing something, right? I mean, after all, it's considered to be not only one of the best films of the 1970's (no slouching decade) but of all time! I asked a friend of mine who was studying film in California what I was missing, and his answer was, "Well, it's a Kubrick film, so you may have to watch it more than once." And so, that following year, I sat down and watched this film two more times waiting for the reveal to finally wash over me. Today, I can tell you that was easily the worst piece of advice I've taken so far in my life. This film makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and any "underlying themes" people speak of is a load of hogwash. It's just bad. Period.
So, why did this film become so popular over the years? Probably because people LOVE to bow down to Kubrick as being the greatest filmmaker of all time, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the only movie I've seen from him that's actually good is Full Metal Jacket.
Although I've never read the book, I'm sure it's much better than this film. People were a lot less likely to bandwagon books pre-Harry Potter. If a book got a lot of attention back then, it probably deserved it. My recommendation would be to read the book and not waste your time on this pretentious, illogical, downright frustrating film.
Out of Ambien? Turn this movie on and you're sure to fall asleep!
I have never understood why this movie comes up so often as being a masterpiece. The writing for both dialogue and plot is awful, the pacing sucks, the cinematography is nothing to call home about, and the acting is weirdly stilted and cartoonish.
Don't waste your time on this pretentious garbage.
And if someone gifts this movie to you on DVD for your birthday, consider letting the air out of their tires while they sleep.
De lift (1983)
Movies like this are why I do so much of my movie shopping at thrift stores
This one's only for the more dedicated fans of 80's horror. It's schlocky, the effects are laughable, the acting is decent but foiled by a sub par English dub, and I'll be damned if it isn't a good time!
Track this one down only if you really, really love cult horror.
Eight Legged Freaks (2002)
A solid movie that's geared toward certain movie-goers
Eight Legged Freaks is the type of movie one should turn on when they're feeling a little lazy and, in so, they don't feel like paying attention to something complicatedly intricate. It's a junk food movie, as some old-timers put it, but it's also a gem for people who love monster films and creature features. The golden age for said sub-genres is long gone, but occasional movies such as Eight Legged Freaks let you know there's still people out there hungry for more.
The spider effects and various effects surrounding the spiders (such as web-shooting and whatnot) hold up surprisingly well for a movie that came out in the early 2000's; a time when God-awful CGI was ruining movies from the get-go and destroying the future potentiality for re-watches.
The characters and acting isn't awful, but it's not great, either. You should expect that with these types of movies. It's a given. Judging from the 5.4 rating this movie currently has, a lot of people on this site don't seem to understand that.
If you enjoy old school creature features, and enough common sense to not take this film too seriously, you'll probably enjoy yourself.
A fun late-night comedy
This is the kind of movie you watch at 2 o'clock in the morning, and the only thing you can find to eat in the house are frozen burritos, bags of off-brand chips and a suspicious tub of ice cream in the back of your freezer that you don't remember buying.
It's a funny comedy from a time when most comedies were garbage. Try it. If you aren't laughing within the first twenty minutes, it's probably not for you.
The Happening (2008)
Don't walk away from this one, RUN!
This is easily a top 10 contender for worst movie of the millennium, and probably still will be once the year 3000 hits.
Seriously, do not waste your time on this one. Even if you find a DVD copy at a garage sale for .50 cents, it's not worth it. Your time would be better spent watching paint dry or directing traffic into an empty shopping center.
In conclusion: Avoid at all costs, and if someone you call a friend suggests this movie, consider throwing them through a window.
Dante's Peak (1997)
Whenever I hear Pierce Brosnan's name mentioned, this is the film I think of.
The acting and chemistry between Pierce Brosnan and Linda Hamilton is fantastic, which really surprised me the first time I saw this film. I couldn't see the two of them meshing well at all, but I was dead wrong. The side characters, particularly the ones who play Pierce's coworkers, are all unique in their own quirky (and sometimes infuriating) ways that sets them apart individually. I find this to be rare in movies with lots of side characters; they tend to just blend together. Not here, though.
When it comes to disaster movies, though, I guess acting and interesting characters aren't the main concern for most movie fans. Seeing a disaster movie with a release date from over two decades ago can be scary, mainly because your first thought is, "Oh, God, how awful are these effects going to look?" Well, I can tell you that the special effects actually hold up quite well. Even remarkably well, if you compare this to other films from the time.
All in all, this movie is certainly worth your time if you enjoy thrillers, especially disaster thrillers.
Now and Then (1995)
A great coming of age film, enjoyable for adults and kids alike.
This story reminds me of Stephen King's novel IT a lot, except it's much more kid friendly. That doesn't mean this film is constantly holding back punches, however. It can be fun, sad, gritty, and even spooky at times.
But most of all, this film reeks of nostalgia. Even if you didn't grow up in the 60's and 70's, you'll feel nostalgia for a time you never lived in. And when the adult scenes hit between the kid scenes, especially toward the end, you'll find yourself thinking of old friends from your childhood, curious as to what those old rascals are up to.
Track this one down. It's kept a cult-following over the years for a reason.
Outside of many pretentious film echo chambers, this film is getting the praise it's long deserved. Not here, though.
The first thing you see under user reviews for this film on this site is a slew of 1 and 2 star reviews from a bunch of people who probably eat hot air for breakfast.
Is this movie going to blow people away who already consider horror to be a sub par genre, and only recognize specific horror films such as Halloween (1978), The Exorcist and Silence of the Lambs (all the while arguing they're thrillers and not horror) as being respectable films? No, it won't. But if you're a fan of 80's horror, you know darn well this is far from a 1 or 2 star rating.
And if you are a fan of 80's horror and haven't checked this one out due to its stupidly low rating on this site and others, do yourself a favor, kick back and get ready for a good time. This film won't disappoint.
The most overrated film of the 2010's.
One of the most boring, cliche, snore-inducing main characters in all of 2010's cinema. If Ron Perlman and Bryan Cranston weren't in this film, I'd give it a 1 star.
Don't believe the hype. This film isn't even worth being played as background noise to drown out your neighbor's early Saturday morning lawn mowing session.