Reviews

I want to start off by stating that I enjoyed both versions of this movie. I think the two versions show how important a director's vision is. With that said, the Paul Schrader version of the Exorcist prequel is much more subtle than the Renny Harlan version. I found Harlan's more entertaining, but Schrader's more interesting.

The thing that hurt this movie the most was definitely the special effects. The hyenas set a really bad tone for the movie right from the beginning. The effects were awful. I was surprised how unpolished the special effects were and how unintegrated they were. The climax scene had some overlooked flaws. Some of the lighting appeared to be right out of a USA network movie or TV show. The possessed character was not frightening at all. The whole sequence at the end looked like it was made with 1980's computer graphics. Its really hard to be afraid of something if it looks so blatantly fake.

Another thing that hurt this movie was the supporting cast, especially the female lead. Her performance was not up to par with Stellan's.

Paul Schrader told a good story and he better explained the personal crisis of Father Merin. From a storyline standpoint, it's a much better film than the original. Paul Schrader focuses too much on Father Merin's personal crisis. The other part of the film should be about drawing fear of the devil at the same time. The original is great because it was able to tell a good story and evoke genuine fear. Paul Schrader went for more of an aesthetic appeal and wound up with a drama with absolutely no reason to fear anything. What should have been "scary" moments wound up as labored segues to his storytelling.

The music did not help matters either.

Overall, I can see why this was scrapped. Though Harlan's version does not have the quality storytelling, it was more polished and did a better job of evoking some fear, though small. Harlan's version is not without major flaws as well.

I expected a horror movie first and drama second. Schrader's version only gave me the drama and no horror.

This movie is just plain dumb. Don't bother watching it; believe me, you're better off.

Long and short of the plot: a defense attorney represents a man who murdered his son and other children. In defending him, she comes across a wooden doll of Pinnochio. She takes the doll home. Pinnochio is possessed and begins to start killing people.

This movie moves very slowly only to have such a weak ending. The plot is very bad and the Dennis Michael Tenney's musical score is pitiful. The story, written by Kevin S. Tenney, is just pointless and evokes NO horror or fear. This is a far cry from his work on Night of the Demons and Witchboard, which are decent outings but nothing to write home about. His directing is OK, but with such a bad story no one could have made this movie any good.

In conclusion: 2 out of 10, perhaps the blandest, most boring movie I've seen all year.

Well, where to start? I want to start off by saying that this movie was pretty bad, but the gratuitous nudity was comforting. This movie runs about 87 minutes, which is amazing considering the plot.

First of all, how teenage girls get trapped in two story house with a basement and a garage is beyond me. Time and time again these girls absolutely refuse to leave the house even though there is a driller killer on the loose and they are "afraid" for their lives. Makes no sense. Of course, if they just walked out the back door or the front, they could just leave. I guess that makes too much sense. I guess I'm the idiot.

The acting was abysmal. The killer was ridiculous and his reasoning to start killing was just laughable. The connection between why he was killing these girls and how his crazy uncle committed suicide and how he was picked on by these girls is just dumb. I have to admit some of the killers bad acting and corny lines were funny. Perhaps if I was in a more tolerant, comedic mood, I could laugh at this junk and give 7 out of 10. But I wasn't.

Positives about the film...some good kills. Just to name a few: electrocution by way of dildo, stabbing with real estate sign, and drill to the gut. The special effects were good enough to get the point across. There was one part where the killer was drilling a victim and it was clear that the drill was not touching the stomach. The close up shot revealed a 2 to 3 inch gap between the drill bit and the victim's stomach. Apparently there wasn't enough budget to edit this part out. I understand why. No one put any time and effort in to this movie from beginning to end. And it shows.

So with that said, the movie sorely lacks in every area imaginable, except for nudity. There was enough there to pass the short time the movie actually played. There was very little redemption about this one. The movie epitomizes the over-saturation of low budget, slasher films of the 80's. It is the very reason why movies like these went direct to video and died. Too bad, because I'm fan of slasher films, just not this one.

3 out of 10.

To be quite honest, I never heard of this slasher flick before Fangoria reviewed the DVD release by Shriek Show earlier this year. I must say that I enjoyed this film for what it was. This came out about a year after the original Friday the 13th did. As a matter of fact, many aspects of this movie were very similar to Friday the 13th. Don't let that fact deter you from seeing it.

Vintage 80's slasher flicks are hard to come by. New DVD releases of this dying breed have allowed more and more obscure movies to see the light of day. The DVD package is 2 discs and is filled with cool extras.

As for the movie, it is about a group of five teens going camping in the hills. Surprise, Surprise, right? One by one they are knocked off by 2 overly obese brothers with a weird laugh. Weapon of choice is a machete. Some of the deaths range from kind of cool to really stupid (see ending for stupid death).

I really appreciated Mike (Sleepaway Camp) Kellin's role as a drunken goon who tries to warn of the brothers existence. His role is primarily in the beginning of the film. This was one of his last roles before he expired in '83. His role is quite humorous. The movie has its moments of humor. (See white people dancing around a camp fire to rock music.) This movie is not without faults. Bad acting and slow pace are two that come to mind immediately. Also I would add special effects. The movie gets a fail on that criteria. This movie may be too slow for current audiences and some parts may seem anti-climatic for those waiting punishing graphic brutality.

Overall it is worth watching. I give it a 6 out of 10.

***May Contain Spoilers*** For the most part I found this movie to be forum for Tom Savani's remarkable work in special effects. Also his cameo in this movie is pretty cool. The scenes that stick out in this movie are definitely the ones that show gruesome gore and showed off his artistry. Actually the best special effects scene is when Tom is killed by the maniac.

The movie starts off strong. There are a string of murders by the maniac. No rhyme or reason; just good old fashion senseless killing. Though I'm not a real big fan of Bill Lustig's Maniac Cop series, this movie is perhaps is his best. The story takes place in Long Island, NY. The maniac is an overweight New Yorker of Italian descent named Frank Zito. His lunacy is best exemplified by his obsession and love of female mannequins. He talks to them and dresses them up in different apparel and body parts obtained from his victims.

Sounds really good huh? Wrong. The premise was good, but Lustig's direction caused the movie to lag. The parts where he tried to develop some type of plot was scattered and really didn't fit together. For example, the maniac starts dating some photographer. How he comes to meet and really like this girl is a question. How this woman sees anything at all in this lonely, portly man is just unbelievable. I don't know where Lustig wanted to go with this angle. Apparently neither did he because the ending was quite abrupt and unexpected. On top of that it was just stupid. Out of nowhere, the maniac attempts to kill his photographer date. From there, it's too dumb to put type out.

The story revolved around the maniac. His feelings, his motivations, and his perceptions were center of the plot. That is where Lustig went wrong. Joe Zpinnel plays Frank Zito. His acting is really bad. He had way too many lines in this movie. The maniac ruined the movie because it was a lame character played by an awful actor. Lustig should have left the maniac as a mysterious figure. He should not have shown his face or given him any lines. A focused emphasis on the brutality of the murders and a cleaned up the ending would have given this movie a much better rating in my book.

Overall this movie is worth only 1 watch if you've never seen it. Tom Savini's special effects are worth a second look.

5.5 out of 10

***May Contain Spoilers*** I, like many other fans of the horror genre, had extremely high hopes for this one. Looking back on it, maybe too high. Devil's Rejects is a horror/exploitation film done in the 70's maverick mode. Though it works for the most part, it takes away from the horror. This was a movie that could have been a lot better had there been more focus on the actual hunting, chasing and physical destruction of victims and less on how much the killer family loves each other.

The movie starts out with a raid on the compound from House of a 1000 Corpses. There is a shootout and Madame Firefly is arrested by police, while Otis and Baby escape. They later rendezvous with Captain Spaulding at an obscure motel. Otis and Baby arrive and take a group of hostages, a traveling cover band. The scenes involving the hostages and some of their deaths are cool. I think the use of guns, though, hurts the horror aspect. I think knives or blunt objects should have been incorporated much more than it did. In other words, too many shootouts and too many easy deaths. The fact they were hostages at gunpoint is not scary. This is a cliché of action films not horror. I think the focus was on the vile nature of the event with comedic twist. There were some funny interactions between and among the characters.

There were long drawn out parts that really were kind of a waste. I go straight to the ice cream scene in the van. This part really annoyed me. I'm still puzzled to the question why. After witnessing their disgusting acts, why would I feel anything at all for these people? Am I supposed to go "Awe, that's nice. Look they're having a family moment together"? This exemplifies my whole state in the movie. I was waiting for the movie to pickup. It never did. So that was my feeling after the movie...Unfulfilled, Disappointed.

William Forsythe made the movie for me. Since he was the most gifted actor on the set, he really came through as the psycho cop. He was seemingly more brutal and more insane than the family he was hunting down. The focus of the movie was his hunt for the family as they were constantly on the run. He was dark and sadistic as well as humorous. Loved his character.

Also I enjoyed Ken Foree. It seems like this horror movie vet has gotten some more phone calls and a subsequent career resurgence. His role was perhaps his most prominent since Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. He plays a 70's pimp and looks like he could have been right out of "Dolemite".

Overall it wasn't an awful film. It was more original than the first one. It had better acting and it looked more focused on where Rob wanted to take the story. I felt despite the shortcomings of the first one; I felt the first one was a better "horror" movie of the two.

6.5-7.0 out of 10

** May contain spoilers ** This is the latest, long-awaited sequel in Romero's "Dead" series. The movie was entertaining. The special effects were first rate and modern. The acting was solid, outside of the zombie leader, an African American gas station attendant. His only 4 lines in the whole movie was "aaarrgghhh!!!". It seemed like a real tough role. The pace of the movie was quick. It clocked in at about an hour and half. Timing and pace were definite positives in this movie.

A big knock on this film has to be the story. Nothing new here in the plot. Romero recycled many of this plot line from the Day of the Dead.

Mankind has still built little reservations for themselves. In this one, the plot occurs in what appears to be the city of Pittsburgh, with its Three Rivers as opposed to an army bunker. There are limited supplies and humans have been able to effectively fence out the zombies. Also zombies are showing signs of intelligence like in Day of the Dead.

Romero sticks to his classic interpretation of the zombie. They are still slow moving, clownish looking goons. They evoke NO sense of fear. More recent zombie flicks have re-established zombies as fast moving, fearsome predators. Romero does not adhere to this new wave of zombie, to the detriment of his film.

Another plot line similarity is that the protagonists have to overcome a maniacal leader. In this one, it is a cold hearted political elitist. The line is blurred between who is the real enemy, the zombies or the rich? Romero uses this character to exemplify what is wrong with society and this becomes his "social commentary" that he has been acclaimed for in some circles.

His social commentary targets the current state of the US and western countries. There were subtle references to terrorism throughout the movie. The most noticeable reference was John Lequizamo near the end of the film. He was about to bring "jihad" to the city, more specifically launching bombs at a tower in the middle of the city. His social commentary is the underlying theme of the movie, but at no point does it really cross the line of preaching. It's just another attempt by Romero to bring "more meaning" to a horror movie.

My biggest problem with this movie is the ending. The zombies voluntarily stop attacking humans and the humans make peace with the zombies! Am I supposed to shed a tear over this garbage?! I could not believe what I was watching. They look at each other and say "They're just looking for a place to stay." A disgusting end to a classic series. It took four movies for zombies and humans to kiss and make up. Wow!! 5 out of 10.

*** Spoiler *** The star of the movie is definitely Steven Spielberg. His direction made the movie a work of art. It was amazing to look at and the graphics and special effects were outstanding. I liked the tripods and I liked how the aliens killed people quite easily.

The acting was good. Tom Cruise's son was a bit weak in my opinion. Really the character only exists to show how bad of a father Tom Cruise's character had been up to this point. Dakota Fanning was excellent. Tim Robbins was hilarious and a pleasant surprise. Overall it was first class.

Having said that, I couldn't help but feel that the movie was kind of a let down, especially at the end. The ending was a neat twist of sorts, but very anti-climatic. You have this whole movie moving in one direction and then within 5 to 10 minutes it swings the other way. I thought the ending could have been more developed. The time frame to which this took place and the explanation how humans prevail is too quick.

The fact that no one of any importance in Tom Cruise's life (ie. the son) died made the story kind of cheesy. This may have been expected, but not as blatant as it turned out. No one in Tom Cruise's immediate or in-law family was sacrificed.

It is a good movie for what it was. It is not another Independence Day type film. No glamorous military victories here. I appreciated that part. It is entertaining. But also the aforementioned flaw of the story itself gives the story and ending a strong anti-climatic tone that couldn't be overcome by a textbook happy ending.