Reviews

Ever since the the success of his only good movie, The Sixth Sense, everyone, including the media and himself, seem to think of M. Night Shyamalan as the next Alfred Hitchcock. If this is so, he's got a very long way to go...

The Village plays like it was made by an absolute sell out of M. Night's early work. Don't get me wrong, he can still utilize bits of suspense when he wants to -- but suspense is supposed to lead to something, which in the case of his last three films, has been a true disappointment. Furthermore, if he is to be the next Hitchcock, he's got to learn that one big suspenseful twist per movie will not make him the new "Master of Suspense." He'll need to approach his films with the notion that the entire film he's creating needs to be suspenseful and mysterious to fill Alfred Hitchcock's shoes.

M. Night shows a lot of potential, and I'm convinced he can do so much better, and trying to be original is not a bad thing. But, when trying to be different is the main factor between making a good movie and a bad one, maybe simplicity isn't a bad thing.

Perhaps The Village would not have left such a sour taste in my mouth if it weren't billed as a Mystery/Suspense movie. The last half of the movie plays like a family movie, and the "big twist" became apparent one third of the way through. Furthermore, the advertising campaigns, the very misleading Sci-fi channel special (similar to the Blair Witch Project's special a couple of years back), and even blatant lies from the parties involved when in a magazine interview, it was stated that this movie was not a Science fiction movie (like Signs), but rather a genuinely scary movie, with actual creatures in it (they even verified more than one creature) gave the notion that this was a very different movie from the finished project. I truly felt mislead when I saw this film, and I hadn't felt this cheated and insulted since the Blair Witch Project.

Having seen it a second time, I don't think this was a bad movie. Had it been billed as the Disney movie of the week, I might not have even minded it. However, because of its misleading marketing campaigns, and it's weak and not so very thought out plot, I still find it to be the biggest disappointment of 2004.

Demons epitomizes everything the early to mid eighties were about. A lot of things didn't make sense - but neither did the era so it fit in just fine. In the end, it plays out to be a great horror movie, with plenty of gratuitous violence and gore, a killer 80's soundtrack, and a couple of good scares! At the time this movie came out, Italian horror meisters Dario Argento and Lamberto Bava wanted nothing more than to have a hit in the American market. Dario had experienced a taste of that with his collaboration on Dawn of the Dead, but never from a full Italian production. To appeal to American audiences, they went with the soundtrack used here (songs from Billy Idol, Rick Springfield, etc.), and even used some American actors (like Bobby Rhodes who plays the pimp, in even comes back in Demons 2 as a different character).

To add to the hype, they released it to limited distribution (not by choice I'm sure) in the states, unrated (just as "Day of the Dead" had just been released in similar fashion). Back in the 80's, it was real hard for an 11 year old to be allowed in to see an unrated movie, even with a parent (or someone posing as one as in my case!) - nonetheless, I got to see both of these - and although I was disturbed for weeks - I loved every second of Demons.

Years later I have acquired it on a double DVD with Demons 2. I love the original, in all its uncut glory! Knowing more about the production, I get a kick out of the fact that the guy at the beginning giving out the theater tickets (the guy with the mask) was then aspiring filmmaker Michele Soavi, who would just a couple of years later become an Argento protégé with movies like Stagefright, and his own classic Dellamorte Dellamore (Cemetary Man). I also get a kick out of how many movies, older than the original Demons, claim to be Demons sequels and have even had name changes. Unfortunately for us fans, there were only two real Demons movies made, the third never saw fruition. Too bad - if a real one ever came out - I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd run out to see it.

I actually rented this terrible excuse for no budget film because I saw it advertised on Fangoria Magazine. Being a big fan of the magazine, and of good low budget film making, I try to never have too high expectations when watching Indie flicks.

This however was worse than I ever expected! I am about as positive and forgiving a person as anyone can ever meet, but even I can't find anything good about this movie. The plot, the acting, special effects, camera work, everything about this movie is just an absolute catastrophe! What in the world can possess anyone to create something this lousy! I just can't explain any of the above to myself. I was actually embarrassed for the people involved in this project simply because I know I'm not the only one who's experienced this disaster...

To top things off - the director of this movie is an effects man for SOTA - a special effects company that in the past has done fantastic work. I figured no matter how bad the movie would be - at least it would have that going for it --- boy was I wrong! I've seen low budget flicks from three decades ago that had better effects than this - I think someone with no experience and a "do it yourself" make-up effects instruction book from the seventy's could've done a better job! You've been warned - stay away from this vile wreck! It really is the worse movie ever made!

A couple of years back (late 90's), I had the pleasure of experiencing Fulci's The Beyond the way it was meant to be watched...on the big screen at the Angelica Movie Theater in Soho (NYC) at midnight, in all of its uncut glory (thanks to Quentin Tarantino's Rolling Thunder Films).

For a couple of hours, I was taken aback to the greatest days of horror! It even had previous of movies like 2000 Maniacs, The Evil Dead and Zombie (aka Zombie 2) before the movie started. To truly appreciate this movie, one has to remember the era it came from. The post Exorcist and Dawn of the Dead period saw many imitations, especially from Italy. However, there were a handful of filmmakers that had actual imagination, skills and creativity to set their pictures apart from the rest. Of the bunch, Argento, Bava (father and son), and Fulci stood quite apart from the rest, each with their own talents.

Fulci was perhaps the most prolific of them, adding a flare of his own Art to his works. His movies each played like paint on canvas from beginning to end. The Beyond was his greatest Masterpiece, combining a better plot than most of his works, with the high quality level of gore Fulci was and always will be well known for.

The Beyond starts with a Warlock being executed in the 1930's by a lynch mob. Little do they know that the hotel where the act takes place happens to be one of the seven doorways to hell. Flashing forward about 50 years later, Liza inherets the hotel and decides to restore it. From there all hell breaks loose. The ending is as disturbing as it gets, and the deaths are both unique and horrifying (vintage Fulci).

I remember walking to the subway station that night, still thinking about what my eyes had just seen (occasionally looking over my shoulder) - realizing I had been genuinely scared and disturbed by a movie that at the time was about 17 years old. Man I miss the "Hey-Day" of horror, and the true masters of it!

I finally got around to watching 13 Seconds. At first, it comes off as your usual haunted house with a supernatural slasher opus, however, it soon picks up in a completely different direction. The bottom line here is CREEPY! I'm very impressed with the actual effort the film makers put into this project. The plot is well thought out, and the twist at the end just brings everything together and leaves you feeling the way watching "The Sixth Sense" for the first time would. The M. Night Shyamalan tributes are apparent, as are a couple of them to Romero, early Raimi and even the video game Silent Hill! Having read a couple of posts in the message boards, I can honestly say that in order to appreciate this movie to its fullest extent, you need to be a true horror film fan. Why? - You have to know who Romero and Raimi are - and how some of their early work plays like a masterpiece to true horror fans, but to the average person - those movies were just cheap passable projects. Even guys like Peter Jackson started out with schlocky movies (see Bad Taste). I actually saw this movie with my 14 year old daughter who has some appreciation for horror movies, nonetheless she's from the Scream/I know What You Did... era, so her notion of horror is very different from mine, and her idea of low budget is anything under a Ten Million dollar budget! You have to have an appreciation for low budget movies to know what these guys accomplished on a shoestring budget. They created a picture perfect dark mood with a dreamlike feel (even down to the hazed out acting). I look forward to future movies from the guys behind this one.