Reviews

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a fan of felines. However, I'd heard so much about the musical that I finally decided to see the film.

Visually, the movie is quite nice. The makeup, choreography, costuming, the cast and the set were all done very well. The singing was great and the movement of the actors, both as dancers and as "cats" was a sight to see. The special effects are also of note. All of that being said, I had a bit of a time deciphering what was being sung - I had to find the lyrics to follow along. And the cast did lip sync.

The main problem is that there is really no plot. The viewer is introduced to different types of cats by their personality and, in some cases, where they generally could be found (the theater, a train, etc.) I find a movie without a plot quite tedious; I stuck around to the end only because of the visuals.

Would I recommend it? Maybe if you have seen the play or if you already know the story has no plot. Maybe if you are a fan of felines in general or a fan of musicals. I can't say I would watch it again - It wasn't my cup of cream.

I watched this movie for the first time recently - I missed it when it was first released. I really liked some of David Cronenberg's other movies (THE BROOD) and have found some of them quite disturbing (VIDEODROME). I'd also seen, on numerous occasions, the quite iconic scene towards the beginning of the movie.

The film is about corporation where one of their divisions has been doing specialized research on people with psychic powers, called scanners. One scanner has gone rogue and has recruited other scanners to join him so that they can win world denomination. The corporation pits one of their scanners against the rogue with the hopes he will be destroyed.

I had very high expectations for the film, and was somewhat disappointed. It's not that the movie is bad, per se, its more that it is miscast in parts, doesn't make much sense and has a tendency to move on the slower side. There are parts of the film that just drag on and on, especially through the middle. I feel that the lead didn't have enough of a dynamic personality to own the role and I had some difficulty finding him believable. Whether this is the fault of the actor or his voice, the director or the casting people (or a mixture of all of them) is anyone's guess. I believe that if the lead had been given to someone who was less subdued, the movie would have been much better. There is also a right place, right time kind of thing going on throughout that didn't make much sense. Additionally, some of the situations the scanner "employed" by the corporation, who was once homeless, finds himself in and is able to master without previous knowledge left me shaking my head. It was all a bit much.

On the plus side, there were some nice special effects and almost every one other than the lead did a fairly good job with their roles. There are some nice twists and turns towards the end that I didn't see coming. The soundtrack is effective.

This film generally has pretty good reviews overall, so if you are a fan of sci-fi or Mr. Cronenberg, give it a watch if you want. Horror fans may like it too, but again, it didn't float my boat as much as some other viewers.

I watched this movie for the first time recently and was quite surprised at how awful it truly is. Have I seen worse? Sure but I won't waste my time watching this film ever again.

THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE LAKE concerns a family who decides to give up city life due to the crime and move to the country in the midwest. Unfortunately, dead bodies keep popping up there too.

The film suffers from bad dialog and bad acting pretty much all the way through. There are a few exceptions in minor roles as far as the acting, but the leads, including Valarie Harper, were not convincing at all. Add to that silly facial expressions and you've got a real eye roller on your hands.

One of the things that surprised me was that although it was implied that the family was moving to the midwest, there were really bad southern accents all around. I guess the director felt that anybody who lives in the country has to sound like someone out of DELIVERANCE.

There are some nice shots of the landscape and lake areas, so the scenery is good in places. That is really about all this movie has going for it though.

I've seen some reviewers recommend that people watch this as a comedy. For me, it didn't even work on that level. It was just that bad.

The film also is a little slow paced, but picks up a bit at the end as the family starts to realize who the killer is. And the killer knows that they know, so the stalking begins. Up till that time though much of the movie is interaction with the locals and family time. And of course, you'll see the mandatory misdirection. There is some suspense towards the end, but not enough to hold anyone's attention.

I would absolutely give this one a pass for a fan of horror or suspense.

As a fan of the original story written by Ms. Jackson, I am going to try to keep them separate.

The film is about a man whose father dies, and the father's last request is to have his ashes strewn over his wife's grave. Upon arrival in the town where his mother is buried, the son is met with hostility and rancor from most of the local residents. He realizes quickly that the townspeople are hiding something and when he finds out that many of the people there died on the same day, he knows for sure that something is amiss. I'm not going to spoil the movie here. Those familiar with Ms. Jackson's story will know what happens towards the end of the film.

Although I thought the movie was pretty well done, it just doesn't work as a modern story. There is no way in this day and age anything like this could ever happen without the whole world knowing about it. The movie might have been plausible if this film took place shortly after the story was published (late 1940's), or outside of mainstream America, but no chance in the later parts of the 20th century in conventional small town U.S.A.

That's not to say that the movie is bad - it isn't. It's actually fairly well done. The acting is passable, and many of the minor characters are quite convincing. It is suspenseful and builds up to the expected climax. However, it does go on a little too long in that the backstory of what happened to mom is unnecessarily explained. There is also the addition of a variety of subplots- one concerning the main character and a love interest who lives in the secretive little town plus the investigation of New Hope by outsiders where the results are exactly as expected.

Although some of the final scenes will likely disturb those unfamiliar with the short story, THE LOTTERY on film is not really a horror movie per se. It is more of a drama/thriller with a pretty nasty ending, similar in feel to DON'T LOOK NOW. I think, though, that anyone who has grown up in the era of instant communication will find the movie a bit ridiculous.

If you can suspend your disbelief long enough, the movie is worth a watch. Bear in mind, as mentioned, it is a film with horrific elements but is not a true blue horror movie. If that's your thing, you might want to pass. Fans of suspense might like it if they can get past the final scenes.

I first saw this movie when it came out in the early to mid 70's. I remembered it although I didn't recall it making much of an impression like some other Movies of the Week did (Don't Be Afraid of the Dark and The Night Stalker come to mind). I recently had the opportunity to watch it again and my opinion didn't change.

The film is about a group of men doing construction on a remote island. It is hit by a meteor of some type that possesses (for lack of a better word) one of the bulldozers the men use. It goes on a killing rampage.

I had a really hard time suspending disbelief for this one and thought the film was quite silly. Apparently, back in those days, grown men who did construction for a living couldn't get out of the way of a 1970's bulldozer. Their eyesight and hearing was also damaged it seems; the bulldozer's lights came on and it made a fair amount of noise when it was running all by itself.

I didn't find it interesting enough to watch in one sitting either. It is a very slow mover and rather boring. The acting was so-so and characters had a tendency to be one dimensional which just added to my ennui. I guess they did the best they could with what they were given. They they took themselves incredibly seriously though which is almost comedic. The soundtrack is a little overdone as well, but works in parts. Some of the shots of the beach are quite nice.

Would be able to recommend to a fan of heavy machinery/construction films possibly or fans of cheesy horror/sci fi movies, but outside of that, I'd give it a pass. For a serious horror fan, its a no go.

My understanding is that BLACK Christmas is considered to be a cult classic because it is one of the first slasher movies; it laid the foundations for those that came later. Although pretty well done overall, it does have some problems.

The film is lightly based on an urban legend - it concerns a Christmas holiday murderer who primarily targets those living in a sorority house. The killer may or may not be involved in some other murders around town, but the focus here is on the people living in the house.

The acting is fairly well done by all of the cast, however, some of the characters are very one dimensional. We only see one side of their personality - the conservative virgin, the vulgar party girl and the inept policeman are perfect examples. There are others who are a little more fleshed out and have more depth to them, but the movie does suffer from that shallowness as many horror movies do.

Unlike the slashers that came later, BLACK Christmas is very tame in it's graphic violence. Many of the murders take place off screen although the aftermath is generally seen. Although very little blood is filmed, the movie does have a fair amount of bad language so be warned if you don't like profanity or sexual references. It's definitely not suitable for kids.

The film is really genuinely creepy in parts, especially in the interactions between the killer and the girls living in the sorority house. The ending is quite creepy as well.

Parts of the movie don't make a lot of sense though. I don't want to get into any spoilers here, but lets just say that certain things should easily be heard when things are quiet. And of course, you have the character who stays and puts herself in danger when she's knows that things are quite amiss - one of my biggest pet peeves with horror movies.

The film is pretty well paced overall which made it enjoyable to watch. Although some reviewers disagree, I actually did like it's final scenes but I wouldn't want to live in a town where the police don't think things through to a logical conclusion.

If you like your horror tame, this one would be a pretty good choice if you can handle the vulgarity. There are other "entry level" horror films that are better, but this one is okay. I don't know that a seasoned horror buff who likes their movies bloody and violent would like it though.

I've wanted to watch this film for many years due to it's cult status and recently had the opportunity to give it a look see. I've sat through some pretty strange movies in my time, but this is easily the weirdest and most bizarre one I have ever seen. I wasn't able to complete it in one sitting - I had to watch it over a couple of days.

There will be no attempt here to interpret the movie - that would be a pointless endeavor. There are others who have given their own understanding of ERASERHEAD - if you have an interest, they are easy to find. David Lynch has said that none of them come close to the truth.

The movie is a very bleak, disconcerting, gritty, abstract, disturbing, surreal "horror" film about a young man who gets a woman pregnant, resulting in their marriage and the birth of a child with issues (to put it lightly). The plot is very loose from there. Very little dialog is spoken throughout but be prepared for a lot of very off the wall, sometimes unsettling imagery and scenes that don't make a lot of sense. Surely they are there for a reason, but it is beyond me what they represent.

The soundtrack to the movie is also quite jarring and just added another level of discomfort throughout.

I'm sure some people get it, but I just didn't. That's not to say that a fan of artsy, surreal horror wouldn't like it, I just found it way too odd for my taste. If you are into interpreting art movies and don't mind the horror element and some seriously disturbing imagery, go for it. If you are a fan of straightforward horror, you really need to skip this one - it will make you crazy. I wouldn't recommend watching this film on any kind of hallucinogens - consider yourself warned.

Although DON'T LOOK NOW shows up on horror film lists here and there, it is really not a horror film per se. It is more of a drama/thriller with paranormal elements and a shock ending.

The movie is about a husband and wife who are grieving the loss of their daughter to a drowning. They move to Venice for work where they meet a pair of sisters; one is blind and claims to be psychic and in touch with the couple's daughter. She warns them that something terrible is going to happen if they don't leave Venice. The husband, meanwhile, is having some visions of his own. I don't want to give away more of the plot in that it would spoil the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it, but will say the movie has an unexpected ending where almost everything comes together and a lot of unexplained happenings are resolved. The ending is likely why the movie has found itself on some horror lists.

As a side note, DON"T LOOK NOW was partially filmed in Italian, but you don't have to speak the language to understand what is happening in those sections. It was also considered scandalous upon it's release due to a sex scene which was pretty graphic for the time.

The film is somewhat slow in parts but keeps you guessing until the end regarding all of the unexplained phenomena. Although bored for short periods of time, I found the movie engrossing overall. I thought it was well acted by all of the characters and thought the film was shot in a really interesting way.

I wouldn't be able to recommend this movie to a horror fan - there are not enough of those elements to excite someone who loves the genre. I would recommend it to a mystery or suspense fan who doesn't mind a little paranormal thrown in with their films, but take note that the ending could be considered disturbing to some.

As I have written in other reviews, I'm generally not a fan of psychological horror because as a genre it moves too slow. This movie is no exception. I had seen it years ago and remembered that I didn't care for it much, but wanted to take another look-see so I rented it from the local library. I didn't like it in many ways this time around either.

The story moves mind numbingly slow with much of the film having no dialog - the watcher is just taken along for the ride when Carol, left to her own devices by her sister, gradually starts losing her mind and ultimately becomes completely unhinged. REPULSION picks up towards the end, but getting there was excruciating for me.

I had some difficulty connecting with the lead - watching her lose it wasn't pleasant, but her personality was so incredibly reserved and lifeless from the beginning of the film that I really didn't care about her over the long haul. I'm sure portraying her that way was intentional and I'm still somewhat perplexed regarding why that decision was made. I am aware that I am in the minority regarding Catherine Deneuve's depiction of Carol and that many rave reviews were written about her role in this movie.

I also found that I had more questions than answers once it ended, maybe as intended, regarding the lead's familial relationships. What happened to cause a beautiful woman to be so fearful and repressed when it came to men and sexual relationships? The answer is hinted at in the last frames, but is never completely disclosed. In addition, I was a bit confused about the lead's sister - how much did she know about Carol's mental state? Did she care?

All of that being said, there are some exceptional things about this film from a technical standpoint - the use of light and shadows is magnificent, drawing the viewer in to Carol's demented world and at times, using close ups to make a statement or to have the viewer look at something specific in the frame. The camera work is amazing. In those regards, REPULSION absolutely stands out. Anyone who has an interest in making a black and white film should take a look at this one if for no other reason than this. The soundtrack is also worth noting, and the symbolism and sound effects throughout the film are quite interesting. The ticking of the clock, the cracking walls, the apartment that ends up in total disarray, etc. are all indicative of Carol's mental state. The hallucinations she has are quite surreal and very well done.

If you like psychological horror with minimal graphic violence, this film is considered to be a masterpiece by many. In addition, if you want to watch incredible use of light and shadow and enjoy your movies artful and symbolic, this one is a must-see. However, If you like horror films that move along at a fairly quick pace, this one will likely bore you to death.

THE HAUNTING OF BAYLOCK RESIDENCE is a British ghost story about a woman who inherits her sister's home after her sister passes away. She finds, once she arrives, that all is not as it seems. She begins to realize that she and the housekeeper are not the only beings in the house.

This movie is an independent project and a freshman effort for the film maker. I've seen some absolutely awful endeavors at initial films but this one is well done compared to many other attempts at movie making I've seen.

Most of the acting done by the principal players was above average for a lower budget film. There were some problems with audio here and there and the opening scene was a bit overdone, but overall I think the leads did well. I can't say that I felt the same way about some of the other roles though - I felt some characters were totally miscast and weren't nearly as convincing. I also found that some of them had a tendency to mumble their lines which made them even less credible.

The film was shot in black and white which generally means that the movie will rely more on atmosphere than anything else. THE HAUNTING OF BAYLOCK RESIDENCE does rely a lot on setting a mood, but it is done well. The soundtrack added additional feeling to the film and made sense throughout. There were a few parts, however, where the soundtrack overwhelmed the dialog and what the actors were saying couldn't be heard. There was no CGI in the film, but the special effects, such as they are, were still well done and convincing.

The plot and dialog were also pretty well written. There was a lot of standard fare and scenes you would expect from any haunted house movie, however, they were nicely crafted and the plot had some twists and turns that I didn't see coming. I won't spoil those in this review.

So, bottom line is that HBR is a ghost story about things that go bump in the night with a few jump scares here and there. There is no gore or CGI to speak of so if that is your thing, you might find the movie a little dry and might want to skip it. If you like ghost stories that are less graphic than a lot of the current fare, I think this one is worth a watch. It kept me interested throughout and I felt my time was pretty well spent.

The movie FRAILTY concerns a father has a vision one night, sent to him by an angel, that he and his young sons have been chosen to kill demons who are hiding as humans.

The movie opens with one of the sons, who states his name is Fenton, telling the F.B.I. agent who is handling the "God's Hands Killer" case that he knows who the murderer is. He is not believed initially, but by the end of the movie is able to prove to the agent that he does indeed know who is responsible.

The film is generally done in a flashback style with most of the movie concerning Fenton's version of the family's history, how the killings began and continued and what happened when the father realized that Fenton wasn't buying into what his father and brother Adam were saying and doing. He is forced to minimally participate, but refuses to be involved in the actual killings and is subsequently punished by his father. Only when Fenton states he has received a vision as well is he considered to be safe by his father. He has come forward now because he doesn't want to carry around what he knows anymore.

Other people have written about the last 1/4 of the film, so I won't spoil it here. Suffice it to say that the plot takes a lot of twists and turns towards the end and rather than taking place in flashback, is done in present day.

Overall, I thought the movie was really well done with convincing performances by most of the cast. I do have to say I'm not a fan of Powers Boothe so it would be tough for me to write a fair review of how he did in the film - that being said, I liked the way he played his character the least.

This film is not a horror movie in the true sense of the word. It is more of a crime thriller/drama as indicated in IMDb. It is suspenseful, however, and really works well in that regard.

There are things that are very easy to miss at first watching. Keep your eyes and ears peeled. I don't want to mention them specifically, but in watching parts of the film a second time things become less muddy leading up to the movie's finish.

The only thing I didn't like about FRAILTY was the very end - I had a lot of difficulty with what I felt the message of the movie was and what it appears to support. I won't say anything further than that other than the fact that I found it very disturbing, maybe as it was meant to be.

Bottom line is that it is a good crime thriller and would be a good choice for fans of crime and suspense, however, be aware that the ending might be a little hard to swallow for some.

This is no CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, but I had extremely low expectations going in. The movie was a little better than I anticipated, but not by much.

The film concerns two journalists who realize there is something amiss going on in the waters off of Japan when they view an informational film done by the military and see something that they shouldn't. When they try to investigate, they unwillingly become part of a mad scientist's master plan to build and rule an underwater kingdom.

There are a variety of actors in TERROR BENEATH THE SEA, both Japanese and non-Japanese. Most of the film is dubbed which can always lend itself to overacting a bit - there is no exception here. I also found that the roles were somewhat one dimensional - the mad scientist was the stereotypical mad scientist (complete with dark sunglasses), the lead female was the stereotypical woman from the 60's (outside of having a job) who looked to her man to save her and whined and cried a lot, the military guys were as formal as you would expect, etc. The monsters were fairly well done for the time and not as bad as some others I've seen but their costumes were obviously cheaply made. Interestingly, throughout most of the film they are programmed to act in a certain way, but towards the end, they have a mind of their own.

The plot line is rather slow and the special effects were really saved for the end of the film. There are lots of underwater explosions that were actually pretty well done for the time although some other reviewers would disagree. The other effects were really chintzy though. The soundtrack was the typical "mod" type common in the 1960's.

This is really a movie for either kids or fans of old Japanese monster movies. I wouldn't be able to recommend it to a horror fan.

The Orphanage concerns a former resident who ultimately is adopted and returns to the abandoned institution as an adult to open a home for disabled children. Prior to the opening, her son, who is also adopted, disappears. Most of the plot involves the mystery of what happened to her child and her friends at the orphanage.

I have to say that for most of this movie I was bored out of my mind due to the slow pace. The concept itself was okay and the story is all tied up in a tidy bundle by the end, but getting there was quite tedious at times.

The acting was okay, but bordered on the melodramatic in certain parts. However, the mom's desperation and frustration over the loss of her son is appropriate. I think the characters did okay overall with the lines they had been given considering the slow pace. I just wish the film would have had more oomph. Some of the sets and cinematography were quite nice and interesting as well and the orphanage itself has quite the creepy feel to it. The film has a fair amount of atmosphere.

IMHO, this film had the horror equivalent of Crimson Peak, a movie that I actually did like. The horror element in The Orphanage is quite tame, so if you are looking for thrills and chills, I don't know that this film will do it for you. I don't know that it will do for a hardened horror fan either. Mystery, suspense and drama fans might like it if they don't mind the supernatural elements and the snail's pace.

This movie wasn't worth the time it took to watch it. Originally shot in 3D, I saw a video copy of 2D.

The film is about rottweilers that have been trained by the military to be killing machines. They get loose and wreak havoc.

First of all, let me say that I have no issue with that fact that this film is about killer rottweilers - there was a similar movie that featured German shepherds (I own one) in the same vein as this one that I thought was as ridiculous for the same reasons. I didn't dislike this movie because I'm loyal to the breed - I disliked it because it was pretty awful all around.

For starters, Dogs of Hell suffers from poor acting that was just painful to watch. I don't know if it was the print I saw, but half of the actors sounded like they had been sucking helium. Even so, the way all of the actors delivered their lines was just terrible.

Secondly, the script wasn't great - you have a doctor who can't even determine if a neck wound was made by something with sharp teeth or a "knife wielding maniac". I won't be making an appointment with him anytime soon. It was also really, really predictable to the point where I could tell who was going to die when and who, even though the character was taking a chance, wasn't going to be attacked. Too, the film has a fair amount of jump scares that did nothing but annoy me.

However, the mud is the scariest stuff I've ever seen. I have no idea what that was that folks were wrestling in but it certainly wasn't mud (there is a mud wrestling scene in a bar towards the beginning of the film).

The movie does have a fair amount of blood and gore, but only one scene where you see the dogs actually attacking two people in tandem. You can tell that all of the other killing scenes were filmed separately.

Give this one a pass unless you really, really hate rottweilers. Even so, don't say you weren't warned.

I'm trying really hard to rate this movie on its own merits or lack thereof. I've seen both this version and the American version, and I much prefer the American one.

I found the pacing in this version to be very slow and plodding, the cinematography dreary and tiring and didn't like the choices that were made for the dubbing. The chief bully sounded like a girl which kept throwing me off and made him a little unconvincing. The other dubs just were bland all around.

I had a really hard time feeling any sympathy for the leads as well which surprised me. I didn't really care what happened to any of the characters, unlike my feelings about the remake. There are incredibly boring interactions between minor characters that made the film just drag for me and didn't have any context within the whole scheme of the movie. I kept thinking, "So what?".

I'd recommend the remake in a heartbeat, but not this version. Too boring and slow for either a drama or a horror movie. Yawn.

This film will definitely be in my top 10 vampire movies, along with Nosferatu, Dracula and the Lost Boys, among others. And no, Twilight is not on this list.

I've seen both adaptations of the movie, but I much prefer this one. I did see this one first. There are slight differences between the two though - I found the pacing a little faster in this one and some of the plot lines are slightly different.

Both Abby and Owen are sympathetic characters - one is brutally bullied and the other is a vampire. Both are lonely, have no friends, and need some level of protection. This is what pulls them together and what strengthens their bond. They also change each other in really basic ways. However, you are left slightly to wonder what Abby's motives are.

This film moves along at better pace than the Swedish version and I found myself interested in what was going on throughout. I loved the soundtrack as well - if you like music from the '80s, it will be right up your alley. The make up effects are great and all of the actors did an excellent job - they were totally convincing. I found that a little less so in the Swedish version, however, that may be because of the dubbing.

I would absolutely recommend this movie for a horror fan, but be aware that there is not a tremendous amount of gore for the genre. It is, however, a film that is really well done and worth watching.

This film was my introduction to José Mojica Marins. I don't know that I'm interested in seeing any of his other works after watching this one. My understanding is that the coffin Joe movies might be worth a watch, but unless I really have nothing better to do, I will likely pass.

In this movie, the uni-browed proprietor of the hostel also is a philosopher, but not a good one unfortunately. It got rather old quickly. He likes to talk in riddles. He has a variety of guests show up at his hotel, including gamblers, couples, biker hippies and others. The hippies decide to have an orgy, however, I will say that those are some of the ugliest women I have ever seen - everybody naked, not so great.

"The Strange Hostel of Naked Pleasures' is not really a horror film although parts have a horror feel. It doesn't really have a plot per se, and it seems that it was going for some sort of arty feel. To me, it was just strange. If IMDb had ratings for absolute weirdness, this one would get a 10 for sure. If close ups of eyeballs is your thing, you'll find plenty of that here. The soundtrack was also odd and quite jarring in places (Hallelujah Chorus, anyone?).

The print I saw was choppy, however, this might have been intentional when taken in context with the rest of the movie. It is also subtitled, but it appears that some lines didn't translate over well. They didn't make any sense but that might be intentional too.

I'd recommend a pass unless you are looking for a truly weird and rather boring film - even then, you may not find it worth your while. If you are looking for a good horror film, for sure give it a pass.