Change Your Image
sjmdd
Reviews
Fargo (1996)
Should be heralded as one of the all time great movies
You know when a movie is an absolute masterpiece, or a complete stinker, they are the easiest to review, hands down. Its the films that sit right in the middle that are hardest. Anyhow, without a shadow of a doubt Fargo falls into the former category. It was good the first time i saw it; now I've viewed it a second time it truly is a masterpiece of gargantuan proportions. There's so much right with this movie... in fact I'm unable to think of anything negative about it at all. The story, first and foremost, is a simple one. Jerry Lundegaard hires two crooks to kidnap his wife, whose father in law will pay the ransom, which Jerry will benefit from. But, like most Coen Brothers movies, nothing goes to plan. The Fact that the story is such a simple one is the first main reason why it works so well - don't necessarily over complicate the plot. Ethan and Joel know this, and in simplifying events, allow us to concentrate on the stunning script, the amazing performances and the frozen Minnesotan country. So events go awry... and we are introduced to police chief Marge Gunderson,Frances Mcdormand,AKA Mrs Joel Coen(who deservedly bagged an Oscar), one of the most endearing cinematic creations in recent memory. In a believable, simple way, heavily pregnant Marge puts together the pieces of a terrible crime gone oh so wrong. Its not that its so believable, nor the comic interpretation of the Scandinavian roots of Minessota, nor even the brilliant performances by Mcdormand, William H Macy (a career best), Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare interwoven with a biting, dark, often hilarious script,not even a marvellous score, no its the way in which, at the end, you manage to feel the way in which good prevails over evil a quite riveting and fascinating affair - even with a body count of 7 people, it never feels overly violent. Humanity wins hands down, and that, coupled with all of the above, means that it is in my book, one of the greatest movies ever made. 10/10 David Ford
Whale Rider (2002)
exceptionally good movie
Whale Rider, 2002, a film id been itching to see for some time, and i finally got my reward. sometimes movies can be a let down when you wait ages for them (see Slumdog Millionaire)but I'm delighted to say i have no disappointments here with the sparkling quality of this film. Set in New Zealand, this is the story of another culture that is virtually alien to most of us in the western world, that of the Maoris. Pai is a young Maori girl born into this world, into the heart of the culture that has no place for girls in its hierarchy. The men are the leaders here, and Pai's Grandfather Koro is head of his family, with little time for the breaking or besmirching of the sacred rules that govern the culture. The movie can be taken on two levels, the tragic and inevitable sadness of an ancient culture becoming westernised, and how Koro deals with his faith becoming so; or one persons attempt to find themselves in the world. Even if you were to take the story and transport it into another culture, the often heart rending fight for who we are is played to great effect here by Keisha Castle-Hughes,the youngest person ever to be Oscar nominated for a leading role. Beautifully shot in New Zealand, and attempting to show just how the Maori culture works, it is indeed an extraordinary and powerful movie that glistens with raw emotion. 9/10 David Ford
Orphan (2009)
entertaining little horror flick
I saw this movie last night and despite mixed reviews (some were positive to the point of excellent whilst some denounced it as boring trash with a silly secret) i was pleasantly surprised at the decency of this movie - I'm not calling it a masterpiece, I've seen better movies in general, but nor would i rubbish it either. The twist ending is in fact not the best part of 'Orphan'... despite the ending being quite intelligent and original. The movie develops in two distinct halves, the first part we have a very subtle, psychological, dark film with emphasis placed on characterisation, we see and understand the motivations behind the characters and in terms of letting the mood develop, it has a dark, edgy vibe that works well, ditto the creepy Esther is introduced to us and she proceeds to intrigue us, whilst we learn nothing about her. The second part of the movie moves on from the subtleness and into terror, as we begin to see exactly what this little girl is all about. The violence eventually goes over the top and in the end, it becomes incomprehensible, but OTT cannot ruin what came before, the early parts of the film an excellent way to utilise suspense in an interesting and intriguing manner. Overall I'm giving the movie 7/10, the story was good and kept me interested, whilst the performance from 12year old Isabelle Furhmann as Esther is astonishing. that child is definitely one to watch. Overall, worth a look if you enjoy unusual horror movies. David Ford
Breaking the Waves (1996)
Dark, Sad, Unforgettable, one of the most powerful movies I've seen in a long long time
'Breaking the waves', 1996, directed by Lars Von trier. A story of a Frail young woman, Bess, in a tiny Scottish community, who marries an outsider, swede Jan. Jan works offshore on the rigs, and whilst away, has a terrible accident that will change his and Bess' relationship forever. That is the very briefest outline of the movie - but suffice to say that outline does as much for describing this movie as taking a hoover to an earthquake. Whenever i review movies i usually just write them off the cuff, my thoughts and feelings about how it made me feel, and indeed afterwards, as with this particular one its sticking with me hard, and I'm still struggling how to describe it. Bess is a virgin when she and Jan meet - the community she lives in the church dominates all - and Bess, a lonely, slightly unstable childlike woman is thrown into a world with Jan unlike anything she has seen before - she cries profusely when he has to return to his rig, screams in agony and cannot bear to be apart from him at all, not for any length of time. The love that she feels for Jan - and he her - is the basis of the movie, but i hesitate to describe this as just a love story, sure its the basis for the actions of the characters, but there are so many themes here (that i will try and cover) that it will stick in your mind, as you replay it over and over. Jan returns to his rig, and Bess agonises without him... praying every day for his return, which she gets, as Jan is crippled in an accident that sends him back to Bess. As I've stated, some of the many themes explored in the movie, along with a quite astonishing performance by Emily Watson as Bess raise it way above the average. But by the end, i couldn't help but feel id just watched arguably one of the greatest films ever made, a feeling that is still lingering. So Jan is crippled, and unable to fend for himself at all. Jan is also unable to make love to his wife either, and persuades Bess to take another lover in order that she can tell him of her experiences, and he might still 'live', as lovemaking with his wife is what keeps him alive. So Bess, initially, is filled with horror at the thought of being with anybody else, but comes to realise that Jan will live if she can sexually satisfy him, and that becomes her aim. The extraordinary tale of love is intermingled with a very difficult notion of sexual redemption - the theme is one of obvious debate amongst many, but the wondrous side of it is there is no right and wrong - Bess's sister in law and her doctor, her mother, church and community ostracise her, label her a tart and cannot disguise their disgust at her actions. But one of the messages that Von Trier is allaying is how much can you love somebody before you go to that length? how many us know what we would do? these themes in particular roused great passions in me, because i don't have the answers. if i loved somebody that much would i do whatever it took to please them? Bess's final actions may not be redemptive, what she does is her ultimate act of love, and the scenes at the end truly are heart breaking. Shot in a unique, amateur camera style that is necessary for the element of realism, as with all of the greatest movies, you actually forget your on a sofa watching. your there, with them, feeling the emotions they feel, and putting yourself in their shoes. 'Breaking the waves', truly a movie experience like no other. David Ford
Ocean's Twelve (2004)
vapid shallow egotistical romp
ego Clooney ego Pitt ego Julia Roberts, ego ego ego ego ego.... a 'movie' (if by a movie you mean something that you watch in order to be entertained, in which case I'm mistaken) that is so up its own backside it very nearly disappears (or maybe it never began!) into a self contrived hypermarket of Hollywood stars, made by the actors FOR the actors. clearly, audience participation here was non compulsory, all the actors on show here had such a good time with the first (as did we) and it being so lucrative the studio probably had plans to make another before production finished on the first. unfortunately, they forgot (or didn't really care), for the sequel to write any kind of decent script or any attempt at a plot. the actors are all having fun, but unfortunately, they forgot WE pay to watch, and Pitt especially smugs and grins his way through the 'movie' with a 'I'm a star and I'm proud of it' look on his face. add to Julia Roberts playing, well Julia, and a totally pointless cameo from Willis and it leaves you with a kind of bloated feeling, like you just took an ego overdose. personally, its not something i could sit through again. simply, flat and pointless. 2/10 David Ford
Man on Wire (2008)
wistful dramatic art pic that made me giddy
i have to admit i was completely intrigued by this documentary on phillipe petit, wire walker extraordinare, before i even watched it. id seen it advertised and like a good horror movie i was attracted to it because it looked like it might disturb me. i wasn't wrong. The docu is the story of Petits' infamous wire walk of New Yorks' twin towers in 1974, and pic is narrated by Petit himself. One can view Petit one of two ways - is he a man who would stop at nothing in order to pursue his dreams? Or was he a single minded selfish egoist quite willing to use and discard people in order to get what he wanted? well to be honest, hes a bit of both. undoubtedly enigmatic with a mysterious aura surrounding him, we never get to see the real person... or what motivated him to do what he did (he also wire walked Sydney's harbour bridge and the Notre Dame Cathedral), instead we get interviews with Petit and his crew, former girlfriend and re-enactments of Petits' planning of his mega stunt. these re-enactments are cleverly spliced together with footage (though none of the towers walk actually exist) culminating at the end with clips of the day the dramatic stunt was carried out. Directed by British Director James Marsh, the movie has a wistful, romantic arty feel to it; one cant help but feel it depicts an event, as one of the policemen comments, that he'd 'never seen before or since' the title of the movie, by the way, comes from what was written on Petits' charge sheet, despite no charges being brought against him. An yes, if your afraid of heights like i am, when Petit lies down on the wire, you may feel a little faint. I did! David Ford
Crank (2006)
entertaining, amusing but finally over the top
despite positive IMDb reviews on 'crank', i wasn't expecting too much... anyone who has seen the god awful 'transporter' movies will know what i mean, there's just something about Jason Statham that doesn't ring true as an action star.. and why must he put on that American accent? however because i went into this flick with low expectations i was quite surprised to find i enjoyed the movie, well at least for the first hour. Statham plays hit-man Chev Chelios whom we see in the beginning has been poisoned with drugs that will eventually stop his heart, cue an extremely fast paced film as we follow Chev on his quest to track down the gangsters who injected him. The fact that the movie moves so fast is both its strength and weakness - the violent jerky camera work and frantic editing obviously fit Chelios' frame of mind, as he has an hour to live and the speed of the story works because of this. However on the negative side eventually the manic camera work becomes tiresome,(the movie only runs in at 88 Min's)and in the end, i didn't really care for what happened to Chelios. add a very annoying performance by Chelios' girlfriend (and a laughably bad sex scene) Amy Smart (who clearly cant act) and the style over substance is prevalent here in lumps. I'm giving this 5/10 for effort, but the concept doesn't really come off. David Ford
The Thing (1982)
glorious gorious masterpiece
For many people, John Carpenters swansong will always be Halloween, a taut brilliantly directed movie that continues to generate new fans over 30 years since its release. But for those who know carpenters work, he directed at least 3 other gems, one of those being the 1982 movie, the thing. ostensibly a remake of the 1951 movie the 'thing from another world', the movie begins with a helicopter chasing a dog, whom the occupants are trying to shoot, for which we have no idea why at this point. Carpenter is an expert when it comes to tension and suspense in his movies, right up there with Hitchcock in my opinion. the use of such tension in this movie is where carpenter excels,the master directors vision of a dark cold world perfectly instills the sense of dread and(later) paranoia all of the scientists at this research station feel. So they let this dog into the facility...and then the real terror begins. all the tension and great directing you like wouldn't work though if it were not for the absolutely astounding effects that to be honest are probably the best I've ever seen in cinema, horrifyingly gut wrenching spine ripping head tearingly real and convincing of an alien force that will absorb its host... all credit must go to rob bottin for these effects which with carpenter knowing exactly what to do (and when to do it) added together and we have an absolute corker of a movie which should be in the top 30 movies if all time and top 10 horrors. and yet it has never received the credit it deserves. why? no pun intended but perhaps the violence alienated some people? it is fantastically gory and anyone easily offended and under 16 should avoid at all costs, for the rest well, turn the lights off, get rid of any yakkers and ENJOY. 10/10 David Ford
Straw Dogs (1971)
Brutal unflinching and unforgettable
I recently bought Straw Dogs on DVD, (the uncut version) having never seen it before. I've seen some pretty uncompromising and raw movies before, but this surely is one of its kind - brutal, controversial, hard as nails, and ultimately brilliant. The story is in paper a simple one - mathematician David (Hoffman) a shy American moves to rural Cornwall with his wife (Susan George), to escape the big city, and all it entails, all the strife that big cities give you. So they move to the countryside... only it becomes obvious to them and us that the country ain't so different from the city after all. Directed by Sam Peckinpah,(the wild bunch), and with Hoffman and George riveting, its a tale of violence repressed, that which is within all of us, what many of us hide... Its a harsh gritty unflinching piece that probably due to its content (several scenes will blow you away) has never got the credit it deserves, but folks there isn't anything like this at all in cinema - a genuine masterpiece of wrought iron tension. 10/10 David Ford
White Men Can't Jump (1992)
not really about basketball at all
A movie that on the surface appears to be about sport - basketball- has a much deeper undertone if you look closer, a movie that uses the sport as a metaphor for the distinctions between blacks and whites in America. I've always loved this movie, i first saw it many years ago when i was about 14 and felt the wit and chemistry between harrelson and snipes is top notch, now im older i see things i didn't see before. Personally i feel you can take the movie in two ways. you either see it as a buddy comedy or a movie which shows how blacks and whites view each other. the way in which snipes is presented may be a cliché - black man, ultra confident, feels that coz hes black hes better than harrelson - but is this a cliché? most of the black guys in the movie feel that harrelsons character billy is a 'chump', and are quick to put him down. even the movies title 'white men cant jump' is a thinly vieled reference to the viewpoint of black America. this is not a racist perspective, its simply how it is, sidney (snipes) even gets into a discussion with harrelson about jimmy hendrix, about his apparently white drummer and how billy cant listen to hendrix, he can only hear him. billy for his part, uses the fact that hes a white guy to his advantage when he and snipes are hustling. these class colour elements serve to make white men cant jump a far better movie than it is given credit for, and is worth a better look if you think its just another sports comedy. David Ford
Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)
simply awful
I really have to start my review lampooning the decision to make a sequel to Poltergeist, a well crafted ghost story by Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg, whilst no classic was well made enough, with some good chills and good effects. But Poltergeist 2 seems to have been made by people who had no idea of what made the original so worthwhile - it ends up a completely unsuspensful mess, and such may well be the worst sequel of all time. We begin by meeting the freeling family after the events of the first movie (homeless and living with jobeth Williams' mother), after an absurd opening featuring shamans and Indians and excavating... until carol Anne sees a mysterious figure at the mall, which turns out to be Reverend Henry Kane, who wants Carol Anne. Add to this mix is an Indian played by Will Sampson, who tries to protect the family. If this sounds jumbled, you should see the movie. The major Problem with this movie is a complete lack of any suspense whatsoever. Any decent horror movie worth its salt has suspense, or tries to utilise it because that is what terror is all about, the long silences waiting for something to happen, the build up to it... Poltergeist 2 simply does not even try in this area,For example when carol Anne sees Kane at the mall, menacing and staring at her, in order to build up the tension, Director Brian Gibson didn't need to show us that Kane was a ghost, any director with any idea of suspense would have let us make up our own minds, as soon as we see Kane walking through people and things we know straight away what he is and any suspense vanishes. as a result pic becomes predictable and boring the effects are hammy and aside from Julian Beck,(who gives the movies only high point with a terrifically creepy performance)Jobeth Williams and Craig T Nelson look bored to death. It says an awful lot that i rated the 3rd instalment higher than this drivel, and believe me that was no classic by any means.
Gran Torino (2008)
Eastwoods last hurrah?
saw this movie the other day, heard much about it(all positive) and going by some of Eastwood's other directorial masterpieces, i couldn't wait. What i got surprised even me, hardened movie fan that i am, never had i expected Eastwood to come up with something so beautiful powerful and unforgettable.I'm not going to give the game away for those who haven't seen it, but here is a movie that'l have you struck silent at the end and thinking about it for days after. a movie so richly layered without a single false note, it has a rare power all of its own, and if it is Eastwood's swansong (in front of the camera or behind it, his performance as a grizzled Korean war vet is amongst his best)then what a way to go. along with unforgiven and million dollar baby, Eastwood may well retire with tag of 'best director in America' attached firmly to his belt. bravo. 10/10
Alien³ (1992)
not as bad as id heard.... but poor compared to the first 2
I only saw this movie for the first time a few weeks ago, id heard many dismal comments and reviews on it (including here on IMDb) and was not exactly jumping in anticipation. First of all, its fair to say i think, that the first 2 are classics.... Ridley Scott's masterful original and James Cameron's very different but equally enthralling sequel... fast forward 5 years and the concept of another one crops up. Why? In movie history hardly any of 3rd sequels better the originals... terminator, godfather,Halloween, nightmare on elm street, superman, batman,spiderman,scream, shrek, (the only example i can think of is lord of the rings : return of the king, which may well be the best in the series, only because the story came to a phenomenal conclusion), so there would be no reason to suggest that the alien Franchise would or should be continued... but therein says it all... alien and aliens were both very profitable so another one would surely bring em in... and whilst it did just that, the movie itself had so much to live up to it was never going to be on a par with its predecessors. David Fincher is a fine director( seven, curious case of Benjamin button) but the mistakes that were made has lead fincher to virtually disown the movie. so what exactly is wrong with it? by my reckoning, fincher had realised that to make an alien movie to similar to the first or second was not what the fans or even he wanted; so his choice to attempt to do something different from Scott and Cameron was ultimately( as well as the successes of the previous instalments) to blame for the movie not being all that good. killing off 2 major characters right in the beginning was his first mistake,and setting the movie with people you don't really give s damn about, well thats also a error. bar one or 2, we cant really get animated about such unlovely people. 3rdly, a very poor CGI monster which sadly (see first 2 movies for real monsters)takes ALL the suspense out of it, its so obviously fake looking its laughable. combine these three flaws with a dull, leggy (fincher probably wanted atmospheric)direction and lack of suspense or pace and towards the end we actually want it to be over... something you could never say about the first 2. we must forgive fincher his mistakes, he was young and inexperienced.he has matured into an excellent director, instead blame the greedy film company who couldn't resist another chance to make a quick buck and destroying a great horror series in the process.
London to Brighton (2006)
A work of art
Its fair to say that in cinematic terms, British cinema will sadly always lack behind Hollywood, they have more money and more exposure and if you went out onto the street and asked people about this movie, the majority would not know what you meant. but in terms of quality, i will state categorically this is easily as good as ANYTHING Hollywood has produced. made on a shoestring, we dive headfirst into the seedy sleazy underworld of London life, the pimps, hookers and general lowlifes that crawl through the gutters of this world... we meet a downtrodden prostitute and an 11 year old girl (a fabulous performance by Georgia Broome) on the run, which is not obviously clear why at first. I've personally never seen a film that is so raw, down at heel and realistic, almost like the cameraman followed these people around and simply filmed the horrors they go through... no cheese, no pretensions simply raw and unflinching in its portrayal. i have no other choice to give this bleak, dark sad and enthralling movie 10/10... hoping its stock will rise in years to come. definitely not for kids, and anybody else easily offended, but marvellous entertainment.
The King of Comedy (1982)
a straight A Masterpiece
Being such a huge De Niro fan, this is one of his few movies i had not seen therefore i had to correct this slight problem... and i watched arguably his and Scorsese's' greatest ever performance. For those who know a little about movies, there was little to touch De Niro in the 70's or the 80's in terms of the quality of his performances(scorcese has cast De Niro 8 times between 1973 and 1995)and this surely to god must be his crowning glory, ahead of Travis Bickle, Jake la motta, jimmy conway and even Leonard in Awakenings (a sumptuous performance). De Niro plays Rupert Pupkin, a total nobody who will do anything to be a somebody, no matter what it takes and whoever treads on him, he will,(in this case)get his slot on a TV show, even if it means resorting to kidnapping the host... De Niro gives such a towering performance as Pupkin its almost as if he becomes the natty little man, you almost forget hes acting, and as the movie develops we begin to understand what the movie is saying about the media today, and what a sad fickle game fame is. Whether you take it as satire or not its surely scorecese's scariest movie simply because the truth hits like a hammer blow. De Niro should have romped home with the Oscar for this,(but wasn't even nominated) but having won raging bull in 1980, they probably felt someone else deserved it. this ought to be in top 20 movies of all time. simply Brilliant. 10/10
Candyman (1992)
Masterpiece of modern horror
Some movies don't get the rating they deserve, unfortunately the some of ratings here at IMDb have to be taken with a pinch of salt also.to only rate this absolute classic at a 6.2 is beyond me... who one earth voted? for those who've never seen this... based on the tale 'the forbidden'by Clive barker we have a dark, scary (scary beyond blood and gore)tale of modern urban legend. so what is an urban legend? a tale or story that imbues itself into the psyche of modern day society;a story that is told amongst friends and colleagues, whispers in the classrooms and graffiti on the walls. stories that everybody knows by heart and yet dare not challenge to be true; modern fables that are accepted as such by all. and yet what this movie does so well is make us, the viewer, question these tales and put the kernel of doubt in our minds that each and every urban legend MAY have a grain of truth to it. Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen) is a Chicago Graduate researching Urban legends, who slowly begins to understand that each and every story DOES have some element of truth to it; the power of these legends is what makes the legend grow... With Brilliant, taut direction, and a wonderful score that honestly gives me goosebumps,the subtle, creepy tone of the movie will have you on tenterhooks. its a full 44 Min's before we properly see Candyman, 44 Min's (and one death off camera)of pent spine chilling tension. you could take half the blood out of this film, and it would still work. in short, a masterpiece of how to make a horror movie. Superb.
The Bill: The Trial of Eddie Santini (2000)
The bill at its peak
The year 2000 was probably what most fans would agree was the pinnacle year for the show; after 17 years this fine British television institution had reached its zenith, and unfortunately its been downhill all the way since. i own the collectors edition on VHS of the 3 episode 'trial of Eddie santini and watched it again, for the first time in years. i was very surprised that it was way better than i had remembered. here we have Pc Eddie santini;(brilliantly played by Michael Higgs)a good looking smooth wide-boy, always out for himself and whatever he can lay his hands on in order to better himself, always looking for an angle in any given situation. but the real Santini... a chauvinistic bully with a bad attitude towards anybody who gets in his way, especially women. the episode follows on from 1998 when when (then PC Rosie fox, played by Higgs real life Wife Caroline Catz)left Sun hill after falling foul of Santini's obsession with her... fast forward 18 months and the two will be thrown together on a case, but this time Santini's up to his neck in it and this fox has seen the rabbit. this really is simply very classy television... gripping stuff that is impossible to look away from, even if you do know what happens. i would imagine most fans have seen this, but if you haven't, try and track down a copy you wont be disappointed.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
An outstanding achievement - but not for modern viewers
I watched this movie for the first time about 2 days ago, and id like to share my thoughts on the film. first allow me to explain my summary comment. (I'm not giving away any spoilers because i don't think there are any to give away) L o A was made during a time when movies had the word 'epic' rubberstamped all over them, in 1962, only three years after ben hur, 2 years after spartacus, 6 or 7 years after bridge on the river kwai, you get my point, when movies were made not necessarily to satisfy audience cravings, when visionary directors like David lean wanted to tell a story and the studio gave them whatever they wanted in order to achieve this. the movie runs in at very nearly 4 hours long, and i wont lie here, sometimes it feels like it. the length of the movie is, however the only criticism i can find, as acting, script,and cinematography are quite frankly out of this world and the sweat will run off you as lawrence frazzles in the heat. my point is that a great deal of young people will be unaccustomed to such attention to detail in a movie, when the answers are not thrust down your throat and somebody is not slaughtered every 5 mins. i realise I'm been cynical but the days when you could whack out a four hour masterpiece and expect your audience to lap it up are long gone.. but that does explain the low ratings, obviously from youngsters who viewed (part of)the movie and were bored stiff. well what did you expect? independence day? if your over 65, this movie is probably one of your all time favourites, but if your under 25, well, just avoid.
Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)
ignore the low rating - this is genius
I've got to start by saying if you've never seen this movie, drop everything right now and go hunt down a copy. because my friends you wont ever have seen anything like this i can guarantee you. a bizarre, creepy,offbeat, and very funny tale of a small town that is invaded by aliens disguised as clowns. deliberately made in the cheesy 50's style of scifi movies(but made in 1987)it has that goofy kind of feel to it that is difficult to take seriously. and that is one of the reasons why it works so well - added to excellent effects and make up (the clown outfits and make up are particularly horrifyingly convincing)- if you see this movie expecting an Oscar winner you will be disappointed, the film makers know that -tent - spaceships, acid custard pies, hungry shadow monsters and candyfloss ray guns aren't to be taken seriously, the way in which the movie parodies the style of the 50's movies is its greatest strength right down to clichéd characters and script. but its meant to be that way, and upon watching the movie you almost feel it was made in 1958 or something, where huge credit must go to the makers. 22 years on this movie has reached top level cult status and surely will its kudos grow over the next 10-20 years. quite unlike anything else in cinema i would say. go now and see this movie!
Dark Water (2005)
A masterpiece
First of all, let me say that as remakes go, I'm not a fan. it seems difficult to me to replicate any movie, mores the point how(or why)could you or would you attempt to improve something that has its own identity and mark? Hollywood are the prime bad example of remaking Asian horror movies to an almost laughable degree - even if the original was not brilliant, you can be sure Hollywood wont improve it. and then i saw 'Dark Water', and believe me when i tell you that this is the one of the darkest, subtlest psychological horror movies I've ever seen (and I've seen a few). The basic story is this: a woman(Jennifer Connelly)and her daughter, in the middle of a divorce move to a run down area of new york to an apartment block thats within her budget. as the story progresses we begin to understand that something is not quite right with her apartment, and the difficulties that she goes through to raise her daughter and battle through her divorce. its subtle; oh so subtle and the atmosphere is built up in layers; its neither silly or cheesy but creepy enough for you know SOMETHING is happening. the director never gets impatient and throws anything unnecessary at us; we are allowed to get beneath the surface of these people and understand why they are feeling the way they are. for that alone this is a notch above most modern horror movies, and despite the feeble IMDb rating i would urge anybody with half a brain to see this movie and understand that atmosphere (john carpenter anyone?)is what makes the best horror movies. if you want blood and mindless gore, then go hire 'friday the 13th', otherwise go see this and prepare for the hairs to most likely stand up on your neck! Simply brilliant 10/10.
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)
Big Dumb and pointless
The 'first' of the Halloween sequels, released in 1988, is where the whole franchise, in my opinion, began to go downhill, its where it all began in terms of the myers/slasher phenomenon. 10 years since the 78 classic they decided to bring back myers, and there begins the problem; this movie is made blatantly by and for people who had no concept of what made the original so outstanding. Don't get me wrong, it is entertaining if you can overlook the films many Deficiences and does have some suspenseful moments.The Bad: For example; how does myers(who was blown up and incinerated at the end of 2) plus being in a coma for ten years manage to easily kill the ambulance attendants and flee? after ten years on a trolley myers'd be in need of a touch of physiotherapy! Then a horribly burned man manages to get to haddonfield and get into a store and steal a mask without been seen! i mean come on! Added to the scenes where myers manages to get into the back of a police car and then when they get to the house you see the back door is open; but we all know police back doors cant be opened from the inside for obvious reasons.just silly. And when myers appears on the truck, presumably he was hiding underneath? some feat to come popping out when the trucks doin 60! There are many more aspects of this movie that i thought were dumb, the overall feel of the movie went against the original so much. so wonder carpenter bailed out. as i say, if you want a fun gory movie, this is probably for you, it certainly isn't boring but is in no way comparable to the original.