My Favorite Movies

One of my top five films. I seen Blade Runner in the summer of 82. I was 9 years old at the time and it was a experience that changed my life. I was pulled into the world of this film and in some ways I've never left. It a film that makes me think everytime I see it and I continue to see things I never noticed before and that is rare in any film. On to the review.
Ridley Scotts' 'Blade Runner' is, by far, one of the greatest Science-Fiction movies ever made. 'Blade Runner' takes place in the far future where mankind has developed 'Replicants', genetically engineered robotic-human clones. 'Replicants' were designed to be physically superior to humans, but possess the same intelligence as the common human being. These androids are used as slaves for the 'hazardous exploration and colonization' of other planets in our solar system. At some point in time, (which isn't specified in the movie) a violent 'Replicant' revolt ensues on a colonized planet, this event causes replicants to be declared illegal on Earth, if a replicant is found on Earth it will be immediately destroyed. The title of the movie, 'Blade Runner', refers to a policeman whose job it is to shoot and kill any replicants they might find on Earth.

(All of this, of course, is explained in the first three minutes of the movie, much clearer, and much shorter, but I decided to write about it anyways)

The story is about a man named Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford), an experienced 'Blade Runner' who's unwillingly brought out of retirement to finish one last mission. Deckard has to track down four rogue replicants who have escaped from a planetary colony to Earth, killing innocent lives on the way. These four highly dangerous replicants are loose on the streets of L.A., and could kill again unless Deckard can deal with them first.

This film wasn't the first time in the Sci-Fi genre for Ridley Scott. His previous film in the Science-Fiction genre is 'Alien', which is an extremely well presented Horror film in space. Ridley Scott knows how to establish a mood, in 'Alien' he makes the audience feel clustered, tense, and alone on a gigantic moving spaceship, the same in 'Blade Runner'. Deckard's' chase scene through L.A. in 2019, halfway through the movie, best describes the atmosphere of the film. Medium shots of Deckard running through the streets, culturally diverse extras constantly filling the screen, talking street lights, loud-annoying street sounds, all of the preceding things add up to a perfect feel of a technologically corrupted Los Angeles. The final segments of this chase scene use slow motion, and a very bluesy musical score that gives the scene such finesse that an audience can easily see the horror of what mankind, in the film, has become.

The overall presentation of 'Blade Runner' is very much like a gritty 1950's detective movie, with Harrison Ford in a majority of the scenes, becoming the stoic private eye who is fed up with his job. Ford has a knack for playing characters that are down on their luck, because of this he pulls off Rick Deckard's character flawlessly. Ford's calm and collected manner of performing all his actions fit the experienced 'Blade Runner' very well. All the roles in the film are played with great skill by the cast, every supporting performance adds to the magnificence of this film. The creator of the combat 'Replicant' models J.F. Sebastian is a timid scientist who lives with his homemade midget robots. William Sanderson, who plays Sebastian, portrays the shy scientist exactly how one would expect. Joe Turkel plays Tyrell, the owner of a major 'Replicant' producing company called Tyrell Corporation. Turkel also gives a great performance as an arrogant corporate owner. Also we have Rutger Hauer who plays the leader and most dangerous of the four escaped replicants, Roy Batty. The innocence he gives to the ruthlessly evil character is a scary thing to watch at times. What truly makes 'Blade Runner' a must-see film is its' dialogue, every conversation between characters has an underlying theme within it. One of my favorite lines is when Batty says 'We're not computers ? we're physical'. The manner Hauer says it will get the viewer thinking. The writing also shines at the end with Roy's last lines in the film, overall a very moving script with a ton of different conversations that are worth listening to.

From the opening scenes of a horribly industrialized Los Angeles, to the chase on L.A.'s crowded streets, and finally the gruesome fight scene which concludes the movie, 'Blade Runner' is one of the breakthrough films in the Sci-Fi genre. This movie is a non-stop journey through a very realistic rendition of the future. The thing to watch out with this movie is also considered to be a Film-Noir. This means that certain characteristics will constantly take shape in the film. For example a Film-Noir will only promote the cynical side of human nature, thus the genre 'Film-Noir' is a very ugly look at life. Many factors in 'Blade Runner' add up to a classification of Film-Noir some of them are: - Deckard's primary job is hunting and killing androids, not a very joyous job. Deckard himself has a very cynical way of saying things. - L.A. is portrayed as a city overrun by smoke and fog. The exterior shots of the city usually incorporate rain. Many scenes take places in dark, gloomy, and empty streets. - As you watch the film you will notice that bright colors are rarely used and the city streets are in constant darkness(because of the pollution blocking the sun).

Film-Noirs are often filled with ambiguity and the protagonist is usually a depressing kind of guy. This might discourage people from watching it, but I highly recommend picking the 'Blade Runner' dvd just to see at least one Film-Noir in your lifetime. This genre is one of those things that you either love or you hate, a proper Film-Noir will usually not have a picture perfect ending so don't expect one from 'Blade Runner'

It is a highly overlooked film nowadays, when the common movie-goer thinks of Sci-Fi immediately big name titles like: The Star Wars Saga, Star Trek, The Matrix Trilogy, The Terminator, etc. are what they would think of. Blade Runner is the true definition of the Sci-Fi genre; it doesn't have the fun and games of Star Wars, or the huge firefight scenes of the Matrix, but delivers thoughts on what it means to live, what our future holds, and a serious outlook on humans in general.

Best known for directing the classic independent horror film "Halloween", director John Carpenter works wonders in another of many of his movies that I absolutely love- "Escape From New York".

"Escape From New York" is to give a quick plot rundown about Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), a former war hero who is now a criminal. He is ordered by Bob Hauk (Lee Van Cleef), the calm, but stubborn U.S. Police Commissioner to go into New York City, now the country's only maximum security prison and rescue the President (Donald Pleasence) in twenty-four hours. Some of the scenes in this movie are terrific such as Snake eluding the Crazies, Snake finds Brain (Harry Dean Stanton), an old friend of his who betrayed him in a robbery, and the car chase across the 69th Street bridge that is mined. To just name a few off hand.

Kurt Russell gives a perfect performance as Snake and the film gets solid supporting performances from Cleef, Stanton, Pleasence, Ernest Borgnine as the last cab driver in the Big Apple, Adrianne Barbeau, Issac Hayes as the vicious Duke, and Frank Doubleday as Romero, who manages to steal some scenes in the movie with just his freaky appearence alone. The story was written by Carpenter and Nick Castle. It is smart and very well detailed. Also, Carpenter makes a terrific musical score that pays off in some of the key scenes. Dean Cundey's cinematography is top notch as usual.

"Escape From New York" is as mentioned before one of my favorite John Carpenter films. I could go on and on about it. In the end even though its dated due to the timeframe its set in ( 1997) the film is a timeless classic

"Escape from New York" is to me a classic film, it's memorably dark, seedy, suspenseful and even funny. Alas, "Escape from L.A." is not nearly as memorable - in fact, it plays out as nothing more than a remake of its far more thrilling predecessor.

Both films have essentially the same premise; corrupt government officials send criminal tough guy "Snake" Plissken to infiltrate the ruins of a once-great city and retrieve some MacGuffin for them. In both films, Snake is reluctant to cooperate, but the government secures his compliance by threatening his life. So, Snake duly treks off to an urban wasteland, wasting thugs and meeting a variety of wacky characters on his way to completing his desperate mission.

This sequel is a step down from the original movie. The villain is inferior, the president is inferior, and even the special effects are inferior (note the positively laughable CGI when Snake pilots his submarine to L.A.; the approach to New York in the first film is infinitely classier.)

And, though both films have some very dark humor, I find that the jokes in the first are simply better. In "L.A.," there are some attempts at social satire, but by and large they don't work to well. For instance, the much-praised "plastic surgery" segment feels really isolated and pointless to me. It's a one-joke sequence that goes nowhere and contributes nothing to the plot. Ultimately, I think the first film has the edge in the humor department because it was co-written by Nick Castle, who reportedly lightened up the script and was quite a wit in general (though Castle is credited on this movie, I believe it's only because he wrote the original film.)

One thing I loved about"Escape from L.A." is its social commentary. I agree with some of this film's criticisms of the religious right, some may find the presentation of these criticisms to be superficial, condescending, and obnoxious. To me I guess its just fun satire, even though some aspects of the film hit close to home. Suffice to say, if you're conservative, this movie will annoy you, and who knows even if you're an open-minded liberal, it might annoy you. To each his or her own.

To sum up here Escape From L.A. has got some good cameos, a few decent scenes, but in the end...it just ain't the original. A fun film to watch but not a great film

What can I say but I love this film. Its one of my all time favorites. I will try to keep this as short and sweet as I can because I could just go on and on about this film. Angel Heart is a winding psychological thriller that -- in 1987 -- was far ahead of its time. So far that audiences didn't `get it' and the film bombed at the box office. Only now over the past few years are we beginning to see endings like this one surface in horror movies. Had Angel Heart been made a decade or so later, perhaps it would have succeeded.

As it is, the movie which has a strong cult following is still nothing short of mesmerizing. I would even go so far to call it a masterpiece. It is scary, disturbing, influential, thought-provoking, and a lot smarter and more atmospheric than most movies being made today.

It stars Mickey Rourke as Harry Angel, a private eye from Brooklyn in the 1950s who is hired by Louis Cyphere (Robert De Niro) to locate a mysterious singer named Johnny Favorite, who disappeared in the early ?40s and hasn't been seen since.

Angel's journey takes him from the streets of New York to jazz clubs in Harlem and, finally, to the sweltering swamps of Louisiana. He meets a variety of characters, all of who have little to say about Favorite. All we seem to know is that he was a singer, entered the war, and was shot, had his face reconstructed, was taken out of hospital care, and apparently vanished from the face of the earth.

Most people who watch it now will see the twist coming a mile away
but that's not to say that the movie won't affect you. Notorious when released for some controversial scenes (including a sequence involving Rourke and The Cosby Show's Lisa Bonet), the movie's moody atmosphere is its strongest element.

The acting, too, is very strong. This is Rourke's finest performance, as Harry Angel, a scumbag detective with nothing to lose. Rourke's acting here is Oscar-worthy.

The role of Louis Cyphere is also one of De Niro's most interesting and ambitious performances; he delves entirely into character and leaves a lasting impact on the viewer.

The film was directed by Alan Parker, the famous British filmmaker (of, among others, Midnight Express). Some say this is his finest film ,wonderfully crafted, beautifully shot, masterfully edited and I'd have to agree.

This version of Solaris has a very different feel to it than Tarkovsky's original, this is, by Soderbergh's admission, one third the original, one third the novel (by Stanislaw Lem) and one third Soderbergh's own imagination. Its also somewhat of a departure for all involved, particularly Clooney and Soderbergh, though bearing the fingerprints of his style.

It must be said that this is not the film that the terrible marketing campaign at the time of it release offered - it is not a funky space-set romance, though it does take place in space and is a romantic story. It is however, a very slow, deliberate film. Only essential information is given and, going from a 61-page script to a 90-minute film, there is little dialogue but a lot of detail. Many will find it too slow and possibly boring and I do have to say its not a film for everyone. But there is so much here to appreciate. It is a film of mood and feelings, creating a beautiful and emotional atmosphere, in which events unwind gradually, rather than an intense plot-driven mish-mash of ideas.

Soderbergh's intention is to question the very nature of existence and of love - if you knew something wasn't real, would you avoid getting attached to it, even if it was the one thing you always wanted, more than anything? If it meant never seeing home again, but spending forever in a tiny space with just that person, would rationality cease to exist? Do we only need that one thing that we crave to survive? Beyond this, there are semi-religious overtones added as well - is Solaris heaven? A place where all wishes are granted at the cost of "human" life?

The aspect that stands out first and foremost the acting. Viola Davis is wonderful, Jeremy Davies is never less than interesting, and finally Clooney and Natasha McElhone deliver great performances, some of the best of their careers so far. Expanding his range even more after Out of Sight and O Brother Where Art Thou?, Clooney reaches depth you wouldn't have expected of such a matinee-style star. His Chris Kelvin is sad, intense, smart and realistic - the scene where Clooney wakes up to see his dead wife is a wonderful moment of acting, watching him try to bring himself round and shake off the image, only to realise its real. And McElhone is perfectly cast and surprising as the other half of the emotional core. Having been efficient in Ronin and The Truman Show, she seems to have acquired untapped gravitas and beauty in this film, looking absolutely beautiful in a very virginal, pure sense, belying the complexities and internal grief of her character. She too has many moments that just seem incredibly real, as if she forgot to act and just believed in what was happening.

The cinematography and effects are very proficient without being showy, creating a believable environment within which the bizarre events are grounded in a reality not so unbelievable. Solaris itself is simply gorgeous to look at, conjuring up images of planets and cells at the same time, hinting at a universality which is not one thing nor the other, but all things which cannot be explained in one term, again suggesting a godliness to it. And the music is brilliantly subtle, flavouring the images to give it that atmosphere of longing and loss and also beauty, never suggesting what we should feel but rather what the on-screen characters are feeling.

Soderbergh has made a very mature film here, eschewing the "cool" editing and camera tricks of films such as Traffic, Erin Brockovich, The Limey and Out of Sight for a more stately, sophisticated tone. It never feels forced or unbelievable and, while some of its twists are somewhat predictable, you dont feel cheated at all by the end, rather that everything played out as it should: dramatic and sad in places, beautiful in others, unsettling at times and ultimately quite profound. There really isn't anything wrong with this film, if you are in the mood to have a film wash over you and cause you to ruminate on the ideas of mortality, loss and redemption.

Thriller: A Cruel Picture also known as They Call Her One Eye ( the title I prefer)is among the most infamous films in exploitation cinema. It was eclipsed by I Spit On Your Grave which was made a few years later. I can honestly say it fully deserves its reputation as a truly depraved film. Its also a rather original film that remains unique even today. The art-house approach to grindhouse material isn't always successful, I've seen some that have been a little too pretentious, This is one of those b-films where the filmmakers obviously wanted to create something quality as opposed to just collect a rent payment and yet not slide into the pretentious category

Bo Arne Vibenius's direction, as mentioned earlier, makes a unique aesthetic. The material is great exploitation film fodder, some of the grittiest and sleaziest stuff ever caught on camera. However, he manages to make a sympathetic protagonist out of the main female character who always remains easy to root for even when he revenge becomes just as sadistic as her previous tormentor's actions. There are some flaws to the film, mainly the overuse of slow motion when the violence occurs. While it can sometimes lend an eerie, almost poetic quality to the film (such as the scene with the cops in the warehouse), it detracts the sudden impact the material could potentially have. The film would've moved at a better pace without this unnecessary technique. Also, the hardcore porn inserts are often awkward and really interrupt the flow. I really wonder what Vibenius was trying to achieve by inserting these sequences.

However, whenever Vibenius occasionally fumbles, the lead performance of Christina Lindberg is always fantastic. She never speaks during the entire film but her performance has the subtlety many other aspects of the production lack. Shes also an incredibly beautiful women capable of projecting both innocence and sex appeal. Its no wonder she has a sizable cult following - shes an extremely talented performer. "Thriller: A Cruel Picture" is a completely successful exploitation cult film, despite the flaws I mentioned it works really well and is a film worth checking out if your a fan of grindhouse cinema.

English writer Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) needs a break from London and wants to write her new novel in seclusion. Her publisher sends her to his Italian house--miles away from anyone. She loves it but then the publisher's daughter Julie (Ludivine Sagnier) shows up. Things get tense...and REALLY strange. To say anymore would be unthinkable. You'll have to see the movie to find out. I don't want to give to much away here

This is the kind of movie that switches gears halfway through--but pulls it off. It starts as a character study of Morton but when Julie shows up things take a decidedly unexpected twist. This does fall into " its not a film for everyone" category, for one reason you have to pay strict attention to catch all the twists and turns and alot of people are not up for that, In fact it doesn't totally make sense till the very end. Beautifully directed (and cowritten) by Francois Ozon--a real director to look out for.

Just a terrific film but like I said not for everyone. In the end it may be too quiet and require to much attention for some and there is a lot of nudity in this (mostly female) and if your of the prudish type then you might want to stay away but if your looking for a great story with alot of twists and turns you can't go wrong here.

While not the classic that Night Of The Living Dead and Dawn Of The Dead are Lucio Fulci's Zombie is still one of the best zombie films out there. The film hits the ground running with a fat zombie attacking a coast card off Manhattan, the film then grinds to a halt for fifteen minutes, but once the unnecessary exposition is done with, the film earns its living dead stripes.

What separates ZOMBIE from its genre brethren is atmosphere and special effects. Lucio Fulci knew how to create great atmosphere in his films and he also knew when to take a special effect way, way over the top.

The rotting, walking carcasses in this potboiler are just so wonderful as they walk and stalk and chow down on anything that moves.

The famous "eyeball" scene is a showstopper and the scenes where zombies sit around a corpse eating slowly, so as to savor the taste, are priceless.

The flaming finale shows real passion for the genre and the voodoo background never becomes boring.

This is one of my favorite Fulci flicks, I also harbor affection for THE BEYOND and GATES OF HELL. both films rich in atmosphere.
In the end despite its flaws like the bad dubbing and a few slow spots the film more than makes up for it with great atmosphere and delivering the gory goods which is what counts in these kind of films

This is a film almost everyone knows about even if you haven't seen it. Night Of The Living Dead is the story of, well, basically life on Earth as we know it coming to an end; the title says it all. The dead are "living", or at least roaming about devouring any human (that isn't dead) that they come in to contact with. We see this story through a group of random people gathered together in an empty farm house fighting for their lives.

The opening scene of this movie, you have a brother and sister visiting their fathers grave site. The brother continually teases his sister who is obviously disturbed by this. "They're coming to get you Babara. Look There is one now." He says this pointing to an elderly man walking in their direction. Some of the last words he will ever speak. The elderly man approaching them (of course they don't know he is a zombie) attacks the Barbara. Her brother tries to fight him off, but is killed in the struggle. And so begins one of the best and most influential horror films ever made.

The tension is gradually raised through out the film as peoples personalities, and ideas on how to combat the gathering mob of living dead outside of their temporary hideaway, begin to conflict with one another. The acting is not top notch I will admit. There are so many other pluses that this matters little if at all, in fact it may add something for some viewers. The story is original in it's telling, and one of the earliest movies of this type before ten low budget copies came out every year.

This is not a gore fest, if you want that check out Dawn Of The Dead, instead more of a psychological thriller with some gore scenes here and there.

This, along with films like Psycho, The Exorcist, Halloween and The Omen, changed the way horror movies are made, and viewed. It was a influence on many directors such as John Carpenter. Though horror films are generally looked down upon, films like these allow us to not feel guilty for admiring the genre

20 years after "Day of the Dead", George A. Romero finally returned to his highly revered series of classic zombie films with this enjoyable and respectable horror / action film. In a world where zombies are higher in number than ever, some folks (basically, the have nots) are forced to fend for themselves, while the others live in relative safety inside a fortified city. Meanwhile, the zombies themselves are evolving, learning how to use tools and weapons and becoming capable of creative thinking, and end up being mobilized by a hulking zombie named "Big Daddy" (Eugene Clark).

Our main plot has Riley (Simon Baker) forced to go after former comrade Cholo (John Leguizamo) after the latter embarks on a vendetta against arrogant fat cat Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), stealing an awesome-looking truck named "Dead Reckoning" and intending to obtain payment from the rich jerk by threatening to destroy his stronghold. With sidekick Charlie (Robert Joy) in tow, Riley picks up other cohorts along the way, including Slack (Asia Argento).

Although the very slickness and Hollywood feel of this project go against the appeal of Romeros' earlier entries, there's no denying that this serves a fair dose of rousing entertainment. The unrated version on DVD delivers a marvelously outrageous amount of gore and violence, the kind guaranteed to leave some viewers quite satisfied. The moody photography, excellent sets, and great locations add to the overall impressive look of the film. Romero gets solid performances out of his cast, all of them low-key (even Hoppers') but effective. Best of all, the director hasn't lost his touch at injecting his material with intelligent commentary on various social issues.

While not as memorable or as potent as Romeros' earlier works, "Land of the Dead" is, I think, worthy of some respect, and is pretty fun to watch. I consider it a treat to see the man get back to doing what he does best, and his love and dedication to this particular niche is always welcome.

If you haven't seen it, be sure to look out for the cameos from Tom Savini and "Shaun of the Dead" boys Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg

This is one of my favorite films. Heat is an ingenious crime sprawling epic crafted by Michael Mann, which in my opinion is his magnum opus. Heat at its core, is a cops and robber story like none other. This crime drama, a poetic-yet-gritty storytelling is elevated by the magnetic cast, the masterful cinematography and the brilliant staging of the action sequences.

The movie spans a little less than three hours but the pacing doesn't falter the entire films runtime. Heat is a movie that can be appreciated on subsequent viewings. There are many layers of detail that viewers will grasp and notice how intricately Mann has woven the story.

Both leads are solid in their roles. DeNiro, here plays a master criminal dealing in high stakes robbery. He is very disciplined, meticulous and ruthless. Pacino, on the other side of the same coin is an obsessive cop, who's edgy and passionate in his work. A high-stakes cat-an-mouse chase between the two characters culminates until the final showdown where only one can emerge in victory.

Part of what makes Heat interesting is the exposition on the characters and a great supporting cast also helps elevate the story. Here with some marvelous performances from Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, and Ashley Judd, just to name a few. The majority of the characters are strong enough to show their own inner reasons for their actions, without needing additional explanation, although there are several players who dart in and out with insufficient attention paid to them. All of these combined leaves an impressive, mostly gripping, character study of near-identical twins.

The main action set piece, the bank heist during midday in Los Angeles is so amazingly orchestrated with such precision and impact that makes you feel immersed as in a documentary style execution. Mann's choice of soundtrack compliments the on screen beautifully, it is powerful but not overwhelming. A staple of Mann's artistic talent.

This is plain and simple one of the best films ever made. Check it out.

Jack Burton is a trucker in San Fransisco whose friend Wang Chi's girlfriend Miao Yin is kidnapped by a streetgang called the Lords of Death. It transpires she has been chosen as the bride for David Lo Pan, an evil sorcerer who must marry a woman with green eyes to rid himself of an ancient curse. Jack and Wang, with the help of some friends, delve into the underworld of Chinatown to try and rescue her and defeat this evil menace.

John Carpenter's name is hardly synonymous with comedy, but this charming, amusing, silly, action-packed, deliriously goofy movie belies that fact. It's great strength is in never taking itself too seriously but always striving to entertain, through great performances, a wild story, terrific martial arts sequences, gorgeous fantasy sets and costumes, and great characters. Jack Burton is beautifully out of whack; he's completely out of his depth, stumbling around, trying to maintain his facade of bravado, but he's totally lovable because of these faults, so he really is the hero in the end, even if his friends do all the hard work. Russell gives a fearless, hilarious performance in the lead, but the whole cast leap into the lunacy feet first and the result is magical. Wong and Hong in particular have a whale of time as the kindly old sorcerer Egg Shen and his fearsome nemesis Lo Pan respectively. W.D. Richter's script absolutely rockets along, giving the movie a giddying, agreeably disorienting pace, but in Carpenter's skilled hands it flows along evenly, with the fights and the gags timed to perfection. It's full of terrific moments and lines ("A man'd have to be some kind of fool to think we're all alone in this universe !") and I love the way it literally dips gently from present-day San Fransisco to the magical underworld of Lo Pan's domain. It also contains one of Carpenter's richest scores, a wailing, mystical-acoustical electronic tempest which buoys up all the mythic elements and races around the action; the whole wedding / final fight / escaping sequence is just awash in fantastic music, and Carpenter even sings (he's the bass voice) on the end credits ! Sadly, this movie was not a hit on its release - it was much too satirical and wild for mainstream audiences - and was one factor which prompted Carpenter to return to low-budget independent work. However, like so many of his films, it was a big success on video and has become a cult classic. I love its sense of daring by having a goofball of a hero and mixing every genre it can think of into the same movie. It looks fabulous, and it's just so much fun to watch. If you ever need cheering up, and you have an open mind, this picture will do the trick every time. Featuring terrific visual effects by Richard Edlund, and fabulous choreography by Jim Lau and James Lew (who both play Chang Sings). Trivia - after meeting on this film, stuntman/actor Jeff Imada (who plays Needles, the hood with the knives at the airport) has been the stunt co-ordinator on every subsequent picture Carpenter has made. If movies are fundamentally meant to entertain - and make no mistake, they are - this is what so many should aspire to. Check it out.

Everyone who know me knows I am a horror movie buff. Jaded to say the least. For a film to scare me takes quite a bit. But this film, gave me a run for my money. The worst part about it is you don't even know it's going to be a horror movie for the first hour or so.

The film is about Aoyama. A lonely middle aged widower movie producer whose been alone too long. Thinking it's time to get remarried (even his teenage son thinks it's time, when this happens you know its gotta happen) he begins to think of ways to find a suitable bride. His friend comes up with the crackpot idea of holding a fake audition for a movie. Seems pretty far fetched. Amazingly it works! It is here we meet Asami, a very cute, pretty young girl with a chip on her shoulder and a mysterious past. We all know she is going to win Aoyama's heart from the beginning because he was quite smitten with the profile of her given to him. The two get together and have some very sweet moments with each other. At first

Does this sounds like the beginning of a crappy romantic-comedy to you or what? I can just see the Hollywood version of this now. All they need is for her to be married or engaged to some rich jerk. It will star either Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts as the cute and troubled audition. Have Richard Gere as the lonely widower (a part he has perfected). Some random, handsome, snobby British guy as the rich jerk. It will be set in a major metropolitan city, and it will be directed by Penny Marshal.

Fortunately, this film goes from the cute romantic comedy set up to a nightmarish apparition that could give David Cronenberg a run for his money. There is no really messy gore in this movie at all, well sort of in one scene. Something that surprises me after seeing some of the other lunatic category 3 horror movies from the East I've seen in recent times (Entrails of the Virgin, anybody) . The movie relies on hallucinogenic images and unsettling scenery to get it's scares. Something it does very well. The sets are very dark and foreboding. The lighting is kept to a minimum while color is brought in shades so the characters seem to be encompassed by them. Red seems to the flavor of the day here. But it is a good choice, red means dread, and that becomes the feeling that comes over us as the film reaches it's sadistic climax.

Audition is a great movie. The lighting, cinematography, and overall feeling of doom are well set up and increased tenfold as the movie goes on. If you are a horror fan and haven't seen Audition, I recommend you take a look at this little gem. However, it can be a bit confusing at first. But stick with it and give it a chance, you won't be sorry.

A strange, ominous figure prowls the desolate Namibian desert and slaughters those he meets in an apparent ritual of black magic origin, although the truth may well be even more alarming.

'Dust Devil' is an extraordinary film from director, Richard Stanley that at once manages to be chilling, creepy, surreal, elegant and beautiful. In a visual sense alone, this film is purely a masterwork with such luscious imagery that can be strikingly picturesque yet in an instant become frightfully lurid and menacing. The desolate terrain of the Namibian desert is often presented with a vivid red tint, as if the landscape itself is drenched with the blood of the Dust Devil's victims. Such magnificent, awe-inspiring backgrounds seek and succeed in evoking the purest of overwhelming feelings of desertion and thus act as the ideal environment for such a daring and challenging film. The character of the Dust Devil (played by Robert John Burke) when presented against the mesmerising background has a strong, commanding presence and blends into the ocular grandeur as if part of the desert. One could also draw parallels between the visual delights on display here and that in the finest spaghetti westerns. To appreciate the visual splendor of 'Dust Devil' is to grasp just the very basics of what is a unique, intelligent horror film. Laced with symbolism and subtlety, Stanley has obviously put a great deal of thought and effort into creating a fantastically intricate world where what one sees can not necessarily be believed and every moment appears to provide more insight into what will come.

If perhaps let down somewhat by a failed socio-political commentary, the superlative qualities of 'Dust Devil' are copious enough to ensure that little damage is done to the overall production. Accompanying the evocative imagery is a haunting soundtrack blending elements of tribal chanting with music similar to that which can be found in Italian western movies. Although the simplicity of the soundtrack is apparent, the utilisation is incredible and it contributes heavily to an induced sense of apprehension and dread. The seemingly sparse and controlled use of the sometimes menacing, sometimes graceful music gradually draws one into the film and allows one to experience the movie, rather than simply watch it. The production is then completed with sterling performances from the entire main cast. Robert John Burke is perfect in his role as the deceitful being, delivering his lines with quiet malevolence. Chelsea Field's takes the role of the lead female, fleeing her homeland and while her character does unfortunately remain somewhat underdeveloped, her performance is quite adept and good enough to allow an audience/character connection. South African born, Zakes Mokae (of 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988)) also offers up a credible, sympathetic performance and truly excels during the scenes involving his character's own, spiritual journey.

Perhaps on occasion a little too intellectual for its own good, 'Dust Devil' is a criminally overlooked film. Despite a number of grisly shots, the film almost solely relies on atmospheric build up to generate tension and steers clear from many of the ailments that modern horror movies are suffering from. Don't listen for ultra-loud bangs whenever a viewer is meant to be scared and don't look for two-dimensional teenagers ? this is a pure, visual horror film that is purposely confusing and builds up slowly to a near-perfect ending. If you like challenging movies, then you can't go far wrong here. Dust Devil is a tone poem on film

The title really gives away the film here, its about lesbian vampirism. The two beautiful actresses Soledad Miranda (rip) and Ewa Strømberg get all sensual on us, undressing quite often and all is fine. Ewa is not so certain if she wants to turn into a vampire though. Thats is pretty much the story with the film also being a loose remake of Dracula . It is stitched together a bit incoherent, of course. as only Franco can do.

What makes it pleasurable to watch is the incredible surreal feel of it, the psychedelia, its quite like taking acid I guess. Franco himself also had a hand in the fantastic score which is worth buying on cd if you can find it. I have to admit I don't know what to compare this film too, its a surreal film with a dreamlike atmosphere.
I would say this film is more of a experience and the kind of film you don't see anymore. You also get Soledad Miranda who life was cut short way to early. She could say more with a look than most actors can with a page of dialogue. To sum up here, this isn't a film for everyone but if your looking for something off the beaten path this is worth checking out.

There is a reason why "Ghostbusters," the supernatural comedy hit from 1984 that was directed by Ivan Reitman, is a classic today: "Ghostbusters" is a film that easily worked its way into cinema and pop culture, spawning a 1989 sequel, a spin-off animated series, merchandise, songs (by Ray Parker, Jr.), and Slimer!!! It has a top-notch cast, including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis as three parapsychologists who go into business eliminating poltergeists in New York City.

That plot outline sounds pretty simple, doesn't it? Well, OK, it is. "Ghostbusters" has one of those "novelty plots" (trademark), where a seemingly simple, maybe even random idea snowballs and becomes something truly unique altogether. That is what "Ghostbusters" is, and that is what its plot has. I still don't think Reitman, Aykroyd, and Ramis had too many brainstorming sessions where they just sat in a room and tossed around random ideas for three hours.

No. In "Ghostbusters," three unemployed parapsychologists, Dr. Peter Venkman (Murray), Dr. Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd) and Dr. Egon Spengler (Ramis), are thrown out of the university because their studies into the paranormal have failed to yield any positive results. So they get the idea to put their heads together and go into the ghost-busting business. Of course, things are slow at first and people have difficulty taking their ads seriously (save for the opening sequence where a librarian has a creepy encounter with the specter haunting the library).

They then get a break when Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) discovers that a monstrous dog-thing has taken up residence in her refrigerator. (If you think that's bad, just watch out for those eggs that start frying themselves on the kitchen counter.) Oddly enough, none of her neighbors have complained to the super of any supernatural activity in the building, not even her loser neighbor Louis Tulley (Rick Moranis), who I think, obviously, secretly has a crush on her.

So the boys go about investigating Dana's claim, while Venkman initiates some poorly timed moves on her. More calls of ghostly encounters continue, and soon the general public has no choice but to let the Ghostbusters believe them. Cool. Venkman, Stantz and Spengler are eventually joined by a fourth, an Everyman named Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson), who proves to probably be the emotional and spiritual anchor the other three need as they find themselves going up against an otherworldly threat that is far bigger than anything any of them ever expected.

"Ghostbusters" is just as imaginative as it is funny and timeless. The cast members know their roles and fill them out with equal pizazz, including William Atherton as slimy EPA agent Walter Peck and Annie Potts as cynical secretary Janine Melnitz. The real spectacle of course, are the inventive special effects. Of course, it's pretty easy to computer generate ghosts and goblins and film them interacting with live actors. Back in 1984, the filmmakers still had to use lighting and other camera trickery to make such things possible and in my eyes it makes things seem alot more real.

And lastly, who can forget Mr. Stay Puft's classic rampage down through lower Manhattan?

One of my all time favorite movies. For the few who haven't seen it. Check it out.

What more can I say about this film that hasn't been said already.Raiders of the Lost Ark is, in my opinion, not only the finest film in the Indiana Jones film series but also the greatest pure adventure film ever made. This unadulterated thrill ride first exploded onto the big screen in 1981 and remains unsurpassed, despite many good and not-so-good imitators.

Combining the immense talents of George Lucas as co-writer and producer, and Steven Spielberg as director, this film echoes the great cliffhanger serials of Hollywood yesteryear but also outshines them by a long way. Set in the 1930s, Harrison Ford is perfectly cast as Indiana Jones. Jones is essentially a grave robber, a mercenary archaeologist who has hair-raising adventures uncovering rare artefacts. He gets hired by the US government to uncover the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis, and is propelled into a thrilling globetrotting adventure. Along the way he is helped by old flame Marion (the superb Karen Allen) and friend Sallah (the equally superb John Rhys Davis).

There are really too many great scenes to mention. From its riveting opening (that boulder scene), to the Nepal bar fight, the Arab swordsman, the map room, the snake pit, the truck chase and the supernatural finale as God's wrath is unleashed, this is as exciting as films get. Spielberg is firing on all cylinders here and having great fun. There are also many laugh-out-loud moments. Where else will you see a monkey perform a Hitler salute?

Ultimately, what really makes this film so interesting, is how Indy is just as obsessed with finding the Ark as the villain Belloq (the wonderfully slimy Paul Freeman). Twice he chooses to abandon Marion because of his obsession. As Belloq observes `you are a shadowy reflection of me', the cliché for once rings true. In subsequent Indiana Jones films, he is far a more straightforward hero, here he is a much darker and more interesting character. ( not the bash the other films in the series, I love them as well)

Needless to say, the special effects, sound, music (the peerless John Williams), production design, editing, cinematography etc are well up to scratch. It's impossible to find a better action adventure film than this one.

I saw "Temple of Doom" back when it opened in 1984 and I remember being totally blown away by the movie. When it was over, I felt like I had lived it. The movie holds up well--it's still a true cliffhanger in every sense of the word. I never understood the backlash this movie has gotten but oh well to each his or her own.

Anyway to begin, the first scene is an almost homage to James Bond, and it turns into a hilarious riot, followed by a great chase scene through the streets of Shanghai. After that, and a roaring sled down an Indian mountain, we are given a brief rest. We learn about the plight of a small Indian village, and its lost Sankara Stone. I like how this story seems more of a "typical" adventure that Indiana Jones would partake in--he's not saving the world, and nobody but those who know him will probably know that this ever happened. Before the second half of the movie starts, Spielberg gives us glimpses of the shocking and sometimes brutal humor that he will always be associated with; eyeball soup, jungle critters, idols decorated with human remains.

Once the second half of the movie begins, you barely have time to catch your breath! It's endless, edge of your seat excitement. All of the villains in this movie are excellent! Lao Che, Chatter Lal, the pesky Maharaja, the thuggies, and Mola Ram make up a totally sinister, bloodthirsty group of bad guys. Indy, Willie, and Short Round also have great chemistry.

The humorous brutality of this film gives it its character. You will feel every punch, and the impact of every bone-crunching rock or hammer, while you can't help but laugh ("Short Round, quit foolin' around with that kid!"). Spielberg also does a terrific job with suspense and at scaring us--I still remember jumping when Indy grabs Willie's hand when she tries to bail him out of the trap. We must also thank Michael Kahn's flawless editing. The sets are creatively designed and masterfully constructed, and the music and sound effects add an enormous amount to the mood of this film.

While I marvel at the great production values of this movie, I can't finish without stating that TOD will at times have your heart racing (next to your adrenalin). It brings tears to my eyes when Willie tells Indy, "Let's get the Hell outta here!" and Indy replies, "Right. ALL OF US!," and he begins the slave children's crusade.

Towards the end of this movie, one might think that we have already seen so many stunts, action sequences, and close calls, that there can be no way that the finale of the film could live up to the rest of it. Then, Spielberg hits us with the mining car chase scene and it is one of the best chase scenes ever filmed. I can really say nothing more about it, other than it has to be seen to be believed.

Then comes the climax on the bridge, and Spielberg still has more tricks up his sleeve! He succeeds by topping himself over the rest of the movie with possibly the most thrilling stand off ever seen!

Roger Ebert claimed that after seeing this movie, you will leave with a "bruised forearm" (from your date gripping it so tightly.) I couldn't agree more.

This film is considered a science fiction classic, and for good reason. It was one of the earliest films to show how a low-budget became a tool, not just for first-time filmmakers, but also for creating an influential vision of the future: the dystopic, post-apocalyptic future that has left civilization in ruin and depression. It was also the film that made Mel Gibson an international star, and to think he was only paid $15,000. Sure that was worth more in 1979 than it is today, but even then, to think he was paid such a small amount for such a passionate and intense performance.

From the first moments when you can barely make out Mel Gibson's face, you can already tell he has a presence above everything else on the screen. His face alone shows emotions that most actors need pages and pages of dialogue to convey. The performances of Steve Bisley as Goose, and Hugh Keays-Byrne as the sadistic Toecutter are also especially noteworthy. From the second you see the Toecutter's face, you can tell the level of evil this character is capable of, and it's no less effective, frightening, or viciously satisfying to watch him actually perform his evil acts. Bisley plays the Goose as the ham that he is, always laughing and smiling, but when things get serious he shows desperation just as well.

The stunts are brilliatly executed, and again exceptional when considering the lack of a big budget. You can tell how films like "Ronin" and the remake of "Gone in Sixty Seconds," or any film that had an elaborate car chase that followed HAD to be influenced by this film. Kudos to director George Miller for satisfying both the audience's need for some outlandish violence, while also establishing the groundwork for the way car chases would be filmed from then on. He was also brilliant in his mastery of suspense. You knew what was going to happen, but you couldn't help but sit on the edge of your seat to watch and wait for it. He handles suspense with the same subtlety as Hitchcock, showing you just enough to know what's happening, but without showing too much, which makes the effect even more horrifying. You know the bikers ran over the wife and child, but without seeing it, you were all the more horrified by it. There's also the great soundtrack from Brian May. Who would think that the guitarist from Queen could create a soundtrack that mimics the suspense of the visuals, while also echoing the despair of the Mad Max character.

As for the plot...it's nothing that hadn't been done before or since, but that doesn't matter. The execution of the film, the performances of the actors, everything about the way this film was made shows that even a simple and familiar plot can be given a fresh perspective by a little ingenuity and passionate execution. "Mad Max" is definitely one of the best science-fiction films of all time, one of the best independent films of all time,

Although I don't typically describe myself as a fan of Western flicks, I truly loved and enjoyed this film. Clint Eastwood plays William Munny, the baddest and meanest son of a bitch ever to walk the Earth...and killer of women and children. It's simply amazing that Eastwood not only starred in this, but also directed and produced it. One of the few examples of this that can be given. Mel Gibson also did a decent job in his Braveheart. I think that if you have seen all of the Western Eastwood classics that this movie might even be more enjoyable for you, as it's rumored that Munny is simply an extension of some character he's played in the past.

Let's face it, Eastwood is William Munny...he just is. It's hard to even fathom anyone else in this part simply because Eastwood is so damn convincing and undoubtedly helped by the immense experience he's gained over the years playing similar parts. The audience needs no convincing of his character. Although simple, a very powerful performance from an actor that holds enormous screen presence. Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman also deserve recognition for their performances. Overall, a great cast.

The true strength in the film, besides Eastwood's character and acting, is the story. Quite simple, it is, but also extremely effective. A old, bad man comes out of the woodwork to do one last job to help his kids get a good start by snatching some much needed cash. And haunted by the memory of his late wife, Munny questions his actions, knowing all too well that his wife would not approve if she were still alive. His deeds from the past have come back to haunt him, as he hears his reputation is still quite alive and well and is the entire reason he gets involved in the job in the first place. I loved hearing the stories of the man he used to be, giving glimpses of what we may get to see later in the film as his character progresses. It is also particularly humorous that Munny's memory of the past isn't all that great either, even though some of the events seem unforgettable. All because he was a drunk badass.

As the story progresses towards it's climax, we get more and more hints of the bad man Munny used to be is still somewhere under the surface, and is undoubtedly going to rise like a phoenix straight out of the ashes of Hell if he's pushed too far. And while the film progresses like the journey itself, slowly moving along establishing it's themes and characters, it all leads up to one hell of a climax. One for the history books. When it finally was all about to go down, chills literally went down my spine. But I don't want to spoil it for anyone.

Unforgiven succeeds as a film and story because it does not try to preach a message or convey one about morality. The characters are who they are, and do things for their own reasons and ask no forgiveness. Whether it's right or wrong ain't got nothing to do with it, just like deserve ain't got nothing to do with it.

Very highly recommended. A truly great film worthy of it's recognition. Bravo, Mr Eastwood

Some Minor Spoilers Here****************************

This movie, underrated and panned by most is to me one of the most enduring erotic films of all time. judged as a fantasy, it doesn't have to go by the rules that govern normal film criticism. flawed by those standards, it will still be shown for a long time.

Carre Otis doesn't have to be a stereotypical, international lawyer. it doesn't have to have continuity or a rich script they are the characters they portray at the fantasy level, with scenes of sexual tension, unexpected happenings and the intense, colorful noisy, bizarre and sexy backdrop of Rio

Also much of the story is in subtext and symbolism.

The silent boy character, for example, who clearly represents Wheeler( Mickey Rourke) as a child. When Wheeler decides to stop playing games, he sends the boy as his messenger to deliver the message. He has had to face a few things and get in touch with his past in order to move beyond his emotional issues.

Yes, there are some examples of bad acting and cheesy lines here and there as is the case with most movies. Yes the plot is improbable. But don't dismiss this film as just another excuse for soft-pornography. The story here is in the characters. And it is backed up well by exotic atmosphere and beautiful photography. Not to mention a great soundtrack. Recommended

What can possibly be written about a movie that helped to spawn an entire genre? "Friday the 13th" helped usher in a new age of horror. Slasher films were nothing new, with John Carpenter's Halloween being released two years earlier, but Friday the 13th set the tone for violence and opened the door for several copycat films.

The film begins in 1958 where two Crystal Lake camp counselors were ruthlessly slaughtered while making love inside a barn. These grizzly murders led to the camp being closed down for over twenty years and caused the community to assign the moniker of "Camp Blood" to the area. Now, someone has decided to re-open the campground and soon the memories twenty years removed become a harsh reality for the new camp counselors. One by one, these youngsters get murdered in extremely graphic fashion and it's up to the sole survivor to fend for herself when the killer is finally revealed. SFX master Tom Savini provided the gore effects and Sean Cunningham did a good job directing the film. In my opinion, the gritty look of the film made it look almost documentary style and it really added a lot to the movie. Another thing that makes this movie so good is the pacing. Unlike most of the sequels, the killer in this film stalks the victims and watches them long before disposing of them.
For the few that haven't seen this film, its worth checking out to see where the slasher film started and carried on right through the 1980's

"Halloween II" picks up right where the first film left off, with Michael Myers pumped full of bullets courtesy of Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence). But while he may be down, he's anything but out, and has followed Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital where she's receiving treatment for her injuries. Haunting the hospital's deserted hallways, Myers makes use of medical equipment on whomever he finds in ways that the AMA certainly wouldn't approve. While Laurie tries to evade her would be killer, Dr. Loomis obsessively hunts Myers, leading to a fiery conclusion.

Taking over for director John Carpenter, Rick Rosenthal (who would return to the franchise more than 20 years later with "Halloween: Resurrection") lacks the style that made the original "Halloween" so memorable. Nevertheless there are some scary and gruesome incidents as Michael dispatches of the hospital staff in his search for Laurie. In fact, the sequel is a bit gorier than its predecessor, adding more to the shock value quotient. Rosenthal's use of POV shots are nearly as effective as Carpenter's in the original adding to the illusion that we're seeing events through Myers' eyes. Rosenthal also knows how to use shadows and darkness, making things seem scarier than they are. Must mention the "Camera Angels" are once again CLASSIC.

The script by John Carpenter and Debra Hill essentially gives us more of the same. The setting is changed to a hospital, and it's revealed that Laurie is Michael's sister, but little else is added to the night Myers came home. As for the concept that Michael Myers is possessed by the Celtic Lord of the Dead - that innovative concept is mentioned, but never really explored. Which is kind of for the best.

Jaime Lee Curtis is back as Laurie Strode , the 1st film she was front and center this time it's Donald Pleasence, as Dr. Loomis, who is more of the films focus Pleasence has the right blend of desperation, single-mindedness and fear that makes him the centerpiece player in not only this film but the whole franchise. You can even feel his commanding presence even when Loomis is off screen.

The second "Halloween" film, while not quite as good as the first, It comes pretty close, and is still a very entertaining entry. More importantly, it sets up ideas that come into play in future sequels. Overall, "Halloween 2" is a scary and effective treat, and the final classic of the "Halloween Franchise".

After Halloween 2 that ended with Myers being shot, blown up and burning in flames the Michael Myers saga seemed to have ended (or at least ended until someone decided there was more money to be made) the producers were in a position of trying to decide where to go next. They made one of the most bold, and reviled decisions. They decided to give the audience something new.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch tells the story of a doctor who tries to understand what led to a murder in the hospital he worked at. He meets up with the victims daughter and they realize that the last appointment he had before he was killed was at the Silver Shamrock company led by company president (and legendary prankster) Conal Cochran. Who has set the wheels in motion to take Halloween back to it roots.

This movie drew a lot of criticism for several reason most of which were undeserved. Some seemed to find it confusing and they did not understand the motives of the villains but if they paid attention it is all explained quite clearly. The goal is two fold like I said above, return Halloween to its dark roots and to sacrifice millions.

Another complaint was the commercial jingle that plays dozens of times over the course of the film that seemed to annoy many but in all fairness, name a jingle that doesn't get under your skin. They are designed to seer into the brain and the Silver Shamrock commercial does just that.

Perhaps the most frustrating complaint are by people who are upset about the lack of Michael Myers. I think at least at the time I seen this film when it first came out ( I was 10) that book had been closed quite well on Myers in the second film, while it threw me that he wasn't in the film I didn't already have a hatred for the movie that most people did at the time and Carpenter's idea of continuing the series as unique stories that are related to the holiday Halloween instead of simply doing retreads of the first picture was great idea and I wish some of these had seen the light of day

Despite the negative view many people have of this film. Halloween 3 is a good horror film in its own right. Tom Atkins and Stacy Nelkin make a very enjoyable (though unlikely) screen couple, and Dan O'Herlihy makes a terrific villain. His explanation for how the Stonehenge rock arrived is a real laugh out loud moment. Sure the film isn't perfect. Some things are left kinda vague( This is almost one of the last 70s style films even though it came out in the early 80s that left some things up in the air for you to decide which there is no way you can pull off now with things now being almost over explained) which while fine to me but I can understand where that would annoy people.

I do recommend Halloween 3. Its not for everyone and if all your Halloween movies need to have Michael Myers in it then stay away. Otherwise, while not a perfect horror film its worth checking out due to some very creative kills, great atmosphere and one of the best and under-rated horror movie scores ever.

After the failure of "Halloween III", the series producers brought back unkillable monster Michael Myers in this sequel set ten years after the events of the first two movies. Laurie Strode, apparently deceased now, had a daughter three years after her run-in with her brother, and now the seven-year-old girl (newcomer Danielle Harris) is living with a foster family in Haddonfield. Her psycho uncle revives during an ambulance ride and returns to this small town to stalk her. He is pursued once again by Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) who seems to be going mad in his attempt to find and stop the fiend.

An excellent horror movie and sequel, You can tell that the filmakers attempt to make this a quality horror movie and it does have some very scary moments. The film-makers made it suspenseful and creepy and also made it gory without throwing buckets and buckets of blood at the camera. Jamie (Harris) and Rachel (Ellie Cornell) are actually likable and for once there is a lawman character (Beau Starr) who actually takes the advice of the good doctor. Thats one thing I love about this film. Everyone does the right thing and yet still people are dying. For some it may get a little tiresome seeing how the inhuman Myers can constantly slaughter victim after victim with a minimum of effort on his (or should I say its) part, but that's also what makes him (it) an intimidating character.

Donald Pleasence, once again playing his signature role, is compelling and believable and I've got to feel for the guy. How would YOU feel if you kept trying to contain some madman who kept returning from the dead?

A great sequel to Halloween 1 and 2 with a very creepy ending. Well worth checking out.

This is where the Halloween films started to fly off the rails and the less said the better. Halloween 5 picks up exactly where Halloween 4 left off. Michael Myers was gunned down and fell into a well.He got out just in time before the police blew it up. He takes refuge with a hermit where he lies dormant in a coma for one year. Halloween, 1989. He awakens and is still after his niece, Jamie, who cannot speak and has a telepathic bond with him now.

This movie is very weak on nearly all levels. There are no tense action scenes (except the car chase scene which was good), the acting by most of the cast is pitiful. the awful cop-theme "squeaks and whistles" is out of place in a Halloween movie, a main character is killed off in the first half hour for no real reason, Michael's mask looks terrible to say the least. The few plus sides here are the film has some good atmosphere and you have Donald Pleasence and Danielle Harris, both of them alone make the film watchable.

I am not quite sure what to say/think about this movie. It is definitely not the worst in the series. The style is just very different and it focuses on other elements than its predecessor did. It tries to explain why Michael Myers starts butchering around Halloween. Well, all that stuff about Michael Myers being cursed and the evil cult was a rather nice effort, but I feel it wasn't set up well enough to be effective.

The movie contains lots of gore. Actually it's plain carnage. If you haven't seen the other Halloween films you will probably like this one for its blood content. But for a real Halloween freak this sequel might be just too different to be seen as a good one. Suspense was turned into terror and carnage (exploding heads..., you get the point).

All Halloween fans know that this film has 2 versions. The Producers and Theatrical cut. The theatrical cut is very choppy and doesn't really make any sense at all and the ending (theatrical cut) is simply awful. Michael gets stabbed with a needle, then beaten up with a pipe, then stabbed again, this time with more needles, then beaten up a little more until there's slime running out of his head (where did this green stuff come from anyway?).

While the producers cut isn't perfect its alot better than the theatrical version. I suggest Halloween fans seek this version out

There was some good things about both versions though, Marianne Hagan is a wonderful actress and turns in a excellent performance, Paul Rudd is great as well and gives one of the best performances in the whole series. Donald Pleasance returns as Dr Loomis and while he doesn't have as much to do in this film.he give his usual soild performance. The atmosphere in this film was good as well. I think this was actually the 1st and only Halloween film shot in the winter and that little bit seems to help the overall feel of the movie.

To sum up, I can't say I love this movie but it does have it fans and some good moments. Hopefully we will see a release of the producers cut one day.

Dedicated to Donald Pleasance who died shortly after his work on the film was finished

Totally ignoring Halloween 4- 6, Halloween H2O or ( Halloween Water) is a different film in both good and bad ways from the previous sequels. Now the "Halloween" franchise has transformed into yet another "teeny-bopper" horror series. This seventh installment features hot young actors from the former WB network, at the time an indication of a "trendy" horror movie. Plus, it was made with the involvement of none other than Kevin Williamson, writer of "Scream" and executive producer of "Dawson's Creek." All signs of an impending disaster? Well, not quite, at least not this time, but it's still a long cry from John Carpenter's treatment of the same material. Even Michael Myers himself isn't very scary anymore. It's a relatively minor point, but I was distracted by the fact that his eyes were visible. Sorry, but it's just not the same. Me being picky I guess

Yet, all is not lost. Jamie Lee Curtis, reprising the Laurie Strode character, is a terrific lead. She adds an air of credibility to a watered-down formula, at times even making it close to respectable. Her character, as portrayed, is probably an accurate representation of how Laurie would have changed in twenty years' worth. The young supporting cast does a decent job, given the circumstances. At least they're much more sympathetic than most of their counterparts in similar films. However, LL Cool J is burdened with the most thankless role, as a loudmouthed security guard. His miraculous recovery after an encounter with Michael is a major groaner, probably a medical impossibility.

At the very least, "H2O" provides a sense of closure, very rare in a horror series until the next sequel of course

The only Halloween movie I never seen in the theaters. People told me to stay away but I had to see "Resurrection". I had to see it, to see how the writers would get round the "oops, we decapitated him at the end of the last one...".... and to be nice it was hard to stop laughing. Michael Myers switched places with a Paramedic... I'd love to know where he keeps his spare masks? You'd think, that when the paramedic woke up in the van, he would have ripped his mask off, so Laurie would know that she had the wrong guy? Oh no... but thats me being picky again I guess.

And thus, is the beginning of a truly terrible addition to an otherwise successful franchise. We finally get closure between Laurie and Michael right at the beginning... but after all Laurie has been through, I didn't think she would be stupid enough to double check she had the right guy, especially when he was stalking her with a knife anyway..

Weak direction. Weak script. Weak cast. Busta Rhymes is obnoxious as Freddie Price, an entrepreneur of an internet web cast called Dangertainment, who selects 6 high school clichés to spend a night in Myers childhood home. OF course, Myers crashes the party, and offs people in a way that doesn't go with the Halloween movies. In earlier movies, the violence and the gore was kept to our imagination. We would see the events leading to it, the flash of a knife, and then we would imagine the rest. "Resurrection" has blood and gore like there's no tomorrow, and it felt like I was watching some tacked on slasher movie, not one of the many sequels to Halloween.

The Halloween movies were a rare franchise, that was intelligent, and always had the ability to shock, and entertain. The first movie sets the standards for all horror/slasher films and I thought with the director of Halloween 2 ( a good sequel) back this should be at least decent. How wrong I was.

I almost feel ashamed for watching it all the way to the end. Saying that, I will watch it again. It's Halloween after all, and every movie franchise has a bad turkey (Attack Of The Clones, Friday the 13th part 8. Hellraiser 4) Its just to bad that this seems to be the end of the old school Michael Myers. Not a fitting way for it to end

To start off here I try not to be one of those movie fans who tend to bash remakes just because it is 'the right thing to do'. For the contrary, I usually give remakes a chance, considering that just because they are released, doesn't necessarily imply that the original film will be forgotten or become unnoticed all of a sudden. Some great films have been remakes like John Carpenters The Thing. I do have to say I knew a remake of Halloween was coming before it happened and I have to admit I love the original so much that the whole idea made me sick but then Rob Zombie was set to write and direct and is well known for being a horror fan and his previous films have been really good so I was still uneasy but trying to keep a open mind. Sadly, I was crushed while watching the film that for some reason, he completely missed the essence of 'Halloween' and turned the whole thing into a big lousy mess that looks tacky enough to be one of those TV movies that they play on a Saturday evening and you just watch them because there's nothing else to see.

First of all, I didn't expect this film to be quite exactly like the original movie directed by John Carpenter. However, I think Rob Zombie somehow turned the whole thing upside down and made it to even my suprise boring. In the original film, they focus on the story of Laurie Strode and her friends being stalked by Myers for really no reason at all. In this remake, Rob Zombie wrongly, in my point of view anyway, tries to explore little Michael Myers' psychology and the roots of his evilness. However, the results are not good by any means and the only thing it proves, is that mystery will always be more scary than having everything explained but I will say on the other hand audiences at least most of them now want to be spoon fed backstory and I think it's clear after watching this remake that one of the main reasons why the original film was scary, is because Michael Myers remained as an enigmatic character from the beginning until the end. This film basically tries to show Michael as a poor little thing from the get-go and eliminates any possibility of seeing him as a genuinely dark and fear-provoking character. The story of little Michael Myers should have lasted only a few minutes, since they don't even really explain why the kid was so disturbed after all, other than having to grow up in a crappy environment. And this is precisely one of the things that make me dislike this film so much: the fact that they try to show Michael Myers as a kid and somehow explain why he was so mean. This lasts about 40 minutes, it becomes tedious, it makes the villain more pitiful than frightening and in the end, they don't really manage to establish a point about his insanity. A complete waste of time.
After the hospital part of the film which I will skip over but will say the film remained tedious and dull through all of this, we get into a scaled down remake of the original Halloween. Its almost like a band doing a bad cover version of a song you love. Iconic scenes are replicated but with no real passion and while I'm a gorehound, gore does not a scary movie make, build up to the gore scenes are what makes the scene scary. This film had no real build up or tension to any of these type of scenes and pretty much were a total waste.
Now on the other hand, believe it or not I do actually have something positive to say about the film. I thought all the acting was top notch. Compton was good as Laurie and Harris and Klebe did a good job with the roles of Annie and Lynda despite their lack of screen time. Hopefully this film will if anything open up some doors for them so we will see them in more films in the future.
Mcdowell, Sheri Moon Zombie and alot of great character actors really help to keep this film from becoming a total washout.
To sum up here I'm really disappointed. I didn't think I was going to hate it so much, but I do and it's a shame because I really wanted to like this film. I guess also what all of this boils down to is for me that maybe the original Halloween casts too big of a shadow for me to enjoy a remake of it. I do know others who have seen it and liked it or loved it. This is a film that I know will divide fans down the middle but for me its just all I can say is better luck next time Rob.

"Hostel" is definitely not a film for everyone. With intense depictions of torture and camera shots that force the viewer to observe every gory detail, "Hostel" pushes the R rating to its limit.

Produced by Quentin Tarantino and written and directed by new comer Eli Roth, this film gave the horror movie genre a wake up call that it desperately needed after the rise of the pg-13 horror films

The film begins with three friends Paxton (Jay Hernandez) Josh (Derek Richardson) and their new found friend Oli (Eythor Gudjonsson) who are backpacking through Europe. Paxton is the typical college guy who encourages all of the bad behavior that they participate in. Josh on the other hand is the shy type and has to be forced to do anything. Then there is the laid back Icelander Oli who Josh and Paxton met on their travels and has now joined their group.

Of course they partake in the activities of drug use and other debauchery that characters in horror movies usually do, but what they are really looking for are beautiful women. This is when the three bump into a local in Amsterdam who tells them of a secret hostel in Slovakia where the most gorgeous women are located.

Unable to resist, the three jump on the next train to Slovakia. At the hostel things start to take turn for the worse when after the first night Oli is missing. After worrying a bit Paxton and Josh brush it off and decide to continue partying with the girls they have met. Naturally the next morning Josh cannot be found. Paxton then becomes desperate to find his missing friends. Interrogating the girls they were with Paxton is lead to a place where people are violently tortured as a way of fulfilling people's fantasies and reaching a new emotional rush.

The horror movie genre has become extremely formulaic recently with movies that are either remakes of older films or use every cliché possible. Fortunately Roth being a fan of horror movies knows what has become tiresome and tries breaks away from the sameness that has corrupted the genre. Although he does resort to using characters that are the typical young rule breakers, they are given some characterization that allows the viewer to feel sympathy for their situation. Not to mention when the characters do something that might seem stupid, he gives ample reason for their actions.

What Roth does well is he understands exactly how to build tension throughout the film. Alot of horror films have relied on the use of quick cuts and cheap scares in order to frighten the viewer. Roth though utilizes the atmosphere of the scene by using close up shots that allude to the painful acts that will soon occur. Do not worry though because when those acts do occur the camera does not switch over to something else. Roth instead decides to show the whole gruesome act. This gives the film an intensity that other horror films have begun to lack.

Realism is a key element that Roth emphasizes throughout the film. From what I have read the premise for the movie originated when Roth stumbled upon a website that said one could kill someone for $10,000. Thus the movie advertised that it was based on true events. Here he uses ordinary people in a plausible situation in order to cause fear. This strays away from the typical plot of an un-killable monster or a ghost that has been overdone.

"Hostel" is a horror movie that is refreshing due to its original story and strong direction from Eli Roth. Be warned though that this movie is fairly intense at times, but any fan of the genre will appreciate this fresh approach to horror film making.

When i watched the first Hostel movie, the one thing that stuck with me was the immense shock that the nice dude, the one i actually gave a crap about, died. That was such a great twist( its been done in many movies such as Psycho and Scream but the twist still works if set up right). But it still annoyed me that the obnoxious one was the one who survived.

Well my annoyance was soon gone when i saw the first ten minutes of the great sequel Hostel: Part II.

Hostel: Part II is quite simply the original, except the genders have been reversed. This was quite an obvious way to go, i felt. What i didn't see coming was the perspective of the killers given to the viewers. The two American businessmen have just as much screen time as our three main ladies. This was an interesting way to go but it meant less time was spent of developing the three heroines.

These three girls are quite stereotypical characters : The rich nice girl (played by Lauren German), the bitchy slut (played greatly by Bijou Phillips) and the nerdy innocent (Heather Matarazzo). Who do you think has more of a chance of surviving? Your guess will most likely prove to be correct.

Hostel delved deep into the darkest parts of the human mind and indulged in their sick fantasies. Hostel Part II goes deeper into these elements, including a scene where each of the girls are being auctioned off. I half expected to see an 'ebay' sign at the top of the computer screens. This is one of the best scenes in the movie and very creepy as well

And where Hostel had cut off fingers and eyegasms, Hostel Part II, instead of going for complete gore with not much consideration for who was dying, goes for deaths not gory, but rather bloody and distressing or even off screen altogether. Our imaginations run wild as we wonder what fate our heroines met.

Personally, Hostel 1 upset me slightly due to the survival of the annoying character...Hostel: Part II upset me for a whole other reason. The character of Whitney has a rather grisly encounter with a hand held buzz saw...this scene is still stuck permanently in my head and i honestly had trouble shaking it off and this coming from me a true horror movie fan.

All in all I believe that Hostel Part II is more emotional than its predecessor and will hopefully find its wider audience on DVD

I'm a huge fan of Batman and have been since I was a kid. This film came out when I was in high school and the summer of 89 was the year of the bat. To say I was looking forward to this movie is a understatement. The hype was unreal and Batman tshirts were seen everywhere.After I seen the movie on opening day. I loved it but now, I think nostalgia of the first time seeing a dark interpretation of Batman on the big screen has worn off on this film and the flaws show very clearly. Now to start off here, Burton created a decent adaption of Batman in a time where Adam West's campy series was all that the general public knew. Burton should be applauded for his effort. His Gotham City was interesting, the Danny Elfman score is legendary in film-making history (Although I'll never understand why Prince music is anywhere in this film). Jack Nicholson gave a good performance as the Joker, he's truly a great actor.

While Batman is a good fun, the movie has several problems. The plot and the script is a mess and almost missing. The director utilizes too many clichés and convenient plot devices to propell a rather a dull story. There is no exploration into Batman's motivation and character development here is really lacking. Some have excused it away as Burton wanted to Batman to be "mysterious." Whatever. This is usually just called bad character development. It's obvious Burton is not fully sure where to carry this character and decides to give him offbeat eccentric behavior to make up for it. Keaton's Bruce Wayne never grows and you never connect with him. The other characters besides the Joker are one-dimensional and forgettable. Basinger gives a less-than-decent portrayal as Vicki Vale, but she's really just eye candy in this Lois Lane rip-off role. Vale is a damsel in distress throughout the entire movie and has no real purpose, presence, or meaning in the movie. Her chemistry with Keaton is rather forced and its clear her purpose is just a mandated Warner Brothers "love interest" that is required in every superhero movie.

Keatons gives a solid performance as Batman (as opposed to his dull and foppish Bruce) although I wasn't too impressed with his portrayal of Batman as a wreckless stoic James Bondish killer whose methods isn't all that different from the villains he fights. However, the movie is more about the Joker, giving his origin more focus than Batman's. After he's introduced, coincidence after coincidence after plot device occurs clicheingly tying the villain to the hero. The Joker is responsible for Batman and 30 years later Batman is responsible for the Joker. Small world. Then, the Joker is interested in Bruce's love interest for some reason. Then Batman figures out who the Joker really is through another lame plot device. The other characters are ignored while Nicholson (a great actor) takes all the spotlight. Batman is reduced to a distant man wanting violent revenge as opposed to a mythological crime fighter. What Batman gains from this whole ordeal isn't clear to anyone. However, once the score plays, the film is over.
Now I can see where this can be seen as a negative review but despite all of these flaws its still a fun movie to watch and the by far the best of the 1st cycle of Batman films which finally crashed and burned by the 4th movie with the beyond awful " Batman And Robin"

It sickened me in the past to see the Batman movie franchise slowly digging it's way to an early grave. After the decent Tim Burton original , the series pretty much went down the toilet, beginning a horrifically campy age of 'Bat credit-cards' and an armored Arnold Schwarzenegger tossing cringe-worthy puns at a Batman who seemed to be trying not to be embarrassed by the fact that his costume had nipples. So what could Warner Brothers producers hope to do to resurrect the franchise? Pretend it never happened, and start the whole series over again with a talented director, compelling story and capable cast.

Enter Christopher Nolan, widely praised as one of the most innovative filmmakers of the decade. As director/co- screenwriter, Nolan creates a richly dark, atmospheric world for Batman to inhabit, similar to that of the Burton films, but less cartoony. The film's screenplay, written by Nolan and David S. Goyer is quality stuff.
Nolan also puts a lot of trust in his audiences to stay put while the first hour of the film comprehensively explores Bruce Wayne's backstory, with no cape donning and few fight sequences. Nevertheless, the pace never slows, and the story is so unexpected and fascinating (who would have expected a Batman film to begin in a prison in Tibet? only Nolan could pull it off!) there's little chance of us losing interest. And this way, we really get a sense of who Bruce Wayne is, a trait none of the past movies were able to capture, including the Burton films. We see what drives him, what leads him to become this iconic crime fighter, and the reasoning behind the mask.

Of course, to help the audience get under Bruce Wayne's skin, it doesn't hurt to have such a talented lead as Christian Bale. Bale has been emerging as one of the most talented actors of his generation, and he brings that talent to a peak here, playing the darkest of all superheroes. If you were to break down the role of Batman/Bruce Wayne, you would find that it is essentially three characters: Wayne as Batman, behind the mask; Wayne's public facade as the billionaire playboy; and the real, brooding Bruce Wayne. Bale plays all three of the characters to absolute perfection, and molds them together well enough to make it clear to show they are still the same person. He has been given tons of accolades for his performance already, and needless to say, he deserves every one.

And the sheer quality of the supporting cast is mind-boggling, if for the number of big names only. It's very hard to find a weak spot in the incredibly strong array of performances here, but if one had to be found, it would have to be Katie Holmes. It's not that she gives a bad performance, on the contrary, but just she seems too young to be convincing as a district attorney. For me, Michael Gough will always be the definitive Alfred, but Michael Caine does an excellent job of taking over the role, giving a very strong (and often funny) performance. Liam Neeson is sheer class as Ducard, Wayne's mysterious mentor, as is Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Wayne's arms manufacturer and provider of the Batman gear. It's wonderful to see the incredibly talented and much underrated Gary Oldman as Sgt. Gordon, the only decent cop in Gotham, and he truly makes the role his own. Even cult favorite Rutger Hauer makes an appearance as Richard Earle, the ambitious head of Wayne Enterprises. And (surprise surprise!) the villains are also actually menacing for once, as opposed to cartoony and corny. Cillian Murphy just about walks away with the show as the truly chilling Scarecrow (the sequences involving his 'fear gas' are surprisingly frightening) Ken Watanabe is mysterious and creepy as guild leader Ra's Al Ghul and Tom Wilkinson is very convincing as Carmine Falcone, head of the Gotham city mob.

Nolan's knack for realism also comes as a breath of fresh air in this age of CGI bloated blockbusters - there are very few computer generated shots in the movie, even a sequence with Batman standing on top of a high building staring down at the city was filmed with a stuntman. And it really works, the Batmobile actually interacts with it's environment, and looks so much better real than computer generated. But don't think that the film will come across as too serious and stuffy because of Nolan's realism - true, Gotham seems too dark and dirty to come across as a fantasy world, but Batman Begins retains that unmistakable sense of fun that seems to only be present in comic book movies. We jeer and fear the villains, and cheer the hero as he lays his life on the line to vanquish evil and save the city. And that is how it should be. There's even a surprising twist near the end, which is doubly surprising because it actually comes as a shock. What's not to love here?

(and, further cudos to director Nolan for finally managing to make a swarm of bats actually frightening for once)

Overall, I'd have to label Batman Begins 'The best of the live action Batman films ( I have a feeling The Dark Knight will bump this one to 2nd place) - it's a well written, authoritatively directed, impeccably acted (especially by Bale's powerhouse lead performance and Cillian Murphy's sickly menacing Scarecrow) and very high quality production. Indeed, most other summer blockbusters could learn a thing or two from Batman Begins. If the Batman franchise died under it's own gaudiness years ago, let us rejoice this glorious rebirth - Batman truly does begin here.

The movie takes off from the hyper-violent Marvel comic series of the same name and a comic I have read since I was a kid and still pick up and read as often as I can. I will address some the changes made to turn this comic into a movie so excuse my comic book nerd rants here.. After his family, including his two children, are senselessly and brutally murdered by the Mob, Frank Castle launches himself into a one-man war on crime to avenge them. In the movie, The Punisher, in the midst of a five-year campaign of rising up from the sewers to kill 125 people and break the back of the mob, faces a new threat. Against his weakened foe enters the Yakuza, the Japanese organized-crime faction, playing to a bid to oust the Mafia for control. When the children of the remaining power-players within the mob are kidnapped by the upstart Japanese gangsters, The Punisher must take up arms with his old enemies to rescue them.

The changes from the comic book were numerous and jarring to a long-time fan of the series. Castle's background was changed from Marine Corps Vietnam veteran to police detective (presumably, it was cheaper to film and set up the conflict with his old partner still searching for him). Rather than living (relatively) high in various safe-houses and depots paid for with vigilante bounties and money seized from his victims, as does Marvel's Punisher, the movie version tools around in the sewer tunnels under the city. His sidekick and link with the aboveground world has been changed from Marvel's "Microchip", a super-genius computer hacker and weapons procurer, apparently to a former stage actor turned drunken bum. The change of villains from the mix of sundry drug-dealers and other upstart criminal entrepreneurs and old Marvel standbies, like The Kingpin, to a mix of Italian mobsters and Yakuza is another change. Lastly, Lundgren plays the Punisher as a brooding, sullen, half-dead avenger 5 years into his career, instead of the somewhat more energetic, aggressive, and "happy", for want of a better word, Punisher more than 20 years down the line. As a side note, the nordic Lundgren (even with dyed-black hair) isn't quite the same as the Brooklyn native whose birth name was Castiglione.

None of this is serious, it can simply be said to be an "interpretation" or "inspiration" on the part of the writers. Or just the various exigencies of having to tell a different kind of story in a different medium.

The movie itself is largely mindless violence and stereotypes. The criminals are super-powerful and totally above the law, making the Punisher necessary. In a strage way, this turns into a curious mix. We have somewhat retrograde stereotypes of crime (a very Italian mafia in natty suits, peddling heroin; criminals acting with no concern for legal ramifications, doing stupid things like kidnapping for ransom or killing cops, etc.) mixed with newer ideas (the introduction of the Yakuza, for example). It's sort of like The Professional's interpretation of the New York mob, but written more larger-than-life. The Punisher has gotten into the middle of a mob war, set up to set tension for the movie.

The gangsters themselves are a complex of strange stereotypes. For one, the Italian mob is incompetent, unsophisticated, and apparently always eating. Their leader, played in a strange twist by Jeroen Krabbe, is the only one with a brain. The Yakuza are portrayed as dangerous, ruthless and alien invaders who mean business. They all, it seems, are incredible, super-human ninjas who possess incredible martial arts skill, and they act in incredibly vicious and bold ways, performing child kidnappings, open assasinations, torture, etc. In short, we have a pair of competing stereotypes, largely ethnically based.

The backstory of his former partner, played by Louis Gossett Jr, is interesting, and personalizes the story more. Castle, as a cop, was Gossett's partner and is obssessed with finding his old comrade turned above the law. This adds to the story, setting up a second fold in things, but is poorly handled. A new female partner, who turns into an otherwise useless and totally wasted character, finds The Punisher's hideout in 30 minutes when the seasoned veteran couldn't do it in five years. Ultimately, any conflict gets left to the wayside, as Gossett's character proves to have little impact on the outcome. This whole aspect to the story had potential, but should've been done much better if, for example, the ex-partner was more like Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive, a relentless and capable detective always just one step behind his quarry.

The battle scenes are interesting and much different in style from the comic book. Marvel's Punisher, in his war on crime, was a man of big guns, big presence and big entrances. His means of fighting as one man against many was to use stealth, speed, surprise, firepower, intimidation. A typical comic Punisher move would be to sneak in first and get set, set off an explosive in an ambush and then dash in quick and waste as many bad guys as possible with the biggest guns available, evening the odds and shocking the rest into panic, and then usually getting away before the cops showed up. This Punisher is a little lower in scope (it was probably cheaper anyways). He's even sneakier and stealthier sometimes, but he tends towards using less firepower in a more cinematic type of way (no armed vehicles, rocket launchers or machineguns for this fellow), wading through, firing a weapon at full-auto, and not taking any sort of cover or moving in and out quick. Realism, if that's important, slips a bit as he also gets into hand-to-hand fights a lot more and uses throwing knives as much, if not more, than guns. In fact, for both the Punisher and the Yakuza, throwing knives or other thrown weapons seem to be preferred to guns. Whoever made this movie really liked throwing knives, and it's used as a metaphor. The incompetent cops and Mafia never use knives and the message is that they are too unsophisticated and clumsy for them and are no match for either the Yakuza or the Punisher, with their sneakiness and their hundreds of pieces of hand-launched steel.

Dolph Lundgren, as I said, does the Punisher in his own way. He's laconic, droll, half-dead seeming. Perfect for Dolph. He actually didn't do bad, as I'm sure this is what he was going for. He plays the Punisher as a walking dead man rather well. Even his eyes look dead, almost as though he were stoned. The shaving job, the penciled five o'clock shadow, was a neat touch, and was (deliberately or not) shaped just right to evoke the Punisher's skull motif that is noticably missing from his chest here. Gossett does... Gossett here. The "good man" trying to do right. He got the part of the cop who owes something to his former friend well enough. Jeroen Krabbe did well, as the embattled but visionary and very snaky mob boss. The lady who played the Yakuza boss did a good here, evoking sufficient menace and arrogance to nearly make one's skin crawl.

The movie is an interesting take on the Punisher theme. Execution could have been a bit better, but they got their money's worth I think. If you like action and are looking for an action-packed Death Wish homage, check it out. Just don't expect either the comic book or anything really challenging or new here.

The basic plot of this Spanish entry in the slice 'n' dice craze of the 70's and 80's has a sadistic, maniacal fiend carving up cute co-eds - mostly with a chainsaw - for the purpose of using their body parts to create a human jigsaw puzzle. An inept pair of detectives (Christopher George and Frank Brana) send an undercover cop (Georges' wife Lynda Day George) in as a tennis instructor in addition to recruiting the services of supposedly studly student Kendall (Ian Sera). But they are no match for this particular psycho!

Shamelessly crass, sleazy, and lovably disgusting, extremely gory horror movie is so bad its good. Yes, it's that kind of film. Dialog and acting are pretty bad, all right, and the music downright silly at times. Then again, none of us watch this sort of film hoping for Oscar worthy material. It's just plain old blood-squirting-everywhere 100% pure fun. Plus, we get such hysterical show-stopping scenes such as a kung fu instructor popping in for no good reason just because the producer of this film was also making those kinds of films at the time. Bonus: the politically incorrect humor has the guy blaming his attack on "bad chop suey". This writing is priceless! Hulking Paul L. Smith (of "Midnight Express" and "Popeye" fame) is a highly amusing presence as the campus gardener, who fights it out with the cops - again, for no good reason. I also can't let this review go by without a mention of the funniest utterances of the word "bastard" in motion picture history.

This is like I said just so-bad-it's-good or so-ridiculous-it's-fantastic depending on your point of view. It's recommended for gore hounds everywhere who are looking for a film that they can't possibly take seriously.

"Magnum Force," Clint Eastwood's sophomore outing as "Dirty Harry" Callahan, succeeds in giving us violence, funny lines from Harry and even in showing a more human side to the tough cop. But the movie fails in a crucial area: it lacks the unrelenting suspense and pace of its predecessor, and gives us villains who are not nearly as chilling or memorable.

This time, Harry is called upon to investigate a series of murders in which all of the victims are known criminals. It begins with the slaying of a mob figure who beats a murder rap. From the beginning, the movie tells us that the slayings are being carried out by policemen, and (potential spoiler warning) the killers turn out to be a squad of sharp-shooting rookies trying to take back the city by drastically reducing the courts' case load.

The story takes its time to get moving, and there are some pointless scenes (like one involving an airplane hijacker) that only get in the way of the main plot. The original "Dirty Harry" hooked us right from the opening scene and never let up. It was also rather different in the way it portrayed the character of Harry. In the first movie, he had no problems with shooting first, reading rights later, and so it may seem strange that he would object to the idea of police who carry out justice in their own way.

The difference is that the criminals being killed in this movie are not in the midst of performing acts of violence when they are killed (with the exception of one nasty scene in which a pimp pours Draino down a hooker's throat). The script by John Milius tries to present an interesting contrast between Harry and the rookie cops who presumably represent his darker side (there's one scene where they're even filmed in the shadows when confronting Harry in a parking garage), the line that he won't cross. But the violence and action sequences pretty much hamper the film's attempts at providing a thought-provoking story.

The rookie cops are not especially well developed as characters; the most interesting is the one played by David Soul (of "Starsky and Hutch") who bests Harry in a shooting competition. This could have set the stage for a really tense final showdown, but that's an opportunity the movie misses.

The movie also gives us a look at Harry's personal life. He has a tryst with a young woman who lives in his apartment building, and another character, whose husband has worked with Harry for years and now seems to be losing his marbles, has an unrequited attraction to Harry. Again, these scenes only get in the way of the main plotline. Do we really need to know what Harry does in his off time?

"Magnum Force" will certainly appeal to fans of Eastwood and "Dirty Harry," and Eastwood's charisma helps hold the movie up when it starts to sag. But compared to the original "Dirty Harry," it's disappointing and not as memorable but still like I said before its worth a look for Eastwood and Dirty Harry fans.

Since it follows in the footsteps of Halloween (the trend setter for all 80s slasher movies), My Bloody Valentine is an often overlooked diamond in the rough. Although my viewpoint is biased because of my adoration for the slasher genre, it also suggests that I have seen scores of films that follow the same format as My Bloody Valentine (killer preys upon hapless teenagers one at a time until the ultimate showdown, where the killer is unveiled and hopefully his/her motives are made clear.) Well, My Bloody Valentine is all of that and so much more. First, let's start with the setting. A sleepy little Canadian town where most of the folks make their livings at the local mine. The mine makes for a creepy and claustrophobic atmosphere for the killer to do most of its stalking, shish kebabbing, and nail gunning. The killer itself(don't want to give away anything here) is imposing and downright scary in its miner's outfit, complete with gasmask and pickaxe. Then there is the mystery of the killer. Who is it? Is it the legendary killer, Harry Warden, from 20 years ago, or is it someone else using Harry's old M.O.? Because both the setting and the killer are A-1, the only things left that I consider key elements to making a great horror
The score of My Bloody Valentine is sufficient. It is not as memorable as those of Halloween or Friday the 13th, but it does a great job setting the background for the story. Last is the cast. People may ask, what difference does the cast make in making a slasher movie? A lot! No big name actors = a more believable story. Since this movie doesn't star Busta Rhymes(ugh) or Freddie Prinze, Jr.(no thanks) the characters seem to be more real, thus adding the suspense to the picture. There are no big name actors in this movie, unless you consider the guy who played Larry Finkelstein in Meatballs to be a big name actor. While we are on the subject of acting, there definitely isn't anything Oscar-worthy in this picture, however, that also helps to make this a true classic of the 80s slasher genre. Some people might say I didn't mention anything about body count/gore to be important for slasher films. Well, I don't think that they are as important as the aforementioned key elements, because it is the creepy atmosphere that sells horror, and this movie in particular. However, to be a true slasher movie, you need at least a couple of deaths. Hey, I still want to see a body count too, this movie has plenty of cool death scenes, so everyone should be satisfied but I do have to admit that I hope the uncut version appears one day since this film had alot of cuts made by the MPAA at the time of its release. Despite this issue though I say check it out if your in the mood for a good old school slasher film.

Made in 1977 this film features James Brolin as the sheriff of a quaint desert town that's being terrorized by one very cool looking black sedan that just appears out of nowhere. The Car has no driver, no motive, and no mercy as a tag line for the film reads

I thought the pacing in this movie was pretty good and that all of the actors did a fine job. This is a prime example of what 1970s drive-in horror was all about, so if these kinda films are your thing its worth checking out.

For me, Ridley Scott's Alien is one of the most perfect pieces of cinema, not only with regards to its genre, or genre hybridization, in this case sci-fi and horror, but also one of the finest films ever made. Unlike the fairy tale world of Star Wars (which I like I have to say), or the world of The Matrix (which I don't), Alien is something of a rarity, a science fiction movie set in a world that is almost realistic and authentic. Of course the movie hinges of an extra terrestrial, a space ship, a strange planet and all manners of grisly deaths, but what makes the film so good is how the film feels real because director Ridley Scott and screenwriters Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shussett have set their thrill packed horror spectacular in a future world that feel real. Their main characters are not soldiers or quasi-religious figures, they are merely futuristic equivalents of truck drivers, carrying their cargo not from city to city but from planet to planet. It is this kind of creation of character and scene within the film that gives it its charm, in a manner of speaking.

The way in which the story develops is also superb. What starts out as a film about a potential rescue mission for the main characters then turns into one about a medical emergency surrounding one of their own, in this case Kane played by John Hurt. The film then takes its twist and development into the film everyone knows and loves via its most famous scene at approximately the half way mark (that's almost sixty minutes in to a two hour movie), another superb piece of development as it allows the audience to get to like these characters before the violence and chaos begins. Of course when the chaos and violence do begins the film becomes one of the most thrilling ever produced, with its increasingly claustrophobic settings and the systematic killing of each one of its crew until only Weaver is the only woman left standing.

What I love most about the film is that coming at the end of the seventies (in this case 1979), the film is almost symbolic of everything that the American film industry had gone through throughout that decade artistically. The film has the science fiction leanings and fascination with technology and space travel that Hollywood was going through at that time with Star Wars, Close Encounters and even James Bond with Moonraker, but it also has that dark rawness that Hollywood had seen throughout the first six to seven years of that decade and witnessed in films like The French Connection, The Godfather and one of the other classic staple of the horror genre, The Exorcist. Like the latter movie, this is a film that, as I have said before, exhibits its plight of the fantastic and the horror inside a world that, while not as realistic as the one presented in Friedkin's film, is not that is possibly plausible.

Mention must go to Ridley Scott for his superb direction (his first mainstream Hollywood film) as well as all the actors (special mention must go, as always, to Weaver who truly deserved to become a big star after this movie) who in doing the movie gave us one of the most startling and most interesting movie series in mainstream Hollywood.

It has inexplicably become popular recently to call this film 'underrated', but it must be noted that this film is so bad that David Fincher and almost anyone else involved in the project has practically disowned it. Fincher had an agonizing time making this film, as he was brought into the project late into development and had to endure frequent, nearly intolerable creative interference from the studio. There are moments of typical Fincher brilliance in both versions of the film, but both are still without doubt bad films. It is worth noting that the extended special edition of this film is not by any means a director's cut; it is an assembly cut, simply adding in some deleted footage to make the film more complete, and without a doubt they were successful. The extended version of "Alien3" doesn't feature the seemingly horrendous editing evident in the original theatrical release, but it is still a film marred by executives not allowing the director to take control of this film. David Fincher hates this movie so much he refused to do a commentary track for the Alien Quadrilogy DVD set. Even James Cameron, notorious for being hard to get to do commentary tracks, did one for "Aliens". "Alien3" gets started where "Aliens" left off with Ripley's escape pod crashing on the prison planet Fiorina 161 which is also host to a correctional facility. Newt and Hicks die as a result of the crash but somehow an Alien from the previous film decided to hide on board and somehow escaped detection (its never explained how this happened) The prison planet does not allow weapons (how convenient!), leaving the prisoners and Ripley to fend for themselves.

Yes, the "Aliens" fan in me doesn't quite like how the entire second film's story is practically erased and its ending ruined in just the first few minutes of this film, but I'm willing to accept this if it was done well. It isn't. "Alien3"'s script is just bad and wasn't even finished before shooting began and it shows."Alien" was a claustrophobic, fascinating horror/thriller that was built on the 'less is more' ideology, and "Aliens" was the complete opposite: a pure, uninhibited action ride, brilliantly executed by all means. "Alien3" wants to be dark, it wants to be depressing, it wants to have the mood of the first while showing the Aliens as much as "Aliens" did, and it fails. "Alien3" has a weak plot, and it is as contrived as anything can possibly get.

This is a film made by the FOX executives and whomever they sent to ruin any chance David Fincher had to make this film look good. There are a few scenes where Fincher's superb directorial style is allowed to shine through, but most of this film feels forced. It feels like Fincher wasn't allowed creative control of well... anything.

I'm certain Fincher walked onto the set of this film with true enthusiasm, ready to create a dark, brooding monster of a film. What we get, thanks to FOX executives, is a lame, watered down version which is only dark due to the camera lenses involved.

On the plus side there *are* genuine moments of wonder in "Alien3". Moments of majestic beauty and gritty horror which fill you with joy and dread simultaneously. In both versions, you can see that if Fincher had been given full creative control that this could have been a truly artful, highly enjoyable film. It could have even surpassed "Alien" in terms of artistic quality. "Alien3" is an ugly spectacle, it is literally creativity being stamped out, destroyed, and this neuters any effect this film could have had. This is the most forgettable of the series. Note the scene where Ripley is cornered by an Alien, the one most often used in promotional stills, and note the scenes where the Alien is chasing the prisoners and Ripley in the ducts. These are masterful scenes shot by a master director. Unfortunately, a movie is a sum of its parts, then some.

The extended cut of "Alien3" doesn't fix all the problems. However, it is more watchable and the 20 to 30 minutes of deleted and alternative footage does help fill in logic problems. However that being said, this film is the result of the director not being allowed to work. It is a result of stifled creativity by the studio heads at FOX
To sum up, this is sub-par, uneven, and disappointing in comparison to standout efforts like "Se7en" and "Zodiac". As a standalone film it isn't very good, and as a follow-up to "Alien" and "Aliens" it is downright embarrassing.
If you have to watch it. Check out the special edition cut on DVD. Just don't expect much

To begin,. I grabbed a dvd of Roadhouse for a friend of mine this past weekend. It made me feel a wave of nostalgia for the film along with the recent news of Swayze's battle with pancreatic cancer( I hope he beats this and recovers very soon)Road House is a movie about tough guys (and a few tough gals) hitting each other along with some philosophy, a couple of steamy sex scenes and some gratutious nude scenes( even a butt shot from" the Swayz" just for the ladies). For nearly two hours we are asked to sit back and enjoy folks getting stabbed, shot, head-butted, struck with bottles, struck with pool cues, throats torn out, eyes blackened, heads smashed against tables, and so on and so on.What can I say but it's a movie thats alot of fun and I enjoy it more each time I watch it

For the few who haven't seen the film, Dalton (Patrick Swayze) is a super-tough bouncer ? known in the trade as a "cooler" ? who specialises in turning violent, lawless bars into sophisticated night-spots. He is offered a phenomenal wage if he can transform a run-down Kansas hell-hole, named the "Double Deuce", into a more civilised, respectable kind of place. Dalton visits the "Double Deuce" to find out what he's letting himself in for, and finds it every bit as rough and tough as anywhere he's ever worked. Within a few weeks, though, he starts to get the joint's reputation sorted out ? firing the incompetents, coaching those that show potential, and maintaining strict discipline amongst the drinkers who frequent the place. He even gets a girlfriend in the shape of local nurse Elizabeth Clay (Kelly Lynch). It's not all smooth sailing, however, as the town's resident crime lord Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) starts to get irritated by Dalton's successful attempts to clean up the town and the "Double Deuce". Seems Wesley preferred it as it was. Various thugs and hired hands try to drive Dalton away, and their campaign against him slowly starts to wear him down. Dalton calls his friend Wade Garrett (Sam Elliott) ? the ultimate bouncer, and the guy who taught Dalton every trick in the book ? and together they stand up against Wesley's reign of fear.

There's really very little to say about Road House. It has mindless action for those of us who crave such things; some of the dialogue is curiously quotable; and its choreographed fist-fights are every bit as brutal as they're supposed to be. Director Rowdy Herrington (an apt name, if ever there was one) knows exactly which target audience he's trying to satisfy, and he gives them what they want. The film is photographed efficiently, and Michael Kamen underscores the proceedings with simple but suitable music. Performance-wise, well no Oscar winning performances here but in this kinda film its not needed. Swayze does some good work here, just to bad he didn't do more action films( I guess Roadhouse can fall into being the 1st film in the Swayze action trilogy with Next Of Kin And Point Break rounding things out), Gazzara smiles jovially even when being threatened just as any evil villian in a action film is suppose to do , Elliot delivers juicy lines with snarling relish, and Lynch basically stands around looking sexy. This is one film where it's unlikely that anyone will be glancing at their watch every five minutes wishing that the movie will hurry up and finish. At the very least, one can appreciate it on the level of entertaining trash. In the end is this as I've heard it called "Macbeth With Mullets", a Friday night no-brainer or a film of lasting significance and high art, you decide

Nekromantik is written by Franz Rodenkirchen and directed by Jörg Buttgereit and I think this is their first feature film after couple of short films. This German classic ( some might not agree with this point of view) tells us a fascinating story of a couple who has strange emptiness in their affair and death seems to appeal to them, and since the male can get some dead bodies or body parts (I'm not sure what is his job, but at least he goes to car crash scenes in his work etc.), he starts to take them home and soon the couple finds their real love....and it is pretty rotten and decayed love! Scenes of necrophilia are something that will repulse even jaded cinema fanatic because necrophilia as a thing is very disgusting and taboo as a subject matter. But this little film makes ugly things look incredibly beautiful with the power and magic of cinema.

This film shows exactly how talented film maker can show things in personal way and show disgusting things beautifully and with taste. This film is not ugly or disgusting, but to say that, I think one has to be pretty tolerating and "difficult art loving" viewer since this is not easy to view if one cannot interpret movies. The scenes of necrophilia are shot gorgeously with different techniques and the most important element in Nekromantik is again the music, the unimaginable and hypnotic music. The music is among the most beautiful and gentle (and very dark and ominous at times) I've ever seen, and it is as touching as Riz Ortolani's music in Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust (Italy, 1979), one of the most important films ever. Nekromantik would not be Nekromantik without the music. Totally unforgettable element.

The infamous rabbit killing scene is often judged and not accepted, but the fact is that the film makers did not kill the creature, they only shoot the farmer doing his job, and the rabbit would've died without the film, too, because we eat meat everyday with or without Nekromantik in existence. And this is the meaning of the scene and we definitely should realize that eating meat means always that an animal has given its life that we can eat its juicy meat. I love animals very much but still I eat meat because I know that they are the only source to get it and in my opinion the rule of nature is that way that human beings are meant to use the resources of nature, but as we know the nature of human beings, do we really deserve all this from the nature as we exploit and destroy it every minute?

The movie's end is unforgettable and also the most shocking scene in the film, but so releasing and gives the final relief and salvation to the protagonist, and it is very beautiful scene with the music again as a strong element. This is something that is never before seen on screen and it is way too much for many. There are also other over the top gore and splatter scenes in the film and they are the ones that alienate the casual viewer. The disturbing "snuff" scene where a woman is sliced, is a part of the interpretation about "exploiting" (Nature or other human beings), which I explained in the rabbit paragraph above. Do we have any right to live or be in existence (not to mention eating and consuming the sources of Nature) since all this trash and sick entertainment exists and has its consumers? And this film itself is NOT that kind of a sick trash/exploitation as many consider: Nekromantik is a very challenging and symbolic piece of underground cinema, which has many things bubbling under its surface and the movie's core has to be found in order to understand it.

Nekromantik is one of the most noteworthy marginal and independent films I know and definitely one of the most unforgettable experiences in the field of cinema. So I recommend Nekromantik (and other Buttgereit's films) to the fans of intelligent and wonderful looking non-mainstream cinema and the cinema that has thousands of things to say and give to the interpreting viewer.

How do you outdo one of the most notorious, extreme splatter movies ever made? Simple: make an art film. Though still chock full of the usual body bonking and assorted gross outs, this is a far more elegant and polished piece of work than its predecessor, more concerned with a mood of unease and melancholia than spraying bodily fluids (until the last five minutes, anyway).
Beautiful young nurse and fledgling necrophile Monika (Monika M.) steals into a graveyard and digs up the rotting corpse of Rob, our hero from the first film. She takes his congealed remains home and deposits him in the bathtub, where does some impromptu prep work and dresses him up to pose for homemade photographs. Of course, our happy couple becomes a love triangle thanks to Mark (Mark Reeder), a nice but slightly kinky guy who makes his living dubbing and providing sound effects) for hardcore porn films. When she isn't at home spending quality time with deadbeat Rob, Monika goes with Mark to pretentious art films and watches seal brutality videos, occasionally suspending him naked by his feet. The strain soon takes its toll, however, and Monika devises an ingenious and thoroughly perverse solution for the two suitors in her life.

Best known as the film that finally sent the German censors over the deep end (including a well-publicized theatrical raid), Nekromantik 2 uses its comparatively lavish running time for a more ambitious and densely textured narrative. While the corpse scenes are naturally gruesome, there's a strong surrealist sensibility at work that keeps it more curious than repellent. Apart from the aforementioned seal scene, an ill-advised attempt to outdo the bunny footage from the original film, Buttgereit strangely avoids any graphic bloodshed or nasty latex dismemberments for most of the running time. Of course, he's really just saving it up for the powerhouse finale, which amazingly outdoes the Daktari Lorenz's "climax" from Nekromantik. The narrative also has a stronger pull in this case, stopping along the way for some humorous and romantic asides before the ironic final scene. Much credit must also go to the alluring Monika M., a terrific lead who should have gone on to do far more work. (She even chipped in on the lyrical music score, along with five other people)
Iam a fan of the 1st Nekromantik film but I liked this one alot more. Not sure if everyone will see the theme of ( be who you are and not what your expected to be) that comes through in the film but thats one more aspect of this film that I really enjoyed.
To sum up if your not a fan of the 1st don't bother with this one but if your looking for something off of your usual path of film viewing this is worth checking out,

Linda Blair was at the height of her 80's trash exploitation fame when she starred in this delectably down and dirty grindhouse epic as Brenda, an over-aged high school "bad girl" senior who's the leader of the tough all-girl gang the Satins. Trouble rears its ugly head when the Satins run afoul of a brutish all-guy street gang called the Scars (led by pockmarked sneering Neanderthal Robert Dryer). These detestable no-count hoodlums not only viciously rape Brenda's innocent deaf mute sister Heather (a very cute and endearing Linnea Quigley), but also toss Brenda's pregnant best gal pal off a bridge to her death. Man, are these guys real nasty customers. But have no fear. After sitting in a bath tub topless and dragging on a cigarette while lost in deep thought, the spunky and resourceful Brenda decks herself out in a clingy skintight leather jumpsuit and breaks out both a crossbow and some bear traps with the specific intent of hunting down and killing the vile subhuman scum.

Director Danny Steinmann, who also blessed us with the criminally underrated early 80's psycho slasher gem "The Unseen" and the fifth "Friday the 13th" picture, really pours on the scorching sleaze with this choice chunk of 80's trash cinema. All the correct sensationally scuzzy elements are ripely abundant here: polished production values, a roaring rock score, plentiful graphic violence, profanity-ridden dialogue, a catfight, the expected gratuitous high school girls' gym locker room shower sequence, a harshly drawn-out, explicit and unflinching rape scene, and a generous sprinkling of bare female flesh (besides the luscious Linda and the adorable Linnea, the equally hot Rebecca Perle and Suzee Slater also show us their stuff). Moreover, we also get gleefully hammy overacting from a game cast (John Vernon in particular has himself a rip-snorting ball as the cranky, foul-mouthed high school principal). Overall, "Savage Streets" sizes up as a hugely enjoyable and satisfying serving of topflight tacky and raunchy 80's exploitation action revenge thriller.

This is not my favorite Fulci movie but its one of his best and its one that I can pop in and watch pretty much anytime.

It's a goofy gorefest about a small New England town which is besieged by demonic forces after a priest's suicide opens the gateway to Hell. Fulci, being Fulci, concentrates on the gross-out aspects of his story (a girl vomits up her intestines, a man's head is impaled by a drill, brains are squashed out of heads), but also manages to create a creepy atmosphere and even delivers a couple of decent scares.

The scene in which the zombified Emily staggers toward her little brother until her eyes seem to pop out of the screen is one of the freakiest images I've ever seen! Emily's death is pretty scary as well; the priest's animalistic moaning in the dimly lit garage seriously creeps me out, as does the faceful of worm-ridden putrescence Emily receives.

People have complained that this movie makes little sense. I won't argue. The concentration here is on nightmarish imagery, atmosphere and gory set-pieces, and if you know anything about Fulci, you should know that going in. The gibbon noises? I doubt Fulci honestly thought anyone would think they were ghosts howling. I think he and his sound designer just sifted through the library of sound effects and found the monkeys' cries bizarre and decided to stick them in there. Why not? Nightmares don't always make sense, so why should a horror movie?

And the infamous ending? Who the hell cares what it means? The movie left me feeling creepy and disoriented, which is a success in my book. It's structured like a creepy dream from which you can't awaken, and I think we've all had dreams that made us say, "What the hell was that all about?"

Overall, its fun for fans of spaghetti splatter or if your looking for a good horror movie to watch with a group of friends during the weekend

RoboCop could have been the start of a great franchise. Instead the brand name piffled-out after the sequel and has since languished in the hell of TV shows, animated TV shows and a mini-series . Paul Verhoeven's multi-layered original provided a platform for so much potential and possibility, it's a shame we only got 2 good movies out of it.

Alex Murphy is a deeply unlucky cop who has transferred into Detroit's (actually Dallas) worst precinct. On his first day on the job he is gunned down by the stupendously evil Clarence Boddicker (a brilliant turn by Kurtwood Smith) and his gang of nasty thugs. Resurrected as some kind of Frankenstien/Christ figure, Murphy returns as RoboCop-The Future of Law Enforcement.

In the world of RoboCop big business rules and public servants can be bought as stock (doesn't sound so unrealistic does it?). A super-conglomerate called Omni Consumer Products has entered into an agreement to fund and run the Detroit Police Force. Wishing to create a cop who doesn't need to eat or sleep they have a choice of pursuing the RoboCop idea or going with Vice President, Dick Jones' idea of ED-209, a mech-like twin cannon on legs. The CEO goes with RoboCop, leaving Jones with a personal vendetta against poor Robo.

It may have been satire back in 1987 but today we are all to used to doomsday news being delivered by smile by our news anchors only to cut to an ad feature some violent video game or movie. The violence, social commentary and horror of RoboCop can sometimes pale in comparison to real life.

When I was in my teens, RoboCop was probably one of the most amazing films ever. I swear, I must have seen this film about 100 times when I was a kid. I was word-perfect on it and I guess even note-perfect on Basil Poledouris' awesome, awesome score.I guess it's kind of unfair on kids these days that they are raised on braindead PG-13 crap while I got one bloody action movie after another back in the 80s.

RoboCop is no doubt a classic. It's a shame it had such an indignant death. Still, I guess this is still a chance for re-resurrection. But please...no remake!

While backpacking through Europe, two friends, David Kessler (David Naughton) and Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne), find themselves out on England's moors, despite advice to avoid them. When a wild animal attacks them, one of them dies, and the other just might be turning into a monster.

Director John Landis' "pet project"--he had to sit on the script for 10 years before he had enough clout from other films for this one to be green lighted--is an excellent, seamless melding of comedy and horror, with a surprising amount of brutality and one of the most wonderfully dark, abrupt conclusions ever made.

John Irving once said that he loves to put comedy and tragedy in close conjunction because each can make the other more effective. That's just the effect that the combination has in An American Werewolf In London. Both the comedy and the horror in the film are fully committed to, unlike many attempts to merge the two. If "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" is ever true, this is an example. The comic bits wouldn't be nearly as delightful if they didn't supervene on the disturbing, and the horror wouldn't have near the impact if they didn't arrive in the context where you half-expect the next moment to be just as lighthearted and amusing. Both the initial "animal attack" and the apocalyptic ending are perfect examples of this.

Aside from that exquisite unusualness, An American Werewolf In London has many other superb characteristics. The cast is perfect. Naughton, who also starred in the seriously underrated Desire, The Vampire (aka I, Desire) (1982), carries the film with ease. Jenny Agutter is what can I say but great as usual ( I've never seen her give a bad performance) and very sexy. Griffin Dunne turns in a great performance as well. You almost wish there was more of him in the movie.The cinematography is excellent. The shots of the countryside (actually filmed in Wales) are actually both beautiful and very eerie at the same time. The make-up effects are awesome, and the transformation effects are unsurpassed. The music, which is primarily a number of different "moon" related pop songs, is also perfect, partially because of the bizarre contrasts in mood that the music creates, which echoes the comedy/tragedy juxtaposition. Unlike many other films, every scene in this one is a something I'd like to spend years exploring. The settings, the characters, the scenarios are all so fascinating.

What canI say but one of my favortes. Not only as a horror film but film in general. Hollywood seems to have a hard time making good werewolf movies ( see the movie Cursed and you will know what I'm talking about) but this film proves it can be done. Also where are you going to see a film in which the lead character talks to the undead in porn theater.
Highly Recommended

I still say that F.W. Murnau and Max Schreck did it before and did it better in "Nosferatu", but I can say that "Horror of Dracula". runs a very close second

After watching this film again, I have no doubts why Christopher Lee is so well remembered for his portrayal of Count Dracula and not just because he happened to put in the most screen appearances as said anti-hero to date. The black cloak clad over his well-over six foot frame lends an aura of menace and intimidation that no other version since Max Schreck has held with such ease. The initial scenes of him showing his charming side are, in my opinion, sorely missed later when he seems to have been reduced to the level of stereotypical vampire on the loose, but I'm willing to overlook this as I descended through the Dracula film series. Forget Lugosi; Lee is the definitive version of the Count.

Peter Cushing, meanwhile, takes center stage as Dracula's driven, calculating adversary, Professor Van Helsing. Here, the script uses an old trick of literature by using the phonograph recording scene to subconsciously ask the viewer that if a man as intelligent and sophisticated as Van Helsing can believe in vampires, than why not the audience? As determined as a bloodhound on the scent of his prey, Van Helsing is not unsympathetic to the suffering of the Count's victims and their loved ones. But, by necessity, he must remain hardnosed and decisive on what needs to be done and not being afraid to tell the parties responsible for carrying out his wishs that this must be so.

The ending suggests the influence of "Nosferatu" (the first instance in cinema were a vampire could be killed by sunlight), but I must admit that it stands, head and shoulders, above what Murnau's film wrought and, indeed, what Stoker's original novel had. Oddly enough, I feel no victory in Dracula's death. Rather, I feel that the world has lost something irreplacable, no matter how brutal that something was. It almost makes me kind of glad that the Count would rise again in several other Hammer sequels...

Still a great film and well worth checking out.

This film is not quite the kind of sheer perfection that you find in "Horror Of Dracula" or " The Brides Of Dracula" but is a good 3rd film in the Hammer films Dracula series

As is usual for Director Terrence Fisher, the movie is extremely atmospheric and creepy. Fisher doesn't rely on quick cutting or sudden close-ups to frighten the audience. He is conservative with those kinds of techniques and the film is mostly built on long takes from distant angles with the frame being menaced by hideous shadows and unsafe corridors. A large portion of the film takes place out of doors, and there are many wonderful scenes set in a shadowy wood with the sun about to fall. Dracula's Castle itself is rather charming compared to most other films (this is also true in Horror Of Dracula). The interior's are lushly decorated, colorful, bright and in good repair... but you still get a sense of something unhinged.. A sense of wrongness about the castle. I think this is because the castle is so barren with only a single inhabitant (the zombie-like caretaker Klove).. It's somehow surreal for such a large empty place to be so cheery. It's a more subtle way of making the castle frightening than filling it with cobwebs and rotting woodwork. The pacing is deliberate, giving the film a hypnotic quality. At times it can be too deliberate and that is one of the movie's main flaws.

I thought the fact that Christopher Lee didn't speak in this film was interesting. I read somewhere that Lee thought the Dracula's lines were just so bad in the script that the just decided to have Dracula stay silent, I will say this turned out to be a good choice. the silent Dracula featured in this film is somehow more ghostly and eerie than most depictions? You really get the sense of `undead'. Andrew Keir was also great as a practical, no-nonsense priest. The rest of the acting is pretty good with Barbara Shelley being the only other stand out and Charles Tingwell being the only performance that was lacking (although his part is so small it doesn't really matter).

Compared to the first film, this film is darker and a bit more violent. A little less safe overall. Because it isn't directly based on the novel, it's slightly less predictable than `Horror Of Dracula'.. We don't know how the story will ultimately end up. I liked it a lot. Despite its flaws it's a classic in it's own right and a must see for any horror movie fan

Although certainly not the best sequel to the Hammer Studios' ingenious Dracula series starring Christopher Lee, Peter Sadsdy's "Taste The Blood Of Dracula" is still a good entry to this wonderful cycle. The original Hammer Dracula of 1958 (aka "Horror Of Dracula") is, of course, unmatched, and some of the sequels, such as "Prince of Darkness" (1966) and "Scars Of Dracula" (1970) are, in my opinion, better than this movie, but "Taste The Blood Of Dracula" certainly has its very own allure and some great,creepy elements that Hammer fans should love to see, such as devil worshiping, black masses and possession.

The film begins with A man kicked out of a stagecoach wakes up in the middle of the forest, hearing some terrible, eerie screams, he starts running in fear, just to witness Count Dracula die another death, this time impaled on a cross. A few years later a bunch of rich gentlemen are bored with their lives, and willing to spare no costs or efforts to get a bit of excitement... needless to say things go bad for the rich gentlemen from here."Taste The Blood Of Dracula" has the typically great Hammer photography and, once again, an eerie soundtrack (allthough some of the other Dracula films had better scores), and all the other typical Hammer elements. Christopher Lee is once again wonderfully eerie in his role, and most the supporting performances are also good. This is one of my favorite Hammer films, but it definitely has a few weaknesses (which I won't give away, since it would mean giving away parts of the plot), but it is overall another great entry to the Dracula series, and Hammer fans should not not miss it.

People who enjoy Hammer horror movies seem generally to have deemed 'Scars of Dracula' to be the poorest offering in the Hammer/Lee Dracula catalogue (1958-73), based on a paucity of originality. I would disagree and whilst the film may have more flaws than most Hammer films in terms of not so special effects, it has considerable merit and, in my view a good deal of originality. Firstly, one is struck by the peculiar physiognomy of Lee - his face drawn and ashen, almost as though he has been drained of blood, and definitely looking more like one of the undead than in previous films. In tandem with this new image, Lee carries out unprecedented acts of violence: in one maniacal scene, repeatedly stabbing one of his female cohorts with frenzied aggression when he discovers her in bed with an equally doomed guest, and in another scene, sadistically branding his man-servant (Patrick Troughton/Klove) across the back with a glowing sword, drawn from hot coals. In another scene, we find the previously mentioned guest hung like a piece of meat on a hook, which impales his chest. Such violent visuals do not, of course, necessarily add merit to the film (and Christopher Lee later commented that he deplored the violent contents of this particular sequel), but again represent an unprecedented aspect of the Dracula perennials. Possibly the most original and pleasing merit of the film is the location of Dracula's sleeping chamber and the way in which only he can access it. The chamber is set high up in the castle and can only be accessed by a window overlooking an abyss, hundreds of feet above the ground. This literally is the only access, as inside we find that there are no internal doors - only walls of stone. Drawing inspiration from the original Stoker novel, we come to see how Dracula comes and goes from his chamber, as at nightfall he emerges from the window and defies all the laws of physics by crawling up the wall to a window above. Marvellous. There is also an interesting addition where we find Dracula to have developed an ingenious defence mechanism to prevent him being staked while he slumbers. Though his eyes remain closed, the lids are superimposed by glowing red eyes which, understandably, startle and ward off the would-be 'staker'. As said, the film does have its flaws, not least in that it contains more than its fair share of Hammer hum-drum (Carpathian landlords with Cornish accents type-of-thing) and visually there is much to evoke laughter rather than fear. Rubber bats proliferate the film from start to end and the shoe-string sets also inhibit proceedings. There is one point when the 'solid stone' wall of Dracula's sleeping chamber containing the window wobbles momentarily as an intruder (who has managed to gain ingress by means of a bed-curtain hung from the window above) rushes to it, on seeing the curtain being pulled back up. And, though we are given an original demise for the Count, as he bursts into flames whilst holding an iron rail when it is struck by lightening, this sequence is itself shot down in flames as we see that the figure besieged by the inferno is clearly not Christopher Lee, but a masked stuntman. But then it is goofs like this which elicit such affection among Hammer aficionados. This film is well-deserving of a place in a horror film collection and though not great, it does have aspects which make it good.

The problem with putting Victorian-period character in modern day settings is that they look terribly out of place, especially when they're put against '70s youth counter-culture.

The story starts out with a great chase, that ends with Lee's Dracula impaled on a broken carriage wheel, and Cushing's Van Helsing expiring from his wounds. A passerby comes upon the scene, and scoops up some of Dracula's ashes and signet ring. Fast forward to 1972. The passerby is still with us, now having assumed the name Johnnie Alucard (is there anyone who doesn't know what that spells backwards?), and Cushing is back, this time as one of Van Helsing's descendants. After a happinin' "freak out" at an uptight society party, Alucard and his hippie buddies (including Van Helsing's buxom niece) decide to throw a black mass. What they don't realize is that Alucard intends to bring back Dracula from the dead, so it comes as a surprise when Alucard pours blood all over Caroline Munro's ample busom. And who should show up, but Dracula himself. Far out, man.

The big problem with this movie is that Dracula just does not work in the context of hippies. Dracula can work in modern day (witness The Satanic Rites of Dracula, the next in the series), but not when he's surrounded by all of these hippies.

Despite the logical shortcomings of the movie, it's always fun to see Lee and Cushing working together (although it seems as though Lee was having himself written out of these Hammer movies). If you're a fan of Lee or Cushing, watch this just for them.

Lorrimer Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) traces an outbreak of vampirism in a grand country house to an international conglomerate run by Count Dracula (Christopher Lee), who plans to unleash a hideous plague upon mankind.

Picking up the plot where "Dracula A.D. 1972" (1972) left off, Alan Gibson's entertaining potboiler closes the book on Hammer's most profitable franchise, though it's a far cry from the dignity and elegance of Terence Fisher's "Dracula" (1958). Dominated, as always, by Cushing's steely resolve in the role which defined his career, and Lee's majestic portrait of the fiendish Count (still the best cinematic interpretation of Bram Stoker's creation bar none), the film posits an audacious - though unlikely - scenario in which Dracula plots to end his own reign of terror by destroying mankind, using hapless mortal disciples to do his dirty work. Don Houghton's busy script mixes intrigue and espionage (Cushing only becomes involved after being tapped by MI5 for his knowledge of occult practices, following their investigation of several high-ranking Establishment figures who have fallen prey to Dracula's influence) with traditional elements of Gothic horror (such as a country house with a cellarful of vampires), and Gibson plots a course through proceedings with ruthless efficiency.

Less 'modish' than its immediate predecessor, the movie nevertheless shoehorns some gratuitous female nudity into a black mass sequence which is referenced time and again during the first half of the film. The supporting cast includes William Franklyn, Michael Coles, Joanna Lumley (as Cushing's granddaughter), and Freddie Jones as a terrified scientist forced by Dracula to create a new strain of bubonic plague. First released in the US in slightly edited form as "Count Dracula and His Vampire Bride", though why anyone should think that was a better title than the original is a complete mystery. This movie is fun for fans and worth watching to see Lee and Cushing together for the last time in a Dracula film.

We open to a Chinese man named Kah (Shen Chan as Chan Shen) hiking through the Transylvanian forests in search of Count Draculas (John Forbes-Robertson stepping in for Christopher Lee) Castle. He doesn't take too long to find it and proceeds into Draculas crypt. He appears to be attacked by some bats that for some reason don't have to flap their wings as they just sort of glide along, almost as if their on strings! But then I thought to myself that a classy production like this wouldn't use rubber bats on strings, would it? Dracula rises from his stone coffin complete with bright red lipstick, white face paint and slicked back hair, and ask's who dares disturb him. Kah says in Chinese "I am the high Priest of the 7 Golden Vampires in Szechwan, China. When the Vampires walked my temple was the centre of all power in the area" Kah then goes on to say the Vampires are sleeping and that he would like Dracula to resurrect the 7 Golden Vampires again. Even though Kah speaks in Chinese Dracula understands every word he has said and gives him the cold shoulder and says he doesn't do favours for anyone and then decides to take Kah's form and travel to China, bring the 7 Golden Vampires back, rule the area by himself and help spread vampirism throughout the world. We are then informed we are in 'Chung King 1904'. Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing) is giving a lecture at a local university to a group of young Chinese men on the threat of vampirism. He tells them of a legend where in a nearby village called Ping Wei a local man managed to destroy one of the 7 Golden Vampires before the others slit his throat. The students are unimpressed with such tales. Except one, Hsi Ching (David Chiang) who come from the village Van Helsing spoke about. He ask's Van Helsing to go to his village with his brothers, all 6 of them too many to bother listing, and their only sister Mai Kwei (Szu Shih as Shih Szu), hey it's a large family OK?, to help them rid Ping Wei of the 7, well 6 now, Golden Vampires. Van Helsing would like too but claims an expedition to the village would cost a lot of money. Just then, as if by luck Van Helsing's son Leyland (Robin Stewart) and a rich widow on a world tour named Vanessa Buren (Julie Ege) who he picked up in a nightclub, turn up. That's the funding problem solved as Vanessa thinks a "Vampire hunt sounds exciting". They all set off for Ping Wei to destroy the Vampire menace, their zombie slaves and rid the land of vampirism. Directed by Roy Ward Baker this was Hammers ninth and final film to feature Dracula, and it was made after The Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973). The script by Don Houghton tries hard to mix both vampirism and martial arts. It comes across as a little silly at time but is none the less pretty good fun, and at least it's never dull or boring. The fights are ok and contain some decent violence and gore. There's lots of zombies which look good, the 7 Golden Vampires look silly though, they look like zombies with fangs and a golden mask that cover the top half of the faces. The flying bats look awful as do the the women who 'struggle' to free them selves from being tied down to sacrificial altars they just move their heads a little and bend their legs a bit, come on girls put some effort into it your about to have all your blood drained by vampires for gods sake! Acting is OK, obviously Cushing couldn't join in the Kung-Fu fighting so just sort of stands there and seems a little underused throughout the second half of the film. Technically the film is quite strong with nice music, photography, sets and editing. And why does everyone in this film speak perfect English? Even though just about everyone is supposed to be Chinese. Sit back, don't ask too many questions and enjoy as there are a lot worse ways to spend 90 odd minutes of your time.

Like most of the classic tales, Frankenstein has had a twist put on it by the fantastic Hammer studios. It has actually been done by Hammer many times, but this film is the one that sticks closest to the original source material. That's not to say that it sticks to it entirely, not by a long shot; as Terence Fisher has still found than enough room for changes to the classic tale, thus making this film a fresh take on the classic tale. Peter Cushing stars as Baron Frankenstein; a role which may well be his finest of all time. Cushing's Frankenstein is more malevolent than the character usually is, giving this film a different twist on the tale from the start. In the Universal classic, Frankenstein was a mad scientist that realised his mistake, and thus the audience was able to forgive him after he repented his sins. Here, we have no such luck; the Frankenstein in this film is a completely morally bankrupt character that seeks no redemption for his sins.

We follow Frankenstein from being a boy and taking control of the Frankenstein estate. It is then that he meets his tutor and later collaborator on his experiments, Paul Krempe. We then follow the two as they conduct experiments in an attempt to bring the living back to life, a la the classic story. It's also a bonus to see Frankenstein in color as most, if not all, of the Frankenstein films before this one were in black and white. Naturally, the inclusion of Peter Cushing in the lead role does this film no end of favors and despite his character being so awful, we are still able like him just because it's Peter Cushing. Cushing's co-star is Robert Urquhart, who plays his tutor. Urquhart does well with the role and it's a shame that the actor never made more notable films because he's not bad at all. The cast is topped off by Cushing's long time collaborator and a man that would go on to become one of Hammer's biggest stars - the excellent Christopher Lee, who does a grand job in a campy turn as the monster itself.

The Curse of Frankenstein is one of Hammer's best production, this stands tall as a solid entry in their oeuvre and is recommended to horror fans

The Revenge Of Frankenstein is the second instalment in Hammer studio's Frankenstein series. The first film, The Curse Of Frankenstein, was the company's debut horror feature and a commercial success. It paved the way for a plethora of horror films and made 'stars' of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Lee is absent from Revenge. but Cushing returns in the titular role along with director Terence Fisher and writer Jimmy Sangster.

Having narrowly escaped the guillotine, Dr./Baron Frankenstein retreats to a new town to pledge his trade. Adopting the 'cunning' pseudonym 'Dr. Stein', he opens two medical practices. One serves the wealthy, financing the second which treats the poor and needy. This humanitarian/philanthropist set-up masks the fact that both practices support, in terms of money and body parts respectively, the good doctor's true interests. He has a secret laboratory in a disused wine cellar where he continues his infamous experiments. After three years in the new town his practice is such a success that the local medical council is becoming redundant. The members hold an emergency meeting to discuss the problem of Dr. Stein.

Terence Fisher's Frankenstein series concentrates on the doctor (and in turn science) as the source of 'evil'. Frankenstein's blind ambition and lack of moral code is the real source of horror. This premise is strikingly different from earlier Frankenstein stories. In the Mary Shelley original, both the doctor and the 'monster' are portrayed as victims of science. In James Whale's celebrated duet the doctor is the misguided hero. In both cases the doctor is misled by scientific ambition but retains a strong moral code throughout. The sinister Dr. Pretorius in Bride Of Frankenstein could be seen as a better prototype for Fisher's doctor.

In Revenge. rather than retreading the familiar experiment of the previous film(s), a spin has been put on events. Here Frankenstein's construction of the 'monster' has reached its zenith and is given short shrift. Instead the problem and focus of the film is that of the brain. A living brain is required so transplants are in order. Cue a bloodied brain slopping into a specimen jar. Loopy proceedings include a priceless hand-eye co-ordination experiment (every lab should have one) and a cannibalistic chimp with the brain of an orang-utan. The brain transplantation theme is taken the logical step further in Frankenstein Created Woman, which involves the transfer of the soul.

Although it evokes some viewer sympathy, the 'monster' is not as innocent as the creations in earlier films and in a way deserves its fate. Its appearance is not that impressive either, when it goes on the rampage the facial expression and make-up reminded me of Michael Palin. The fact that the 'monster' starts to regress back to his half paralytic state suggests that the condition stemmed from the brain, Frankenstein's diagnosis was wrong.

This is the only error Frankenstein makes. His assistant, Dr. Kleve, and workers (the cleaner is an 'expert' on zoology) make them for him. Thus the experiment ends in disaster. If Dr Kleve had not helped Frankenstein with the final transplantation, he could be considered to have been a 'plant' from the medical council. The final creation is of course ludicrous. How could the body be a perfect likeness? Still, it paved the way for further sequels.

To start off here, many fellow Hammer fans seem to dislike Freddy Francis' "The Evil Of Frankenstein" of 1964, and, after watching it again recently, I must say that I do not agree. Sure, this third Frankenstein film from Hammer is also doubtlessly the weakest entry to the cycle. But it is the ingenious Frankenstein cycle I am discussing, and even this weakest entry is still highly entertaining and recommendable. The film may have its faults, but, overall, it maintains the Hammer-typical, delightfully Gothic atmosphere, and the great Peter Cushing is, as always, brilliant.

The film does not logically begin where "The Revenge Of Frankenstein" ended (and neither do the following sequels). Supposedly, some years have passed and Baron Victor Frankenstein is now making experiments somewhere in the woods, assisted by a young scientist named Hans. After their body-snatching activities are discovered by a priest, the Baron and his assistant are forced to flee to Frankenstein's old home, his castle near Karlstadt to which he was never supposed to return? Sure, the film has its weaknesses. This is the first, and only Frankenstein film from Hammer that was not directed by genius Terence Fisher (I am not counting screenwriter Jimmy Sangster's "Horror Of Frankenstein" of 1970, which I have so far refused to watch since it doesn't star Peter Cushing). While Fisher can easily be considered the greatest Hammer director, Freddie Francis, who directed this one, is only mediocre. The only other Hammer flick by Francis is "Dracula Has Risen From The Grave", one of the weaker entries to the great "Dracula" series with Christopher Lee. Francis furthermore directed several worthwhile films for Amicus Productions, such as "Torture Garden" and "Dr. Terror's House Of Horrors". One of the reasons why some fellow Hammer fans dislike this one is arguably the fact that "The Evil Of Frankenstein" brings us the nicest Baron Frankenstein of the series, which is not a weakness in my opinion, as I have always sympathized with the sinister Baron. Frankenstein was not really a villain in the other films, in my opinion, (except for the fifth entry "Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed", in which he was truly evil), as he did the things he did convinced of doing them for the good of mankind. He gradually gets more obsessed throughout the series, however, which is delightful to watch, and he is not as unscrupulous in the achievements of his goals here. The Baron is not as obsessed in this sequel, but, and that I do consider a weakness, he is also less ingenious. The brilliant and dedicated Baron Frankenstein we know is not supposed to endanger his work, only because he is enraged about the theft of a gold ring, and he certainly isn't supposed to be tricked by a drunk hypnotist who is nothing but a sideshow attraction. In spite of this lack of logic, however, the film is still highly entertaining and shouldn't be missed by a Hammer fan. The atmosphere is, as always, great. The brilliant Peter Cushing is, of course, the film's main quality. Cushing, THE gentleman of Horror, truly is one of the greatest Horror icons of all-time, and while he played in many other ingenious films, it is Hammer's Frankenstein cycle that made him the immortal icon he is. Apart from Cushing, the performances are not too good, only Katy Wilde is great in the lovable role of a mute beggar girl. Peter Woodthorpe and Sandor Elès are decent in their roles, but not especially worth mentioning.

All things considered, this is the weakest entry to the Frankenstein series with Peter Cushing, but it is nonetheless highly entertaining Gothic fun that is not to be missed by a Hammer fan. I do recommend the other films over this one though, my personal favorite is the ingeniously deranged fourth film, "Frankenstein Created Woman" of 1967. The entire series is great however, and even this weakest entry is highly recommended

My favorite of the series, Hammer's fourth Frankenstein entry is an offbeat, fascinating gothic masterpiece.

The film ingeniously opens up with the guillotine execution of a drunken murderer (played with hardy relish by Hammer vet Duncan Lamont), unintentionally witnessed by his young boy, Hans. Years later, Hans (Robert Morris) is employed by the half-witted Dr. Hertz (Thorley Walters) who has taken in the ardent Baron Frankenstein ( Peter Cushing). Forgetting Freddie Francis' Evil Of Frankenstein, a so-so homage to Universal, Fisher picks up the series where he left off and firmly relates that the Baron is really the monster (the character is here introduced as being brought back to life through his own body-freezing experiment).

At the local tavern, Hans gets into a fierce brawl with a trio of spoiled, arrogant aristocrats (Peter Blythe, Barry Warren, Derek Fowlds) after they insult the twisted and deformed Christina (Susan Denberg). Later that night after Hans consummates his love for Christina, the three delinquents break into the tavern and kill Christina's father, the landlord. Since he refuses to tell where he was during the murderous event, Hans is brought to trial, accused of murder and guillotined like his dad. Christina witnesses this and immediately commits suicide by drowning herself.

In the meantime, the brilliant Baron has contrived a way to capture the human soul ("Bodies are easy to come by, souls are not," proclaims Frankenstein). He gets a hold of Hans' body, captures his soul, and transfers it into the wretchedly salvaged corpse of Christina. Luckily, the Baron is also a pioneer in cosmetic surgery, and under the faithful hands of Dr. Hertz (the Baron's hands are burned) is able to transform Christina into a beautiful blond bombshell. As she now harbors the vengeful soul of Hans, Christina is able to use her seductive charm to kill the ones responsible for her father's and Hans' deaths.

Not for all tastes, I personally love this movie think it gets better with repeated viewings. It's totally unconventional as far as "Frankenstein" films go, and it takes a director like Fisher, an actor like Cushing and a screenwriter like Anthony Hinds to make it succeed on every level. Hind's script wastes no opportunity at overlapping a number of morbid sequences (two executions, a murder, a suicide, and the Baron's unworldly experiments) to lead up to the third act, which involves Christina's revenge on the three antagonists. Add other bizarre circumstances such as Christina carting around Hans' severed head as inspiration for vengeance, and later conversing to herself in his voice, and you have a satisfying horror tale to say the least.

Fisher was always quoted as saying that Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed was his favorite film because of the "love story" aspect of it, but Frankenstein Created Woman is arguably his most romance-driven effort. The relationship between Hans and Christina is what brings the story to the predicament that it's in, and Christina's unexpected discovery of her lover's beheading, followed by her own suicide, is one of the director's most powerful scenes.

Although he's given less to do here then in the other Frankenstein films, Cushing is awesome to watch in every motion and every shred of dialogue. He's kinder than usual this time, even displaying moments of concern for the young leads when their lives are at stake, but Cushing plays him cold, chauvinistic and determined, giving the impression that any warmth he expresses is only to boost his personal goals (such as in the closing moments of the film). His refusal to accommodate the newly revived, confused Christina's request for a mirror is a brilliantly subdued example of his true character.

Although Polish-born Susan Denberg only had several other acting assignments (including the "I Mudd" episode of Star Trek and the Stuart Whitman vehicle, An American Dream) and got the job because of her spread in Playboy (often the only requirement to star in a Hammer Horror), she excels in the role. Even though another actress dubbed her voice, she convincingly changes from innocent, suicidal ugly duckling to confused, suicidal and possessed beauty. But the performances are great all around; from Robert Morris' gentle yet easily enraged Hans to Thorley Walter's intoxicated, bumbling Dr. Hertz, whose fatherly kinship with Christina presents some of the film's most touching moments.
A great film and worth checking out for first time viewers and well worth another look for those who have seen it

Dr. Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) has seen his experiments fail time and again, regardless of his intense personal effort. He has put his heart and soul, not to mention people's organs, into his creations, only to foiled with each one. The latest work has been ruined also, this time by the poor timed invasion of Dr. Frankenstein's workspace. The incident has convinced the doctor that he needs to bring in some help, as he can't handle the entire load himself. He turns his attention toward Dr. Karl Holst (Simon Ward), a local doctor who isn't as on edge as Frankenstein, but isn't above underhanded deeds. Frankenstein blackmails Holst into his service, to iron some research that could be the solution to Frankenstein's problems. The solution could rest within the mind of Dr. Frederick Brandt (George Pravda), who has cracked the code on cryogenics. He has been able to freeze a human brain, a process which Frankenstein is dying to put into motion. But Brandt has gone insane and is locked up in a mental institution, which of course means his precious data is locked up as well. Frankenstein believes if he can transplant Brandt's brain into a normal donor, the madness will vanish. Can Dr. Frankenstein make this experiment work and unlock the cryogenic data, or will this be another failure?

As Hammer rolled out sequels, the studio's flame seemed to be close to extinction, but as it turned out, the fire still burned. In Terence Fisher's Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, we see that with the right assortment of talent, in front of and behind the camera, Hammer could knock out some terrific horror cinema. In this, Hammer's fifth Frankenstein picture, you'd think the source would be thin, as it was with the studio's Dracula movies. But instead, Fisher is able to weave in some great new twists and retain the tone of the series, which results in a well crafted production, perhaps one of the director's finest projects. I do think the writing, which is superb on the whole, does abandon some subplots in haste, which is a disappointment. If these smaller lines were fleshed out more, who knows how good this film could have been. The cast is excellent as well, with Peter Cushing out in front of the pack. His turn is one of his best in the series, focused and on his game, which adds a lot to the movie. The rest of the cast is solid also, which is good news, since the movie follows a decent number of characters. I would rank this with Hammer's top genre pictures and right behind Frankenstein Created Women ( which to me is the best in the series)

Dr Frankenstein has buried his old identity and is now working at an asylum where he basically has complete control and harvests the inmates for their body parts so that he may continue his ghastly experiments on reanimation with the help of an ambitious doctor who has been institutionalised. Using pieces from the asylum's most promising inmates, Frankenstein patches up a horrific brute of a monster who is as sad and tortured as he is grotesque.

Hammer's last Frankenstein film is arguably one of the best of their final years. Director Terence Fisher was back at the helm for one last crack before retiring. Peter Cushing ( sporting a bad wig here) was back in his most famous role. And as usual, Hammer provided a good supporting cast as well as some tight script writing. So the stage was set to give the Frankenstein series one last big hurrah and for the most part, it works completely. The film is a true sequel which is good, as elements from the previous films are incorporated (either for a little in-joking or for plot developments including Frankenstein being burned at the end of Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed) to allow for newer developments to make way. Unlike the Dracula series, one of the strengths of the Frankenstein series was to re-invent itself and look original in every instalment (despite the plots being almost the same). At no point here do you feel like you've been here before and it's all seemingly original material we're given. Logical progression of the story has made Frankenstein more evil and murderous in each instalment and finally Fisher decides to go the full distance and relish the fact that the previously-sane-although-corrupt scientist is now simply a mad killer who doesn't realise the futility of what he's doing. Credit must be given to Cushing as well because his performance verges on the sane/insane and at times you don't know which side of the line he's treading. It's a fitting finale for Cushing in his best cinematic role, even though he could have slept-acted the part now. Shane Briant as his assistant is also pretty good and reminds the viewer of how Frankenstein used to be: a little cold, naive but intelligent and ruthless nonetheless. Dave Prowse plays the part of the monster and through his mannerisms, he manages to turn the creature into a sympathetic and pitiful monster. For the first time, Hammer decided to actually go with an out-and-out monster instead of just some guy with a big head and big boots. That's maybe one of the reasons why so many people dislike this entry. Albeit the suit isn't particularly convincing but it's still believable if you remember this is a mixture of about 60 body parts from different people - it ain't gonna be perfect folks. Gore was upped in the later Hammer films and there are plenty of surgical pleasantries here, with no less a brain transplant revealed in all of it's shocking power. Depending on what version you get, some parts may be censored ( this cuts my rating down half a star since the US DVD is the cut version. Try to find the old laser disc from Japan to see the uncut version) And like the rest of the Hammer films, it wouldn't be a Frankenstein film without the finale where the monster does meet it's maker (but not before a classic Hammer moment where the creature is digging graves during a lightning storm).

To sum up here. Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell is an excellent finale to the Frankenstein series and that's because everyone from the director to the actors to the guys who makes the coffee seem to be on top form here. Check it out.

A fantastic blend of science fiction and real life settings, this film gets just about everything right. Casting was practically perfect, with great performances, particularly by veteran Sean Connery. Connery and Lambert shared a great chemistry off screen which translated well on screen. And Clancy Brown as the Kurgan is to me one of the greatest and most memorable villains of all time. Bad to the bone, with a great, if twisted sense of humor.

The best part aside from the great swordplay were the flashbacks through history, which fleshed out the characters and their journeys through time. The scene transitions from present to past and visa versa were inspired to say the least.

The music by Queen was a masterpiece that superbly complemented the film. One particularly heartbreaking scene was rendered even more tragic by the haunting score. And the opening credits were announced with the pulse pounding "Princes of the Universe."

My only complaint about the film doesn't even involve the film itself, but its sequels. This is a stand alone movie, with an ending that no amount of brilliant writing could have worked around in my opinion. Some prequels would have been interesting, but that's about all that could be done with the story.

My feelings on the film are the same as they were the 1st time I seen it. I'm not sure if this is a movie for everyone, and can't with certainty say that it has a wide appeal. But all the ingredients for a great film are there, and it certainly ranks high amongst my favorites. Highly recommended.

Highlander 2 is a true epic in it's badness, a Citizen Kane of awfulness that can never be truly put into words. You can't be told how bad this film is, you have to see it? But be warned it's not bad in cute way, or like an Ed Wood film, it's bad like having a root canal without the novocaine way.

Highlander 2 had appeared to come from good pedigree; the original team were in place including the director and the main cast Lambent and Connery. But when a film starts out with an alien world called Ziest you know you are in trouble.

Now for sure there are worse films out there, but these are probably student films or what Roger Corman left on the cutting room floor. What takes Highlander 2 into uncharted realms of movie badness is the sheer scale of its drop in quality from the first. It's like having a favorite old sweet frail aunt when you were a child who would give you chocolates and toys, and then all of a sudden she ingests 5 bottles of steroids takes out a chainsaw and hacks all your family and friends to death. This is the kind of shock you get from watching highlander and then moving on to highlander 2. There are no words in any language that can describe just how bad this film is.

You also have to wonder what awesome substances must have been past around the studio and cast that no one thought this film was a bad idea and that the best idea was to burn the negative on the spot.

With regards spoilers there is no way to spoil this film however this film is the mother of spoilers for the first film. It exterminates the premise of Highlander which was the mystery of the immortals. It's rare that a bad sequel can have such a negative impact on the quality of the first film, but Highlander 2 does a good job of destroying the first film. Once you know who the immortals are you can never look at the first film in the same light, such is the sheer biblical badness of this film and it's so called plot.

It will probably take another thousand years before anyone comes close to making another film as bad as this one. Roger Ebert summed this film up the best by saying " it's awesome in it's badness"

Ignoring the events of "Highlander 2," this film picks up 9 yrs after the first. We find MacLeod living with his adoptive son in Morocco and satisfied that he is the last immortal and has the coveted "Prize." Soon he receives a cognition that more immortals are alive (revived from "death" by an archaeological dig) and packs for NYC for a duel with the evil sorcerer immortal Kane.

Made while the TV show was at its peak, this film benefits from the influence of its narrative and production style that had been refined over the years. Most of the characters and their relationships (especially the love interests) are thin and underdeveloped. The movie relies heavily on nostalgia for the 1st film for the impact of its emotional scenes. It also mirrors it's story to the point of being a near remake. The police hunt subplot simply drops out of the picture near the end and the villains are too silly to be threatening. The special f/x are enjoyable but underused (Kane barely uses his illusions during fights.)

Still, the deja vu, and pretension and trickery themes are well handled (though not explored as much as they could have been). Lambert is as appropriately melancholy and good humored as in previous entries, Van Peeples is clearly having fun with his deliciously devilish over the top performance exploiting every villainous cliché in the book, Unger is soild in her role and quite beautiful (even more so in the obligatory sex scene, of course), and Mako's dignified presence is, of course, a welcome addition to the "Highlander" saga. The special f/x were good for its time and are still fairly impressive today.

Overall, a competent production and a mildly entertaining, if rehashed, film with some interesting ideas that were not fully realized. This is the best of the sequels

I'm a big fan of the first Highlander movie but I can't say I watched the tv series. So I guess I was just kinda indifferent when I heard that a movie/series crossover film was being made. The two previous Highlander sequels were a mixed bag(Highlander 2 gets my vote as one of the worst films ever made). I have to say that Endgame is not a awful film, but that, ultimately, is not much to boast about either.

This sequel feels more like a movie of the series than a sequel to the other movies.

Christopher Lambert (The original Highlander) reprises his role as Connor Macleod and Adrian Paul stars as his distant cousin Duncan Macleod (hero of the TV series). The two cousins must join forces if they are to stop the ultimate immortal, fellow Highlander Jacob Kell from winning the prize.

Although Connor Macleod is in this movie, this is definitely Duncans movie.

The movie starts off well enough.... Connor's adopted daughter (whom he saved in the first movie) is murdered in an explosion by an unknown enemy, and Connor goes into seclusion, not wanting to bring death to those around him. Through flashbacks, we then see why this murder took place. The Clan Macleod, after banishing Connor from Glennfinnin, put Connors mother on trial for heresy (giving birth to the spawn of Satan) Connor returns to the village to stop them burning her at the stake but is too late. In anger he kills two priests, a father and son. However the son, Jacob, comes back as an immortal hell bent on revenge.

Back in the present Duncan is having visions of Connor and employs the help of his friends Methos and Dawson to help track Connor down. They find out Connor went into seclusion in a place called the Sanctuary, a prison for immortals who no longer wish to participate in the game. When the Sanctuary is attacked and all its inmates killed, Duncan fears the worst and goes in search of Connors body. However, Connor is still alive and meets up with Duncan. Since his murder at the hands of Connor, Jacob has become the ultimate immortal, with many immortal kills (More than Connor and Duncan combined we later learn) and its up to the Macleod cousins to stop him.

Connor and Duncan confront Kell and Connor and Kell fight. Connor is defeated, but again, left alive as Jacob Kell wants he and Connor to be the last immortals left. Kell announces that he will kill all the people that Connor holds dear, and with Rachel dead Duncan is the only person in the world Connor "gives a damn about". Duncan is on borrowed time.

Unfortunately, after this scene the movie goes downhill fast as we are subjected to a pointless subplot for the next 50 minutes involving Duncan and his ex-wife Kate (now called Faith), who is played by an actress employed more for her looks and willingness to get naked than for her acting ability, it seems. Duncans ex-wife has teamed with Kell in a bid to get revenge on Duncan, who killed her years ago and made her an immortal too.

The story then turns into a trifle of melodramatics and love triangles between Duncan, Kate and Kell take up too much valuable screen time that could and should have been used to focus on the Connor/Kell feud.

Connor is absent throughout much of the middle of this movie and Duncan is left to fill it with brooding and Paul's questionable acting talent

Another detractor from the movie is Kells band of sidekicks, a motorcycle riding band of cheap, camp, fodder..all with their own ridiculous costumes and unique "weapons". Even the usually great Donnie Yen is wasted, and apart from his one fight scene with Duncan, does nothing much else for the whole movie but sit there. (total waste of his talents). And the idea of immortals working for another immortal baffles me to no end but I'm not a huge fan of the Highlander series outside of the 1st film so maybe a Highlander fan more in the know could explain this to me.

All in all this movie was very badly written for the most part and not enough time is devoted to Connor after the first half hour. The last 20 minutes are okay, when the two Macleods make the ultimate decision on how they will stop Kell, and the final fight is good (if badly edited). I would skip this one unless you are a die hard fan of the films and have watched a lot of the series.

For many years, "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier" was the least commercially successful Star Trek film (that honor now belongs to "Nemesis"). It's hard to dispute that fact because the figures don't lie. The real argument begins when Star Trek fans discuss the artistic merit of the film. Most dismiss it altogether as a William Shatner ego trip with bad special effects and a poor ending.

OK, let's get all of that out of the way. The special effects could have been better (i've seen worse). ILM, which created the effects for Star Treks II-IV were busy or unavailable and the producers turned to another company. The effects would've been OK for TV, but on screen they came off pretty cheesy. The saga of how Shatner lost the budget to create the ending he envisioned for his film is legendary. The final product looked rushed because it was rushed. Finally, Shatner as director was probably as restrained as you could hope for. The supporting cast really shined.

With that out of the way, let's talk about five reasons you should reconsider "Star Trek V: The Final Frontier." The acting. I would stack the acting of this movie against any of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy era. Check out the scenes when Vulcan renegade Sybok forces Spock and McCoy to "face their pain." Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelly are given the ability to really act here and the payoff is some truly emotional scenes. Honestly, they are great to watch.



The Kirk-Spock-McCoy trio. Have these characters ever been better? Seeing them sit around a camp fire, discussing family, friends, life and death is great. It's funny, poignant and really takes advantage of the history these characters (and actors) share. How else could Spock react to the campfire song "Row, row, row your boat," other than to try and disseminate the lyrics? "Captain... life IS NOT a dream." Seeing that line pay off in the climax is brilliant.

The Pace: "Star Trek V" is a fast-paced, rollicking adventure that only slows down when it needs to. It not a great movie but it's never dull.

Its place in "Star Trek" history. There will never be another "Star Trek" film with the classic crew. As one of only six that were made, we should relish this film and the many good things about it. Klingons, renegade Vulcans, Jerry Goldsmith's fantastic score, Spock and McCoy arguing, Scotty fighting with the transporters, Starfleet rescue parties on horseback, Vulcan nerve pinches, phasers blasting, creatures pretending to be the almighty, great barriers, warp-speed escapes, birds of prey, mind melds and Kirk proclaiming that he "fears nothing. Overall not for non Trek fans but worth a look for the original crew in action.

Some spoilers here *************************************************************

Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country" is the final film with the entire original cast. This is also one of the best of the series because we see the Enterprise crew, past their prime, save the universe one more time.

As the film opens, we are witness to an ecological disaster. As the starship Excelsior, now under the command of Capt. Sulu (George Takei)is on a survey, they witness the aftermath of the explosion of the Klingon moon called Praxis. Even though Sulu is ready to offer assistance, The Klingons want no help from them.

Later, the Enterprise crew is called into a top secret meeting and is apprised of the situation,which is dire (Think Chernoble). Because of the devastation (Which will destroy their ozone within 50 years), the Klingons offer to extend an olive branch with the Federation. In other words, The Klingons and The Federation want a peace treaty.

Considering that the Klingon Empire and the Federation have been at each others throats for ages, this doesn't sit well with the parties involved, especially Captain Kirk (William Shatner), who wants nothing to do with the process considering that it was the Klingons who had killed his son (See "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock"). In fact, when Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy), who has been working with the Klingons for the treaty, tells them that they are dying, Kirk viciously says "Let them die!" Ouch. However, he has to follow orders.

Soon the crew of the Enterprise meets with Chancellor Gorkon (David Warner), his officer General Chang (Christopher Plummer) and his daughter Azetbur (Rosanna DeSoto). During a dinner in which pretty much everyone is intoxicated with Romulan Ale, there is some negativity among both sides, clearly indicating that the road to peace is going to be a bumpy one.

And it is.

Later, the Klingon ship is fired upon, seemingly by The Enterprise, and the Chancellor is assassinated, despite the attempts of Kirk and McCoy (DeForest Kelley) to save him. Both Kirk and McCoy are arrested and put on trial. Found guilty, both are sentenced to the ice planet known as Rura Penthe. How bad is it? Judging from Uhura's (Nichelle Nichols) and Scotty's(James Doohan)reaction, it would have been better for Kirk and McCoy to have been executed on the spot.

Spock knows that a conspiracy is present. And so, while he is trying to find out the facts, Kirk and McCoy try to stay alive on the penal planet.

With time running out before the peace conference starts, the crew of the Enterprise must not also save Kirk and McCoy, but to race to the site of the conference to stop another assassination from taking place, which will destroy any chance of peace. This proves even more difficult when they discover that there is a Klingon Bird of Prey that can fire when cloaked. And that those involved in the conspiracy work on both sides of the coin.

What is interesting about the film is that it mirrors the general feelings between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union. Once considered enemies, each side works together for peace, even if both sides are skeptical. We also see the flaws of the crew of the Enterprise: everyone is prejudiced. Chekov (Walter Koenig), during dinner, mentions "unalienable human rights," and is chastised by Azetbur for his "racist" comments. Even Mr. Spock is prejudiced: he's so blinded by the accomplishments of his Vulcan protégé Valeris (Kim Catrall), that he doesn't see how much of a threat she is (He admits this to Kirk later on) until it is almost too late.

It is nice to see the crew back in action one last time, and you can't help but get a bit misty eyed (Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek died before it's release, and this film is dedicated to him). A nice way to end the series, but it's hard to say goodbye.

Some plot spoilers here ********************************************
STAR TREK: GENERATIONS serves neither the original TREK series or the 'Next Generation' crew very well, but producer Rick Berman had a nearly impossible task: to satisfy the fans demanding a Kirk/Picard story, and to please the followers of the popular spin-off. Berman and Paramount had no desire to see the original cast in any more features (it would be difficult enough to provide ample screen time for both large casts), but Paramount demanded that he create a 'transition' between crews, so he wrote, with Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga, an opening sequence featuring Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, with a climax that would supposedly have Kirk 'die' alone, in space, thus fulfilling his prophecy from STAR TREK V.

As another link between TREKS, Leonard Nimoy was asked to direct GENERATIONS, a wise decision, as he had worked in both TV series, had directed two successful TREK films, and co-written a third. But after reading the script, he said, bluntly, it was TERRIBLE! He offered suggestions, but Berman, struggling to complete the last episodes of TNG, as well as put the film together, did not want to burn up any more production time on rewrites, politely informing Nimoy to shoot what was written. Nimoy turned down the assignment, showing DeForest Kelley the script. After reading it, Kelley stated that he felt THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY was a far more suitable finale for Dr. McCoy, and passed on it, as well. Shatner, getting a HUGE paycheck to revive Kirk a last time, remained committed, and James Doohan and Walter Koenig were hastily called in for the opening sequence (which was why Scotty called Kirk 'Jim', and Chekov was suddenly gifted with medical skills). Kirk's disappearance still packed a wallop, but the absence of Spock and McCoy blunted much of the scene's dramatic power.

With TNG director David Carson now in charge, a larger-scaled yet mediocre 'Next Generation' film emerged, with Picard and Data getting most of the screen time, and La Forge suffering the kind of physical abuse that Chekov routinely got in the earlier TREK films. Picard experiences a personal tragedy, and, as he had, far more memorably in the TV series, ruminates about the life he 'could' have had, had Starfleet not keeped calling. Meanwhile, evil Dr. Tolian Soran (Malcolm McDowell), having discovered a benevolent entity, the Nexus, that would allow him to 'live' with his dead wife in an eternal state of bliss (a la George Clooney's SOLARIS), decides to destroy a planet to reroute the entity to him (why he didn't just hijack a spaceship and fly into it is not well explained). Utilizing two whacked-out Klingon sisters and their 'Bird of Prey', he soon attacks the Enterprise, and when Picard attempts to stop him on the planet's surface, the captain fails, with the pair sucked into the Nexus.

Picard finds himself in the idyllic family life he'd always dreamed of, but, through willpower and the intervention of a 'ghost' of Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg), he comes to his senses, and is told the 'help' he needs to defeat Saran is in the Nexus...in the form of James T. Kirk, sucked into the entity nearly eighty years before...

While the 'Meeting of the Captains' offers the 'strengths' of both actors (Shatner shows his signature physicality and cockiness, Stewart, as always, is quiet and intellectual), the scenes are enjoyable, and both Captains share a horseback ride (something Shatner had wanted to do since STAR TREK V). Of course, Picard convinces Kirk to join him against Saran ("It sounds like fun," Kirk admits).

In yet another continuity glitch, the two captains leave the Nexus BEFORE Picard's initial confrontation with Saran (if the Nexus has any power over time, why didn't they just reappear prior to Saran's arrival...or why did Picard need Kirk, at all, if he could have just returned, alone, and blasted Saran?) Of course, as Berman wanted to finish Kirk off, once and for all, he had to bring him out, as well...

Speaking of Kirk's death scene...In the FIRST cut of the film, after a short but exhausting fight sequence (clearly showing Kirk as too old and out of shape for hand-to-hand combat), Saran pulls out a hidden blaster, and shoots him in the back...while the dying Captain stalls the villain long enough for Picard to save the day, the Enterprise's most famous Captain dies, in a most unheroic manner (perhaps an honest indication of how Berman felt about Kirk!).

Berman had NO idea how popular Captain Kirk was, however, and the preview audience was so outraged by the sequence that Paramount, sensing a potential disaster, demanded the scene be rewritten and re-shot, a costly (as the film had already 'wrapped') but necessary move.

The second version offered far more of the 'Classic' Captain Kirk that fans had come to expect, facing Saran fearlessly, duking it out, and proving himself far more of a match for the alien than Picard had been. He ends up 'saving the day', although there is a sense of irony that a man who'd spent most of his life on a 'bridge' would die when a bridge he's on collapses!

While this ending was FAR superior to the first version, it still seemed an ignoble climax to a legend. Even William Shatner, after viewing it, considered killing Kirk a bad move, and offered a screenplay for a sequel where Kirk would be resurrected...which Berman, wanting NOTHING more to do with him, refused.

So Kirk dies, his body covered with stones by Picard, and the 'Next Generation' crew is evacuated from yet another destroyed Enterprise.

STAR TREK: GENERATIONS could have been a much better film, but in his haste to finish it, and move on, Rick Berman disappointed both series' fans. Fortunately, the best of the 'Next Generation' films, FIRST CONTACT, would soon be made

From the opening scenes, which re-introduce the 'Next Generation's' greatest villains, the Borg, finally achieving their long-time goal of attacking Earth, and literally tearing Starfleet to shreds, as Picard and the Enterprise are ordered to stand down (Picard had been 'assimilated' once by the cyborgs, and the success of his 'deprogramming' was in question), there was an intensity that 'Trek' films hadn't shown since THE WRATH OF KHAN. When Picard decides to disobey orders and go 'in Harm's Way', you nearly want to cheer! Turning the battle around, the Enterprise sees victory at hand...until they discover that the 'core' of the Borg mother ship has plunged into Earth's atmosphere, and gone back in time. As the crew glimpses a 'changed' Earth, with humanity totally assimilated by the Borg, they plunge after the mother ship, to prevent history from being rewritten.

Quite an opening scene!

The film breaks into two stories, each entertaining. In an era two hundred years earlier, with Earth reeling from internal wars that have devastated much of the planet, Picard realizes that the Borg is attempting to prevent warp drive creator Dr. Zefram Cochrane from ever completing his prototype spaceship, thus denying the galaxy to the human race, and leaving them defenseless against the Borg. As First Officer Riker and most of the series' regulars protect the feisty engineer (first introduced in the original 'Trek' TV series by hunky Glenn Corbett; in FIRST CONTACT, the role is played by James Cromwell, hawk-nosed, antisocial, and hooked on ancient Rock n' Roll music), Data and Picard must deal with the growing Borg infiltration and assimilation of the Enterprise, and the imperious Borg Queen (lovely Alice Krige), who seduces Data with a chance to become 'human'.

Jonathan Frakes proves an excellent director, balancing the action, comic, and dramatic elements with sensitivity and skill. While most of the series' regulars have little to do (a problem that would never be resolved in the 'Next Generation' films), Frakes still manages to give each a bit of on-screen time to at least remind fans that they are present, and he even manages to provide a brief but funny cameo by semi-regular fan favorite Dwight Schultz, as the terminally shy Lt. Reggie Barclay.

FIRST CONTACT has so many memorable moments that it is nearly impossible to pick a single favorite one out. Cochrane's use of Steppenwolf's 'Magic Carpet Ride' as launch music for his guided missile/spaceship...Alfre Woodard's Lily Sloane, hiding in terror from the Borg, but still able to lecture Picard on doing the 'right thing'...'Star Trek: Voyager' regular Robert Picardo in a cameo as his medical hologram character, at a key moment...Data delivering the famous Borg 'tag line'...the Vulcan science party (led, although unmentioned, by Sarek, Spock's father), bemused at meeting the 'new kids on the block' for the first time...this movie has it all!

There is only one major continuity error; the Borg, as cyborgs, depend on their human 'host' bodies to survive (a key factor in the film's climax), yet in one whole sequence they operate in the vacuum of space without spacesuits! I cringe each time I see the scene, but I still love the movie.

One other key element of the film cannot be praised enough; Jerry Goldsmith's score is one of his finest, combining the best elements of the STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE theme with a sweeping inspirational hymn for Cochrane, and eerie, discordant music for the Borg. The score is so profoundly moving that it could stand alone, as a symphonic work.

Sadly, Berman and company never achieved the same heights with either of the subsequent 'Trek' films, but at least we have FIRST CONTACT, to show that a 'Next Generation' feature could be done 'right'.

Well I come to the next to last film with the Next Generation cast and here is my verdict, not good, not bad, not much of anything. The enjoyment I felt in this movie was entirely due to seeing the characters again; the story was confused and uninteresting. It wasn't until some time had passed after I'd seen it that I finally realized that "Insurrection" referred to Capt. Picard! Oh, yeah, he's breaking some kind of rule -- the problem is, the "authority" he was rebelling against seemed so distant and unimportant, it was easy to forget that there was any other dimension to the story than the shooting and hide-and-seek between the heroes and the bad guys. The whole plot was boring and uninvolving, probably because the pastoral Ba'ku who need protection are unbelievable even in a science fiction movie. A race of hippy immortals who know all about advanced science, but choose not to use it; do we know anyone who prefers to haul their water by hand and lug it to the house if a better method is available? Anything more advanced, it seems, would be "corrupting", but they are willing to accept the help of the more advanced weapons Picard and his crew are equipped with when push comes to shove. The romance between Anij and Picard was merely exasperating; perhaps they thought this movie would be daring and original by showing the captain falling for a mature woman instead of the usual twenty-something who sets her cap for him, but Anij overdoes the Earth-mother bit. It's hard to believe Picard could have anything to say to this po-faced bore; when they settle down in a glen for her to teach him about slowing down time, I searched in vain for the standard incense sticks and windchimes. Oh, but I forgot - she's brilliant, too.

"First Contact" was genuinely exciting and engaging; several times during that movie I caught myself wondering "how on earth are they going to escape?" This movie, by contrast, was a plod. At one point late in the movie my attention wavered, I missed one line, and from then on had no idea what was going on or what was the point of the climactic duel between Picard and the arch-villain. I still haven't really figured that out, because I would have to watch the movie again to do so, and I don't intend too. For die hard Trek fans only

Well this is ( for now) the last Next Generation movie and all I can say its too bad that it had to end like this, they deserve better.

Trekkie's Law #1: The even numbered films in the series are always outstanding (Khan, First Contact, Voyage Home) while the odd films are always iffy (Insurrection, Final Frontier). Search For Spock being the exception to this law.

Law #2: Occasionally borrowing from other sci-fi sources is ok, but borrowing from oneself is bad.

Murphy's Law: If something bad can happen, it will.

"Star Trek Nemesis" is an engaging idea, but several scenes, plotpoints and concepts taken directly from "Wrath of Khan" cripple this one and shows how close this "Generations" writers have come to running out of ideas.

If youre a true sci-fi fan, you'll catch the obvious Trek references as well as others to "Star Wars" and "2001". Too bad the cute in-jokes don't help what is essentially a fundamentally weak script.

Plotline is as follows, a warning......spoilers may be contained herein, read the next Four paragraphs at your own discretion.

Somewhere, somehow, the Romulans gained a copy of Capt. Picard (Patrick Stewart)'s DNA. This was the beginning of a plan to create a clone of him, so that they may infiltrate the Federation at the highest levels. This clone's name: Shinzon. Once this plan is abandoned by yet another government shakeup, Shinzon (wonderfully played by Tom Hardy) is left for dead in the dilithium mines on planet Remus. There he finds companionship and eventually assassinates the Romulan government, putting himself in charge.

Of course, like a bad James Bond villain, Shinzon invites peace talks with the Federation and naturally the Enterprise is the only ship in the area, heading to Betazed following the wedding of Counselor Troi (Marina Sirtis) and Cmdr. Riker (Jonathan Frakes). Naturally, Shinzon is happy with his development, as he has other things in mind for Picard.

Epic space battles follow, with Romulan warbirds gallantly assisting Enterprise in her attempts to defeat Shinzon's massive warbird. Dina Meyer ("Starship Troopers") plays a good, if not underused Romulan known as Commander Donatra. Nice to see her again, as she takes what shes given and makes the most of it.

Tom Hardy, as previously stated, is wonderful as the vengance seeking Shinzon. Blaming not only the Romulans, but the people of earth as well, his maniaical quest for revenge drives him to violate numerous interstellar treaties in the creation of an ultimate weapon that can terminate all life in a given area in seconds (Genesis anyone???). Very nicely played though.

Patrick Stewart gives a workman's redition of Picard, almost looking like he'd rather be working on and X Men movie rather than this film, but Picard is always the leader and even gets a chance to "let his hair down" in his one.

Jonathan Frakes is all but left out of this one, save for an out of place love scene with new wife Troi, which leads into other plot points, but could have been handled less cheesily.

Brent Spiner delivers a scene stealing Data, and even as the less advanced version B-4 he shines on through this muddled mess. Data always seems to be one of the more interesting characters, and Spiner has yet to fail in this series.

None of the other cast mattered or figured in this one, save for Ron Perlman (tv's "Beauty and the Beast") as Shinzon's Viceroy. Very nicely done.

It won't be hard to see the "Khan" ripoffs, or the "Doomsday Machine" references. Having had 4 years to work on the story ("Insurrection was released in 1998), one would naturally assume to not be sitting in the theater, making jokes about expecting to hear Kirk's epiloge "of all the souls I've encountered in my travels" speech at the end! Very poor storywriting and cinematography (did the power fail at the studio one day and they write the story around that?) make this final voyage one I was sad to take.

Some Spoilers Here **************************************************************

When I read the synopsis for The Descent at the time of its release in theaters, I thought to myself "This is just like The Cave, only with chicks (er, excuse me, an all-female cast)". Now, the concept of a bunch of hot-looking young women who are into extreme sports does sound appealing, but the real reason why I wanted to watch this movie was because I very much enjoyed director Neil Marshall's previous film DOG SOLDIERS. And let me say right away: Though I kinda liked The Cave , The Descent is a far better movie. It has more suspense and is more realistic, to name only two things.

The plot maybe isn't extremely original but it is executed perfectly and the over-all structure is flawless. The opening-scene is very powerful and will make you jump. It grabs your attention. Once inside the cave Marshall starts building up tension, very slowly (and I do mean slowly). After about 50 minutes the action kicks in, and it's a real thrill-ride. All leading up to a clever, satisfying but very dark ending. Between all this madness there's even a nice twist in the plot concerning one of the character's background. In short: This movie grabs you, pulls you in and doesn't let go until the end-credits roll.

The middle-part of the movie feels more like a survival-movie (and that's a trick Marshall also uses in Dog Soldiers, blending genres), because everything you'd expect to go wrong while exploring a cave does indeed go wrong: Getting stuck & claustrophobia kicking in, a cave collapsing, crossing a ravine, breaking a leg (in a bloody-open-fracture kinda way),... And just when our six girls start to think that things couldn't possible get any worse, they find out the hard way that much bigger problems are lurking in the dark...

There's a lot of blood & gore in this movie, especially in the second half. The make-up effects are rather excellent and the Crawlers, with their scary noises, look real creepy. Only complaint is that they still looked a little too human (their bodies, that is, not their actions). Some scenes are digitally enhanced, but you barely notice it. The sets all look real and the lighting is cleverly used. For instance, when the group gets divided, Marshall uses different lighting (like green flares, red torches,...) to indicate which person you're looking at in order to avoid any confusion. Never at any moment does the lighting feel artificial, so it works. Even some of the jump-scenes actually work. The musical score's almost perfect, never too dominant but adding to the atmosphere and raising the movie to a higher level.

Neil Marshall clearly knows how to make good horror-movies and I strongly believe this director's going places. This is one of the best British horror-movies I've seen in a long time and one that proves once again that you don't need a big budget to make a good movie. So if you like violent horror, then go see this flick. And remember: Darkness won't kill you; what's in it will!