Change Your Image
GregJayC
Reviews
Long Time Dead (2002)
Judge it by its own merits...
I can't help feeling that people are being too hard on this film. OK, I'll admit it: it so wants to be trendy, it screams low production values (about six film studios had to inject cash into it just to get a release), and it's basically a mess. But at least it's different...
Most reviewers have compared it to Scream. Scream was a fine movie, even spawning some decent sequels and half-decent copies. But you just can't put Long Time Dead into the same subgenre. It isn't an ironic, trendy, sometimes-funny kind of film. Instead it's dark, menacing and - although silly in places - still manages to produce a few good moments. A comparison to Jeepers Creepers is much more fitting. Personally, I loved Jeepers: it signalled an end to the moribund Scream-type, which has been done to death, and instead returned to the roots of pure horror: trying to scare.
Long Time Dead, while not as good as Jeepers Creepers, has a good stab at this too. Yes, sometimes the Djinn idea seems silly, and the ending definitely lets the rest of the film down - but on the whole it's rather good. I disagree with pathetically picky reviewers who comment on the acting and the production crew's abilities - at the end of the day, it's a Friday night movie intended to give a few jolts. Why do you expect every film you see to be up to the standard of the best?
I also happen to disagree with people who comment on the lack of gore or explicit death scenes. I was surprised to realize, after I'd watched the film, that not one single death was shown on screen - when I was watching, I didn't notice this at all. Surely this is a sign of success. Besides, there was plenty of after-death gore, for those that look for that kind of thing. It's one of the bloodier movies of recent times. Perhaps this is down to differences between the theatrical and the DVD versions. I saw the latter.
One point I will concede: like many others, I hated the characters. Personally I don't sympathize with people who take drugs, hang around all the time and seemingly don't have jobs. This made it a lot harder to feel for those who died (and there were a lot of deaths to sit through). There were a few exceptions to this: the characters of Liam, Annie and Webster, I quite liked. (Lukas Haas alone in the house with "it" was one of the best scenes in the film).
To summarize: it's slightly clichéd but original in places; the acting is perfectly acceptable for a film of this type; and in my opinion it succeeds in producing some truly scary moments - and I have seen a lot of horror films.
So don't listen to people who: (a) hype the movie so much that they think it's "the best horror in years" or: (b) dismiss it as extremely predictable and boring.
Because they're all wrong. It's not brilliant, but it certainly isn't bad. And it's at least worth a rental fee.
Valentine (2001)
Half clone, half original - with a bit of homage thrown in
Reading most of the user comments of this film, I can't help but notice that many say it is a "rip-off" and complain that there is a lack of originality and character development. Even more groan-inducing were some peoples' superficial comments regarding Katherine Heigl's weight or the number of females in the film. Are those really valid reasons to dismiss a movie?
Firstly: what do you expect? Directors and studios cannot be blamed for adhering to well-established formulae when people like you (and me, for that matter) go and see them in droves. Instead of dismissing the film as a mere clone *after* you have seen it, perhaps you should expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised when a spark of originality does come up.
Because this film in particular has more of it than most. OK - so there is a killer in a mask who stalks and kills in a variety of ways. But seriously: there has to be a number of deaths in a horror film, and how else is it going to be achieved? OK, so perhaps the mask is a cliché that could have been abandoned. Or certainly improved - that supposed "cherub" face did nothing for me.
As far as characterisation goes, there is a fair amount considering the ninety minute length. The character of Dorothy, although slightly stereotyped, is somewhat intriguing and portrayed admirably by Jessica Capshaw. Denise Richards, despite the claims of many, did the best with what she was given.
One of the most original aspects of this film is the lack of a singularly defined protagonist. There is no Sidney Prescott/Laurie Strode heroine who is targeted but virtually invincible. The screen time is devoted equally to a few of the characters. One effect of this is that you never quite know who will be next or what certain character's motives are. This adds to the overall strength of the denouement - which is one of the best endings that I have seen for a long time in a film of this genre .
The fact that Valentine contains references to Carrie, as well as many slasher films from the eighties, is neither annoying nor outstanding. Such touches can be effective, and as long as it is a step away from the ironic, in-jokey, post-modern Scream-type slasher (which was fine while it lasted, but has become overdone), then there is nothing wrong with it.
Overall, a very entertaining and stylish movie. It is much better than Blanks' "Urban Legend", which was itself a fine film in some places. The only thing that could spoil this film now is a sequel. And I love sequels.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Effective - but exaggerated - version of Burgess' novella
Firstly, it may be something of a cliché, but it has to be said: the book is vastly superior to the film, and should ideally be read beforehand. There is the constant danger that the violence and imagery of the movie enthralls to such an extent that the original meaning becomes lost - thus, we end up with psychopaths hailing the film and ignoring its message simply because it is violent and "against the 'norm'", and at the opposite end of the spectrum, people becoming so disgusted by the scenes that they do not care if the film has a message or not.
Incidentally, too much fuss is made over the 21st chapter being omitted in the film as in the US version of the book. Included or not, the film still contains the fundamental message (only to a different extent) that choice is a basic right of all human beings - whatever Alex chooses in the end reinforces this.
But I will try not to dwell on the philosophical aspects of the film too much. Entertainment-wise, "A Clockwork Orange" is a total gross-out. It's recommended for those who are impassive towards, (or, God forbid, in favour of), "ultraviolence". Personally, I think that the violence is exaggerated - the notorious and unnecessary drowning scene leaves you both speechless and wondering, "How did they do that?"
As far as symbolism goes, there is a lot. It will go straight over the heads of some people - it went over mine, and I am studying this book in English Literature class. Nonetheless, it's enjoyable, but should ONLY be taken seriously if you want to fully consider its moral messages, of which there are plenty. Otherwise, just enjoy it and then forget about it.
Alibi (1997)
How surprising - I'm the first to comment...
Tori Spelling has absolutely no talent. It's a well known and little disputed fact. In fact, none of the Spelling family have any talent. So imagine my surprise when spoiled little rich girl Tori actually reached some half-decent acting standards in this movie.
Well - that's mostly true. Of the scenes with her presence (trust me - that means *every* scene), half of them involved trying to look serious, pouting, and trying too hard, while the other half were in reality not as cringeworthy as would be expected. It was kinda fun trying to guess how bad she would be in the following scene.
Unfortunately, the fun stops there. That was the only unpredictable element of the movie. Hmm... I don't know about you, but to me, the word "alibi" conjures up images of deception, cool plot twists and surprise endings. And yet, "The Alibi" contains NONE of these things. To avoid ruining what little element of surprise there is in the movie, all I will say is this: it's obvious. No, really. In fact, it's even beyond the "too obvious" stage. Even if it were just "too obvious", there would always be the possibility of it not being true. Following me? In short, either this movie is trying to be extra-intelligent (and failing), or it is just a crap movie (more likely).
All in all, though, it isn't such a bad way to spend nearly two hours. The story has a small amount of originality and ingenuity. There are much better "wrong number movies" out there. At least at the end of it you will be able to say, "I knew that all along!"
Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
Fans of AC may be disappointed.
First of all, I would like to cast aside all of the movie jargon and mumbo-jumbo such as directing, lighting, score, etc. In my opinion the two most important ingredients by far are the same that one would say of a book: plot and character.
I have read all 79 of Agatha Christie's mystery novels. Hercule Poirot has always been my favourite detective and "Orient" is one of my favourite books. I had built up my excitement before watching this film, and so it comes as no surprise that I was very disappointed.
The plot, I found very easy to follow. Naturally it was because I was familiar with it, and the solution. But I can understand others who have posted comments when they remark how obscure and far-fetched the whole thing was. But I get rather irate when they then start to criticise Agatha Christie for these faults. The responsibility lies with the DIRECTOR and the DRAMATIST to make things easy to follow: try reading the book and then re-evaluate the film. There is no doubt which one you will prefer.
The character acting was touch and go. Out of the seventeen characters, I was satisfied with the portrayals of very few. Ingrid Bergman, John Gielgud and Wendy Hiller stand out particularly in my mind for being extremely close to their parts: Greta, Beddoes and the Princess respectively. There is no doubt that *all* of the cast members performed to their fullest: but their interpretations were somewhat misguided. Lauren Bacall added her own flair to the part, and did very well. But somehow she wasn't old enough, was too refined and a lot nastier than how I had imagined Mrs Hubbard from the book.
The award for the absolutely worst portrayal of an Agatha Christie character EVER has to go to Albert Finney. His attempt was laughable. Poirot is infinitely more refined and polite, does not usually shout, and would never in a million years tear a menu up and throw it over his shoulder! As well as these added mannerisms, there were a few characteristics of his that were shamefully left out. Where was the reference to his methodical neatness? Or his pride in appearance (excepting the wonderful scene when he prepares to sleep)? I agree wholeheartedly that the onlooker is meant to chuckle at Poirot in an affectionate way once every so often - but not every FIVE minutes!
In closing, I would say that his portrayal ruined the whole film for me. I could have put up with Anthony Perkins's and Sean Connery's typecast portrayals - but Poirot is meant to be the most important element of the film, and not to be constantly laughed at. Besides, he just *looked* wrong. Even grey-haired, overweight Peter Ustinov was better.
My final advice: once again, READ THE BOOK! Agatha is unbeaten. Secondly: if you DO decide to watch a screen portrayal of Hercule Poirot, make sure it is DAVID SUCHET. In my mind, he *is* the Belgian detective with the "little grey cells".
The Cover Girl Murders (1993)
Majorly flawed, highly predictable... strangely appealing.
The title says it all - several gorgeous models running around on the beach, à la Baywatch, each getting killed in a seemingly accidental way.
If you're a gore hound, forget it: there's little action and absolutely no blood or bodies. If you're a true horror fan, you'll have figured out the plot after five minutes. The rest of the film is then spent laughing at the amusing and almost camp way which people die.
But despite all of this, it managed to keep me watching for ninety minutes. The plot, while not exactly Hitchcockian, is enough to keep amateurs guessing to the end - and the characters are easily sympathised with - the development of the main four is not all bad. Perhaps if good old Ehren had watched this movie beforehand, we might have all enjoyed a much better "Scream 3".
Nevertheless, the plot's twists and turns are actually its downfall. So many things are left unexplained at the end of the film that you wonder why you bothered at all.
But what can you expect from a TV movie? They're all the same. Tepid films with no real depth or suspense - quite how the Netherlands saw the need to cut three minutes from the film, I'll never know.
If you're a real slasher fan like me (the kind who likes sequels and will watch any trashy slasher) then watch it, but don't expect too much.
If you're an occasional horror fan, then rent "April Fool's Day" instead. There are many similarities, and it's much better done. Plus, there's added blood ;-)
* * * ½
Babe (1995)
The charming film that encouraged vegetarianism - and you can see why.
When I first heard the premise, I was not instantly attracted. I decided to wait for it to appear on the main TV network - and I realised that I was close to missing a suberb movie.
It sets itself up to be a typical kid's film - one that has children everywhere dragging uninterested adults to see it. It could so easily have been this way - but there is something about it that makes it even more enjoyable than... (trying to think of another great family movie)... dare I say it... even more enjoyable than The Wizard of Oz.
Quite what makes it so is a mystery. The animals are cute and all, but there are a ton of other movies with furry critters everyone loves. Perhaps it's the perfect character voices that accompany these creatures, or the lush and colourful scene locations.
But what really puts Babe apart from other movies is its sharp script. It gets dangerously close to becoming sentimental nonsense at times - but usually just remains sentimental. The characters are instantly adorable, even the wicked cat, who delightfully devious.
Quite simply, this is not just a film for children. I am 28, and I watched it on my own - I loved every second. There were even moments when, if I weren't the heartless cynic I am (!), the tears would have poured down my cheeks.
This film did surprisingly well worldwide, and spawned an equally enjoyable yet not as successful sequel. Muriel's Wedding aside, it is the best film to come from Australia in a long time. I urge you to rent it out and open your heart to these wonderful animals. I can guarantee that you'll think twice before eating bacon, pork, lamb or duck after this movie!
The Monster Club (1981)
Not at all scary, but so enjoyable.
From the moment I started watching, I was enthralled by every set piece, costume and plot detail.
This film, to understate, is rare indeed. A low-budget "horror" movie with a moral, loveable monsters and superb acting. Each of the three stories is well thought-out and entertaining, and the scene in which we learn of monster genealogy is wonderful.
Price is on top form, as usual. He is, with the possible exception of Peter Cushing, the best horror actor of all time. His sincere manner coupled with his traditional English accent make him the most unusual vampire you will ever see.
The first story is slow to start, but soon quickens pace. It features the best acting of the three tales, and the three lead characters have deliciously different personalities. It encompasses a moral, and is touching at times, but still manages to retain at least a little horror. The premise is not very good, but I liked it all the same.
The comedy in this film is plentiful. The second story features horrormeister Donald Pleasence in his catch-the-evil-creature role he played six times in the Halloween series. But the way his character meets his demise and the wonderful plot twist will have you rolling on the floor with laughter.
The third story is not really funny, or scary. It is the most serious of the bunch, and I suspect the filmmakers intended it to be awfully frightening. It just isn't. It show its age, and features poor acting. The set pieces are top-notch, though, and are definitely its saving grace. I can tell you now that the plot twist at the end is totally expected, and not very good.
The stories are interjected with entertaining dialogue between Price and Carradine, and new wave 1980s rock music. Some of you will recognise a youthful UB40 performing a song. There is also one about a stripper, and when you see the stripper's act, you will be suitably impressed. I won't say any more about that - watch it for yourself.
All in all, it was a good way to spend an hour and a half, and I was sad when the stories were over. Just one word of advice, though - don't be put off by the costumes of the monsters.
Halloween (1978)
Still gives me the shivers after 20 years...
I first saw this movie in 1980, when I was 18. I was absolutely enthralled even then. Of course, my mind was still young and relatively impressionable, so it's no surprise that when I readied myself to watch it the second time round, I was prepared to be bored.
To my utter amazement and somewhat disgrace, I was even more scared. And for the entirely same reasons as in 1980. The thought of a mindless maniac stalking the streets of American apple-pie suburbia appeals to the basest instincts in us all.
What more can I say? There is no doubt that it is the most successful horror series, not counting Scream. The villain is just indescribably evil: the lack of emotion and the lack of detail on his featureless mask make for a truly feared opponent. His methodical slashing of his victims and complete lack of care strikes terror into criminals and goodies alike.
The heroine is perfect. Virginal and straight-laced, she is not a beautiful blonde but your ordinary girl next door (not without her prettiness, though). She is clearly terrified of Myers, as one should be, and her determination to avoid him portrays natural feelings better than other films of the slasher sub-genre.
Even the victims are perfect. Foul mouthed, partying, sex-mad teenagers, loaded with alcohol and God knows what else. The film clearly sends out a moral here, one that only fools will miss.
And we must not forget the admirable Donald Pleasence, who devoted most of his life to on-screen psychiatrist Dr. Loomis. He is as methodical as Myers in his pursual; as determined as Myers to track him down. He is intelligent and knows Myers, yet is still always surprised at what he does next. He shows all the emotions of human beings.
Well, I must finish my worshipping there. Forget mindless rip-offs like Friday the 13th. This is the ORIGINAL slasher film, and still very much the best.
Scream 3 (2000)
A film to see AND a film to miss...
I must admit, that like everyone else, I was extremely excited about seeing Scream 3. And I had every right to be, living in the United Kingdom and subsequently having to wait three months.
Anyway, the film did NOT disappoint my expectations. Yet it did not exceed them. Scream 3 was definitely suffering from multiple genre syndrome. It simply did not fit neatly into any category. Allow me to explain.
For all you absolute gore-loving horror fans out there, this movie will be a big disappointment. Very little blood and relatively tame violence (by today's standards) make this a walk in the park compared to, let's say, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I know that's an old example, but hey...
If you are the type who prefers more of a psychological thriller, for example, Silence of the Lambs, then you will probably love Scream 3. The truth is, it DOES provide plenty of scares and shocks. But they are all implied, a la Blair Witch. So as a thriller, it really works.
Then again, if you are a Poirot-loving, Columbo-watching mystery fanatic, who loves to solve obscure crimes, don't bother with Scream 3. I HATE whodunnits, yet figured out the mystery sub-plot after an hour. OK, so I picked the wrong person/people, but that's not the point. So if you are the kind who guesses murderers after five minutes, avoid it like the plague.
But, as always, Scream 3 does have another saving grace: its humour/humor (notice that little trans-Atlantic touch?). The film is packed full of jokes, sly references to celebrities, nods to the audience about horror films, etc, etc. Not to mention a couple of excellent cameos. It's a good film to see if you like comedy. Sort of like... well, there is nothing to compare it to. Dewey is absolutely hilarious.
For me personally, the film did end up a touch contrived. I was absolutely hooked for the first hour or so. As soon as the "Final Act" began, it got silly. When they have to resort to killing off four characters in the space of twenty minutes, you know something is wrong.
I don't think there will ever be a Scream 4. I don't want there to be. I don't even want there to be a Halloween H20-type reunion in twenty years time. It was a nice series while it lasted, but it's gone now.
This film is the final one of a trilogy that managed to create a whole new genre. Scream was excellent. Scream 2 was good. Scream 3 has an excellent cast, a good premise, and a bad ending.
To sum up:
If you love HORROR, catch it on video. If you love THRILLERS, see it, it's excellent. If you love MYSTERY, read a book instead. If you love COMEDY, this one's a hoot. If you love SCREAM, see it, but with a fresh perspective. If you love RANDY, then you've probably seen it already. :)
Fierce Creatures (1997)
Just give it a chance, and you'll love it.
Admittedly, my standards were very high after seeing A Fish Called Wanda. Which is probably why I was disappointed with the first twenty minutes or so.
And then as soon as Cleese accused an injured woman of faking her pain, tasting her blood in one of those characteristic, hallmark misunderstandings, I was hooked.
From then on it was excellent. I laughed and laughed. A stellar cast provided a ton of jokes, although I was saddened to see Michael Palin's diminished role.
Other comments about this film state that the authors gave up after twenty minutes. What a pity, because if they'd have stayed for longer, they would have loved it.
A word of advice: don't watch this movie with A Fish Called Wanda in your head. View it with an open mind. It has nothing to do with Wanda (except for a small in-joke or two).
Finally, it's great to see Cleese returning to writing comedy. The combination of subtle British and in-your-face American humour make this comedy a must see. ***** (5/5).