This is the DVD to own! David Gilmour gives a spectacular performance of a number of Pink Floyd songs, as well as some classical pieces and a couple covers. The guest appearances are fantastic! Be sure to check out the Special Features section for additional performances, including a cover of Elvis Presley's "Don't."
Reviews
6 Reviews
Hellraiser: Hellseeker
(2002 Video)
This is MUCH better than Pinhead fans give it credit for...
28 October 2002
I am a huge Pinhead fan, also very much into the original "Hellraiser" movies. This movie, though far from perfect, was, at least, far more along the original storylines. Yes, most movies nowadays don't have much of an original plot, but I think the real problem is that too many people expected a completely different movie than they got.
In the very first Hellraiser movie, Pinhead and the other Cenobites only appear in 3 scenes TOTAL! The point is, Hellraiser is NOT about Cenobites, it is about SUFFERING. The complaint "not enough Pinhead" is the exact same complaint movie execs at Miramax had of the legendary (unreleased) version of Bloodline, causing the original director to quit a great movie and have someone else sloppily film a lot more Pinhead scenes and throw it all together.
The This movie was FAR better than Inferno, which reduces Pinhead to basically a mafia boss (Pinhead would NEVER refer to himself as "The Engineer" because as any true Hellraiser fan knows, they are two completely different entities within Hell). It is better than Hell On Earth, which did give good insight into Pinhead's human past but basically was a slasher flick in the vein of Friday the Thirteenth. While lacking perhaps in the imagination of the original two, the story at least holds up better than Bloodline, so I would have to say that it is about par with that movie, as it has its faults also.
Excellent acting by Dean Winters throughout the movie, even though I had figured out a majority of the mystery revolving around Trevor's amnesia I was actually surprised by the twist at the end. The soundtrack was a little uninspired (as are most these days) and there was a few corny bits within the movie, particularly the "good cop, bad cop" routines with the detectives investigating Trevor's past.
Watch Hellraiser and Hellbound again to get back into the mood of the original concept, and never, NEVER forget: Hell is NOT about who you'll meet or by what means you get there, it is forever ONLY about "the sweet suffering!"
In the very first Hellraiser movie, Pinhead and the other Cenobites only appear in 3 scenes TOTAL! The point is, Hellraiser is NOT about Cenobites, it is about SUFFERING. The complaint "not enough Pinhead" is the exact same complaint movie execs at Miramax had of the legendary (unreleased) version of Bloodline, causing the original director to quit a great movie and have someone else sloppily film a lot more Pinhead scenes and throw it all together.
The This movie was FAR better than Inferno, which reduces Pinhead to basically a mafia boss (Pinhead would NEVER refer to himself as "The Engineer" because as any true Hellraiser fan knows, they are two completely different entities within Hell). It is better than Hell On Earth, which did give good insight into Pinhead's human past but basically was a slasher flick in the vein of Friday the Thirteenth. While lacking perhaps in the imagination of the original two, the story at least holds up better than Bloodline, so I would have to say that it is about par with that movie, as it has its faults also.
Excellent acting by Dean Winters throughout the movie, even though I had figured out a majority of the mystery revolving around Trevor's amnesia I was actually surprised by the twist at the end. The soundtrack was a little uninspired (as are most these days) and there was a few corny bits within the movie, particularly the "good cop, bad cop" routines with the detectives investigating Trevor's past.
Watch Hellraiser and Hellbound again to get back into the mood of the original concept, and never, NEVER forget: Hell is NOT about who you'll meet or by what means you get there, it is forever ONLY about "the sweet suffering!"
The Keep
(1983)
Perhaps they ran out of money...did you think of that?
18 October 2002
Admittedly, the movie did not capture the essence of the book, as it was only 96 minutes long...the book could have very easily been drawn out into a mini-series. Remeber, this WAS 1983, when people were still being frightened by rubber mechanical sharks and running away from paper-mache' boulders! Computer imaging was still a ways off and the laser effects that were used in the film likely ate a majority of the budget of only $6 million. The movie's soundtrack was EXCELLENT, an eerie work by Tangerine Dream that fit the mood of the movie well and set the tone for the picture. I feel the crew made the best movie given their budget and technical limitations. Now, I wonder what George Lucas' excuse is for "Attack of the Clones?"
READ THE BOOK, you won't regret it!
READ THE BOOK, you won't regret it!
Quicksilver Highway
(1997 TV Movie)
READ THE BOOK
14 July 2002
This movie was a crappy adaptation of my second-favorite Barker short story, from the collection "The Inhuman Condition" (UK title: "Books of Blood Vol. 4"). I don't read Stephen King anymore because, well, even if this was a poor adaptation of a story he wrote the whole concept is a waste of my time. Read "The Body Politic" today, people!
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Close Encounters: The Sequel??? Where's Dave?
1 July 2001
Although the basic concepts, effects, etc. are wonderful, Spielberg was the WRONG choice to direct a Kubrick film. He purposely left out any vulgarity you'd expect to grab a PG-13 rating (not usually an issue w/Spielberg, plenty of swearing and nudity in "Schindler's List"). Also tries to give a dark story a warm side. Most of the movie was great but a disappointing ending (for Kubrick fans). The overall feel I got from the movie was the Close Encounter's-type formula with a different story.
So who should have directed this movie in Stanley's place? David Cronenberg, who can take a great concept like "The Fly" or "Naked Lunch" and not only stay true to the work, but even "tweak" it with his own original ideas. Anyone who is a Cronenberg fan KNOWS he can make an excellent movie - I just wish the studios would give him a big budget like they give Spielberg.
So who should have directed this movie in Stanley's place? David Cronenberg, who can take a great concept like "The Fly" or "Naked Lunch" and not only stay true to the work, but even "tweak" it with his own original ideas. Anyone who is a Cronenberg fan KNOWS he can make an excellent movie - I just wish the studios would give him a big budget like they give Spielberg.
Dracula 2000
(2000)
Ho-hum...where's the movie?
14 January 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I would like first to stand up on Wes Craven's behalf. Unlike some of the previous commentators who apparently did not possess the literacy skills to read the opening credits, I understand that Craven neither directed nor wrote the story/script for this movie. He was the executive producer ONLY (I do feel his $$$ could have been spent better elsewhere!)
As for the movie, apart from Miller and Plummer delivering the best possible acting they could (as always!), the rest of the cast was mediocre at best. *POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!* As for anyone who was "blown away" by any "new twists" on Vampire legend...sorry to disappoint you, these were not original. First of all there is the movie, "The Judas Kiss." Combine that very loosely with some of the White Wolf World of Darkness gaming rules, PRESTO, "New Ideas for a Vampire Movie!" Nearly as cheesy as "Blade" minus a believable villain an special effects. And how much was that budget, anyway? Would it have been too much to ask for a vampire to MORPH into a wolf rather than alternate shots of a vampire and a wolf back and forth? "Dracula 2000," I banish you to 80's Land to live in harmony with "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night!" Would be vampire moviegoers, save your money for Blockbuster, go back and rent "Interview With the Vampire," "John Carpenter's Vampires," or the classic "Dracula (1931)"
As for the movie, apart from Miller and Plummer delivering the best possible acting they could (as always!), the rest of the cast was mediocre at best. *POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!* As for anyone who was "blown away" by any "new twists" on Vampire legend...sorry to disappoint you, these were not original. First of all there is the movie, "The Judas Kiss." Combine that very loosely with some of the White Wolf World of Darkness gaming rules, PRESTO, "New Ideas for a Vampire Movie!" Nearly as cheesy as "Blade" minus a believable villain an special effects. And how much was that budget, anyway? Would it have been too much to ask for a vampire to MORPH into a wolf rather than alternate shots of a vampire and a wolf back and forth? "Dracula 2000," I banish you to 80's Land to live in harmony with "The Lost Boys" and "Fright Night!" Would be vampire moviegoers, save your money for Blockbuster, go back and rent "Interview With the Vampire," "John Carpenter's Vampires," or the classic "Dracula (1931)"
Tell Your Friends