generichorrorfreak Reviews

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

What a joke

[2/10 · 29 October 2010]

This movie's a joke and it turns Freddy into a joke. Where's the terror? Where's the paranormality? Where's the boiler room? Where is the sinister Freddy we all grew to loathe and love in the earlier films? Not on Elm Street this time around. Here's what you get instead: Freddy playing video games. Cameos by Roseanne and Tom Arnold and Johnny Depp. And that super-awesome trippy song In-a-gadda-davida. That's.. about all.

Elm Street 6 brings back Freddy and a new group of kids to defeat him. The supposed son of Freddy (!) and a group of orphanage kids and their therapist unravel the mystery once again. Except this time Freddy is a joke. He's a total clown full of corny punchlines. He doesn't have much motive or bloodlust. He doesn't seem to want to torment people anymore. He just does it because he's Freddy. Most of the movie is a comedy and turns into a soap opera towards the end. This is NOT the terrifying horrific Freddy Kreuger you get with the earlier films. Total joke. Then you get insane twists in the plot with more of Freddy's lineage and history.

Lots of effects. Decent although grasping-at-straws plot. Everything else is lame. Everything is too hasty and makes Elm Street 6 look like it was made strictly for business purposes. Not to make a kickass movie. Too many characters, most not significant enough. There's too much drama and twists and turns. What happened to the classic, simple plot of Elm Street 1? It works. You don't need a thousand twists in the plot to make Freddy horrifying and that movie a classic. And you don't need Freddy to be hanging around and making conversation and cracking jokes in every scene because all it does is make him look like a joke. Did I mention yet that most of the acting is superficial including Freddy? Yeah this movie is chockfull of horrible actors.

Oh, and you get to see Freddy "unmasked," that is before he got burned and became the Freddy we've known from the start. Then you get to see his life story and what makes him the villain he is. WHY??? That ruins all the fun. Freddy is just evil and that's what makes him so good. THEN he becomes human. Again, WHY? He's not supposed to be human anymore!! He's an evil villain that kills people THROUGH THEIR DREAMS and can't be defeated. I get that this was supposed to be the ultimate ending to the story and they packed everything they could into it, but way to kill the legend that is Freddy Kreuger.

This movie sucks overall, but the worst part is that Freddy is no longer sinister, terrifying, mysterious and shystey. He's become a clown and a soap star. Don't watch this movie unless you're an Elm Street freak and feel the need to see every movie in the series.

Asylum (I) (1972)

A simple and pleasant film

[7/10 · 24 October 2010]

Asylum is the story of a psychiatrist applying for a position at an, you guessed it, asylum. To decide if he is qualified for the job or not, the head of the asylum gives him the task of meeting four of the patients (for reasons explained in the movie). So you get four different stories plus the "here and now" beginning, interludes and ending that comprise the movie called Asylum.

The overall plot is very interesting and so are each of the individual's stories, especially because they involve mental illness and blur the lines between reality and psychosis. Towards the end, you think you know the facts but the plot takes a twist for the, shall we say strange, and you are left surprised and perhaps a little confused; then, the very ending takes on a truly twisted horror-filled turn for the worst.

Most of the movie makes an easy-going and pleasant watch. My only beef with this movie is that much of the supernatural/insanity effects are a little corny, for instance when things move by themselves. I guess the special effects weren't advanced enough at this time to make it any less corny though, so it can be forgiven, because overall this is a very enjoyable and somewhat suspenseful movie, and that it is from the 70's is an obvious and atmospheric aspect of Asylum. It's quite simple, and a lot of special effects aren't needed to make it the enjoyable film it is. The score is also quite simple and it works, and the ending couldn't have been any more demented and perfect than it is.

What Lies Beneath (2000)

the mystery unravels..

[7/10 · 16 October 2010]

What Lies Beneath is a great thriller. Tons of suspense. Lead character Claire starts to feel as though her and her husband's house is being haunted as a number of odd things start to happen: doors opening by themselves, the water running in the tub when no one had turned it on, a picture frame falling, etc. Additionally she keeps finding clues that unravel the mystery of the ghost she believes is there. As the movie goes on more is revealed about past events that further provoke her belief in the haunting being real and her desire to figure it out.

The first half of the movie is rather uneventful but lays the groundwork for the great mystery. The second half picks up pace and creates tons of suspense to an ultimately action-packed and hair-raising ending. Everything Claire discovers leads her closer towards the truth and you can't wait to see how it plays out. Most of this movie, including much of the ending, goes in a calmness-begets-suspense kind of way, and it works. Claire spends most of her time hanging around her house. The most action (except towards the end) is her going to a dinner party with her husband and some friends, and some cocktail party thrown by the school at which her husband works. But like I said, it works.

The acting was a little insipid at times and the first half could have been a little more interesting; otherwise this is a great and very suspenseful movie.

StageFright (1987)

That mask will haunt you

[8/10 · 11 October 2010]

Stage Fright is surprising in how reminiscent it is of Dario Argento's style. Most notably when it gets suspenseful and The Goblins-type music starts playing instead of something more typically suspenseful (classical music). Since the plot takes place in a theater, filled with actors who happen to be in costume, of course it is also bright and colorful and almost artsy just as Argento films tend to be. But moving on.

The story's pretty simple. There is a serial killer locked inside a theater with a group of actors. They die off one by one (what else did you expect). Simple enough. But what makes this movie so GOOD? The characters are all, as they say, a character. Animosity exists among the actors but then the killer is out there and so they are a collective group of victims at the same time. They all meet their makers in different way, for the killer, (who creepily enough wears a mask from the play the actors are starring in), doesn't have an attachment to any one tool. He will use what he can when he can and you never know what it may be. The lead victim, Alicia, is easy to empathize with. She's on the quiet side but you don't want her to die and you know if someone gets the killer, it will have to be her. The gore is nice, as usual some realistic and some not, but all of it is somewhat classy.

Here's something to think about. The play within the movie goes as so: a man goes around raping and killing at night. He wears a mask. Later in the movie, for reasons I won't spoil, the director wants the killer in the play to be portrayed as the real life killer. Later in the movie (and this is all still early on), the real life killer puts on the original mask from the play and goes around killing like so. Now how's that for cool? You don't find weird stuff like this in every movie.

The general 80's and Broadway-ish scenery for Stage Fright is pretty cool too. I was reluctant to watch this because what do I want to see a bunch of actors in some play get slaughtered for? I think Scream ruined that for all of us, right? Well I was wrong. This movie is excellent. It all comes together very nicely. It's good to watch in and of itself and it's got a good soundtrack. Plus the story itself, which while not the most intricate, helps make for an overall excellent movie.

Wishmaster (1997)

save it for the children

[4/10 · 11 October 2010]

"Hackmaster" would've been more clever, but eh. Anyhoo, save this one for the kids. You know how you see a movie when you're a young'un that scares the pants offa you, then you see it years later and think "that was it?" This is one of those. This has "kids" written all over it because it's got a scary dude in it. As far as horror movies go, that's all it's got. The rest is an unintentional joke.

A jinn/ genie? Magical wishes? OK OK I admit that could have made a good plot. But it didn't and here's why. This movie is entirely too "real life." It's like "You've Got Mail" with Freddy Kreuger playing a minor role. Whether it be more of the horrific, or just the suspense that terrorizes people in the meantime, a good horror movie needs THAT. Wishmaster going clothes shopping while the saleslady flirts with him? That's not horror. Alexandra getting killer migraines every time the Wishmaster makes a wish real? Yawn. It just doesn't work. It's comical in all it's failure to deliver. It's so BASIC. It's cheap and easy. It's terrifying if you're 6 years old.

The characters are BORING. Alexandra is boring. Everyone in her life is boring. Watching the victims pile up is pretty cool, but they're still boring. I doubt anyone roots for Alex to beat the Wishmaster because neither she nor anything in the movie has given you a reason to. But I also can't see how anyone roots for the Wishmaster because HE'S lame too. Evil jinn, yeah right. This guy's a poor imitation of a real villain. He's a joke. I imagine he got pants'ed and got his milk money taken away a lot when he was in grade-school (do jinns go to grade-school?). Everyone that falls victim to him is just as lame as he is and you know they're gonna die and furthermore Wishmaster is doing the world a favor by reducing the lame-o's.

Anyways. The Wishmaster is some kind of Disney-gone-bad type of horror flick. Kids will probably like it though (ie be scared). So I wouldn't recommend any people possibly reading this to watch Wishmaster unless you've got kids that want to see a horror movie and then imagine Wishmaster's hiding under the bed so they can keep you up all night. As you can see, it's an all around bad film.

Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999 Video)

What a waste of a good subtitle

[4/10 · 11 October 2010]

"Evil Never Dies"? That sounds so cool. Too bad it got wasted on this movie! Wishmaster 2 is about as pointless of a sequel as you will ever get, because

1) Wishmaster 1 was horrible and the simple plot did not need to be repeated in another simple, horrible movie

2) Doesn't reason #1 suffice to never, ever make a sequel to Wishmaster?

The little red gemstone is not cool. It is not intriguing. It is dumb. It is lame. It is silly. But here is another movie about the genie who arises from the gemstone.

What happens? Exactly the same thing that happens in Wishmaster 1, except this time we are given a definitive number of victims he will "grant" and a magical phrase that may or may not be able to stop him. There's also a few twists in the plot, such as Wishmaster going to jail and why he actually goes instead of, y'know, doing the genie thing and escaping.

I don't know what else to say about Wishmaster 2 except it is pretty much exactly the same as Wishmaster 1 except even more "real." Wishmaster goes to jail, Gothic lead character, robbery, a toke off a joint, etc. The only difference is this movie is funnier (intentionally this time), the ending is a little different, and the characters are slightly more interesting. I guess if I had to pick between seeing either Wishmaster 1 or 2.. oh gee, I couldn't choose. I'd loathe to see them both so much. Again this is a good kids' horror movie, but due to some of the humorous parts it makes an OK watch for the few laughs.

Dogma (1999)

the best Kevin Smith film (that I've seen)

[8/10 · 9 October 2010]

Clerks and Mallrats are pretty cool films that make a good watch. The second Clerks installment is an OK film but goes nowhere in almost its entirety and too many of the characters are just annoying. Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is utter crap that *probably* had a purpose (despite starring mine and everyone's favorite characters, perhaps proof that they were not meant to be leads). Chasing Amy is a great movie which all the theory-talk and bizarre possibilities inside it makes your head spin. Kevin Smith's films are a coin toss, you never know if it'll be good or bad and it has little to do with how the previous or next movie rates.

Dogma is one step up from Chasing Amy and the best of the bunch. With an awesome story, a nicely crafted set of characters, and their respective places in the plot line that come together like fitting puzzle pieces. Dogma is almost ingenious, and yes a movie from the same man that brought us Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. For starters you have a plot with a purpose; this isn't some generic Disney-esquire story of gaining faith with a miracle or some similar crap. You have unforeseen twists and turns. You have characters popping up that all play an important role, and they're all interesting. There's no generic roles either (guardian angel or what have you), as all these characters are a takeoff from what is actually in the bible or have their place in the "askew-niverse." The story is insanely cool, you wonder how a person could come up with something this intriguing. There's tons of mainstream actors, and none of them butcher the film like you might expect. The only character/actor I don't like in Dogma is Salma Hayek; she is beyond annoying and they could have at least made her change her accent and tone down that annoying personality for this role. If there's one downfall with this movie, it's her.

Otherwise, there's hilarity, there's ideas that make you think, there's oddity yet sensibility, there'a focus on religion that can even keep an atheist like myself interested, there's Jay and Silent Bob, and above all there's a plot that keeps your eyes open and an ending just as perfect as the whole rest of the movie.

If you aren't too sure where you stand with Kevin Smith films, or was disappointed with Clerks II or J&SBST, or are just looking for a good movie that will keep your mind awake and engaged and entertained, Dogma is a must-see.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002)

blah

[4/10 · 2 October 2010]

Halloween: Resurrection starts off on the wrong foot and it's all downhill from there. Sure they found a clever way to undo the closure of Halloween H2O and make it possible to bring Mike up to his old shenanigans, unfortunately that whole segment is hasty and the rest of the movie's garbage. The "what really happened" explanation is just a loophole for making a movie that's neither necessary nor any good, and so I present to you Halloween: Resurrection.

I'm not going to write any spoilers about what happens to Laurie, but I think anyone who loves the original Halloween and its characters will think what they did with her in this movie is crap and only put her in here for the sake of having Laurie in it.

The characters are plastic. Even by the end of the movie when you get to know all of them a little bit, you don't care enough about them to want to see them escape the wrath of Mike Myers. In fact, you'll probably look forward to their demise at his hands. That's how flat and/or despicable these characters are. Even the lead role doesn't have much personality. She's nice and smart and decent, just like Laurie was in fact, but somehow she doesn't have much personality. I don't think her character was developed enough, otherwise she could have made a good heroine. The rest of the characters are people you pretty much hope get killed off, especially the tech lady played by Tyra Banks and most of the kids that tour the haunted house. Obnoxious people, hastily made characters. And Busta Rhymes plays the typical black dude with a boisterous personality. Not a bad acting job, but what a typical cliché character.

The technology is another factor. Another case of fusing horror with the fancy gimmick of modern technology (or what was modern in 2002 anyways). Just because we have things like reality shows and phone-texting nowadays does not mean it will make a horror movie any scarier, or realistic, or better at all. Having people emailing and playing on their phones and all in the movie takes away from the good old-fashioned terror you get from something as simple as a lurking shadow or the gleam of a butcher knife.

There's a couple of notably cool things in the movie, like when Freddy dresses up like Mike Myers while Mike is there in the flesh and you see two Mikes walking one behind the other. Well that was more funny than anything. The scene with the bong was funny too. And the murder scenes are alright and in typical Mike Myers fashion, but otherwise Resurrection bombs as a horror film and leaves you yet again with no closure, except this time you wouldn't really want to see another sequel.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)

Great ending to a great series

[8/10 · 2 October 2010]

Or it should have been, as the highly unnecessary sequel Halloween: Resurrection was a pile of puke. Anyways, H2O is enjoyable in just about every way. The "victim" characters are realistic and multi-dimensional, Mike Myers is as stone-cold as ever, and the movie is suspenseful in its entirety. You'd imagine seven movies in that it would get old, but no, this is a great watch and a great ending to the saga of the cold-hearted killing-machine monster of a human that refuses to die no matter how many stabs, bullets and falls he's taken.

Oddly enough there are a few heartfelt moments in the film, however not too cheesy and not so powerful you want to cry. Definitely adds a great touch to the horror of it all. And even though teen characters tend to be one-dimensional and bland in 90's/2000's horror films, the ones in H2O actually have some personality, yippy skippy! Laurie has developed a lot from the teen in the first couple of Halloweens but remains a likable and solid character that you root for, and kicks more butt than ever in this one.

And finally you get some closure with Mike Myers (although it's taken away again with puke-pile Resurrection). Overall this is a GREAT horror film - the first Halloween remains the best but as far as sequels, and especially endings to a long-running series, you couldn't ask for anything better. Too bad the Elm Street series couldn't have gone this route.

House of Wax (2005)

horrible beginning, probably a horrible ending..

[1/10 · 1 October 2010]

Alas, I did not manage to get through the whole movie. And maybe the ending is good, who knows, but this movie starts out so horribly and meanders on and on with all the things that are wrong with horror movies nowadays, that I could not bring myself to keep watching after a certain point.

For starters, what a ridiculous cast list. "Hot" young actors from UPN sitcoms and TV dramas and Paris Hilton is NOT the part of the recipe for a good horror movie. Will it get people to want to see it? Probably, but if that's what gets your attention then you in fact just might like this pathetic excuse for a horror movie.

The acting for the most part was amateur. Acting like a butthurt college-kid isn't as easy as it sounds, obviously a lot of people seem to think it is, and in House of Wax you get a lot of butthurt-college- kid-acting that will make you want to roll your own eyes and pout. Paris Hilton is actually NOT the weakest link, believe it or not she's one of the better actors here and I think she could have a decent acting career.. this was just a horrible movie to star in.

The movie goes on and on without anything actually happening. In some movies, this is pulled off very nicely and you don't need an elaborate plot jam packed with twists and turns to make it interesting. In other movies, such as, oh, House of Wax, all you really get is a group of annoying college kids that whine and bore you to death incessantly. There's nothing to keep you interested in the meantime, so be ready for half an hour to an hour of college kids doing what college kids do.. trying to get to a football game. Hahahaha.. I wish I was joking.

If you think a lot of new Hollywood horror movies are trite and dilapidated, skip House of Wax because this is definitely one of those. If you think the guy from One Tree Hill is sexy and you want to see him play the role of a so-called bad boy, you'll probably get at least something out of this movie.

Parents (1989)

Good, wholesome fun

[7/10 · 26 September 2010]

Parents is a short, simple and quirky semi-horror film. Classic, nah, but definitely a fun watch. The plot is simple and there's a few hints about what's going on before it all comes together in the middle. Before that you'll just be watching this 50's themed movie and not really be sure where it's headed because, well, it's more like a bunch of scenes that have no effect on each other at first (but isn't it like that with so many movies). That's not a bad thing though, because the 50's setting is part of what makes Parents a fun watch. There's the perfect happy family living in a perfect house but obviously something's askew, something dark and morbid going on behind the facade of perfection.

I wish some of the more interesting and relevant characters had been a little better elaborated upon, like Michael's friend or the social worker from school. I also wish his nightmares had gone into detail a little more because you never get to see why Michael gets suspicious of his family dinners in the first place. Otherwise, even though there's some things that could have been elaborated on a little more, this is a cool movie. There isn't much gore but that which there is, is modest and well-done, and the scene with the social worker is pretty hair-raising.

Towards the end, when you see the grandparents, you already know how it's going to end (and you're right). And still it's a fun watch. There's something humorous about the whole movie, it's not straight horror but the comedic aspect is not blunt enough to call it a comedy. Like I said the 50's theme helps a lot, say this movie took place in the 90's it would be pretty boring and unoriginal. But no, this is about the perfect 50's family and one very un-perfect secret they've been keeping. A way fun movie.

The Church (1989)

Just excellent

[10/10 · 5 September 2010]

"The Church" basically revolves around the idea that there was a group of demons slayed and buried a long time ago, a church was built upon the burial ground, and what happens when the demons are discovered/freed in modern day. I can best describe this movie as fulfilling to watch. After you see it you just kick back and digest everything you saw and feel your appetite for a creepy movie has been totally fulfilled.

There's a few things that aren't explained, such as why towards the end all those different people happened to be inside the church all at once (like the elderly couple) or why the librarian felt the urge to pull his heart out, but that doesn't ruin the movie one bit. The characters and their stories are well developed and it's cool how they all come into play at the end and you see WHY they're a main character. You feel like you know these people from how well their characters are portrayed. The acting is mostly great (one not-so-great moment that stands out is when Lotte is in the club and wants to go home; the acting here is overly dramatic and unbelievable); the angles that some scenes are shot from are original and awesome and help imply the importance of some things (which you won't realize until later); the overall background for the movie is great and thankfully isn't too "modernified" to show that the story takes place in modern day, with just the right mix of "old" and "new" bringing together the fact that this takes place in an ancient church but modern day. And the special effects and gory scenes (there isn't much gore) are for the most part creepy and well done, not over the top or showy.

A lot of the effects are well worth mention but you should just see them for yourself. Some of the things that happen can only be seen by that person it's happening to.. awesome idea, very creepy. This is definitely one of the more well made movies from this genre and despite its imperfections, pretty much the perfect movie.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989)

too corny, even for the 80's

[4/10 · 29 August 2010]

Elm Street 5 aka The Dream Child will have you thinking "what a corny 80's horror flick" the whole time you're watching it. Yeha it's from the 80's, but the first couple of movies in the series were awesome and original horror films. By the 5th one it gets old and there's nothing left to make a movie about except a new batch of teens, more of Freddy's super corny punchlines ("don't dream and drive!"), and some sort of hare-brained plot about what Freddy's up to this time (hint: still tormenting and killing people via the dreamworld).

The one really cool thing about this movie, as with the other Elm Streets, is the haunted houses/ boiler rooms/ places of torture the kids enter when they dream. This is the whole basis of Elm Street that sets it apart from other horror movies, it really is like a nightmare, and even when you're thinking "don't go in there!!!" you still can't blame the kids for going because you know that's what you do in dreams and that's the kind of crazy places that appear in dreams.

The rest of the movie is pretty dull and corny to a ridiculous extent. Like when Alice's fridge starts decomposing in front of her eyes, or Alice's friend who was obsessed with comic books becomes a comic himself and Freddy literally shreds him to pieces, or when Alice sees her own womb and the baby and it's all sci-fi flashing and flickering.. way too corny and not scary at all.

In fact that pretty much sums up the problem with The Dream Child. Way too many corny effects in this movie and not nearly enough horror. Nothing interesting to see here other than more of the dark and haunted places Freddy cooks up in the kids' dreams. The little girls playing jump rope and chanting that "one, two, Freddy's coming for you.." rhyme gets really old at this point because it's just a rehash of the older Elm Streets and has no place here. And how exactly did Alice and her friend free Amanda Kreguer? That was never made clear, but I guess it must've gotten a little rushed towards the end because they were already planning the next movie involving Freddy and a half-ass plot to bring him back.

At this point I think they made the movie just because they could, NOT because they had the intent to make a good and worthwhile movie like they must have with the first installment of Elm Street because that is one cool, totally un-corny movie (and made earlier in the notoriously corny 80's I might add). Stick to the first two Elm Streets, even the third one's pretty good even though everything's already been figured out by this point (Freddy can't really be killed and will continue to kill people in the next movie).

Cabin Fever (2002)

major flop

[2/10 · 11 August 2010]

So many things in this movie were either generic/predictable, completely unrelated to anything else in the movie, or made no sense at all. The characters were all as generic as they come. A group of college kids interested in having a good time with the personality of a rodent between the five of them. Scratch that.. I would much have rather watched a hamster nibble on cheese and exercise on a hamster wheel for an hour than watched this rubbish.

The script was horrible. It was trying too hard to sound typical of the characters (college kids), and the horrendous acting on top of it made it so unbearably.. what's the word I'm looking for? Boring? Crappy? Eye-roll inducing? The only remotely real character was Bert, yes the obnoxious one, he was the only person in the movie I was even remotely interested in finding out what was going to happen to him. The acting was horrible too. You don't believe the characters believe anything that they're saying, against except for Bert.

Back to the unrelated or makes no sense issue. A good chunk of this movie involves scenes or characters or lines that have nothing to do with anything. The worst of these was the pancakes/ karate scene. Why is there a slow-mo karate scene in the middle of the movie, by a minor character, who also has pretty much nothing to do with anything, and why is he yelling "pancakes"? Well at least Bert's reaction was pretty funny. There are way too many unnecessary/ senseless things in this movie and none of them are clever or at least cool to look at or anything.

The "mystery" of the infection is given away the first time the camera focuses on the water glass and plays some suspenseful music, so all that's really left in the majority of the movie is watching if and how the idiot college kids figure it out. With how obvious the focus on the water is made, I think the director must take everyone who watches this movie for a complete idiot. And he might be right because I feel pretty dumb for having spent my money on this so called horror movie. The movie has a decent plot but how the scenes come together wasn't thought out well enough, which in addition to a hastily written script and cruddy acting, intertwined with a lot of things that seem to be put in just for the heck of it, really make Cabin Fever a flop.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

amazing film

[8/10 · 11 August 2010]

I was interested in this one thinking it was a horror flick. Turns out it's not a horror movie, in fact I'm not even sure what genre of film it is, but one thing for sure is that it's twisted and suspenseful. Shadow of the Vampire is based on the premise that Max Schrek, who played Count Orlock in real-life movie Nosferatu, actually WAS a vampire. Shadow of the Vampie is sort of a fictional documentary related to horror I guess.

Max is one of the most genuine characters you'll ever come across. He's strange and mysterious and almost comedic. His character is very believable - when you see him on the screen you'll feel his pain and loneliness and be intrigued by him, despite the fact that he's a bloodsucking vampire and doesn't look like he smells too pleasant.

The rest of the characters are also genuine, in particular the director.. you truly believe how obsessed and out of touch with reality this man gets with making the movie. The acting in this movie was phenomenal. There wasn't a single part where the cynic in me went "yeah right," which admittedly happens in a lot of movies. The plot is suspenseful and goes along smoothly, nothing too ridiculous even though the whole premise itself is pretty unlikely. The plot is fairly easy to grasp but intriguing. A lot of the lines are simple but will have you thinking (especially Max's - he is a rather insightful creature).

The quality of the movie itself is also phenomenal. This was definitely not a low budget movie, nor was it too over the top with effects and whatnot. I like some of the effects like when the filming INSIDE the movie starts, the camera turns into a black-and-white, no sound picture like the original movie. The rest of the scenery is generally dark and romantic and makes a perfect background for the story (rather than being a modern-day version). The nd is predicable but it's suspenseful all the same. This movie is well made, nothing trite about it, a few funny bits, one of those movies I would recommend to anyone regardless of taste in movies.