Change Your Image
davidslicer
Reviews
Avatar (2009)
A breakthrough in filmmaking.
The last time we had a film that broke through moviegoers in terms of what was visual and what effected us was "Star Wars" back in 1977. Now,many years later, James Cameron has brought a film to the screen that serves its' purpose to moviegoers in such a way, I should say the art of film has started all over again.Technology isn't the only reason why "Avatar" will stand out as a classic. You may disagree with me if you want. Thats alright with me. All I am saying is that "Avatar" delivers what I think is new in the process in the art of filmmaking. It's going to happen. Every several years, there is bound to be a film that teaches us how we should feel about how film should work. "Avatar", technically and emotionally, is one of those films that accomplishes that in every way that I have seen. As I was watching "Avatar", my thoughts and focus weren't just on the visual effects although the visual effects were tremendously spectacular in every way. It received a well deserved Academy Award for it's effects and none of these effects could not be done several years ago.Now, with the proper technology, It seems that the art of filmmaking has evolved. "Avatar" is one of those films that belongs in the evolutionary process. I am going to be truthful here. The one film that will knock "Avatar" off the map is "2001: A Space Odyssey" which came out in 1968. Just because "Avatar" is not really on top, it doesn't mean that it does not deserves the recognition that it has been getting the past year. It goes right up there with films like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and Star Wars". "Avatar" widens your eyes. It's an unexpected look into a beautiful world of filmmaking. Several years from now, some director will make a film that will breakthrough moviegoers expectancies of whatever film they watch. "Avatar" did that. How many times have you seen a film like that? "Avatar" is not just a film. It's an experience that will be remembered by moviegoers for years to come.
The Exorcist (1973)
After nearly 35 years,"The Exorcist" still remains the scariest and the most shocking.
There is no questioning about it.No ifs ands or buts.This film belongs in horror film history.I first experienced a scene from this film back around nineteen seventy nine.That scene terrified me.Twenty years it took me to watch this film straight through without blocking my eyes.I have no trouble watching the film now.But I still think of this film as the scariest in film history.We all know what the film is about and we all seen it a thousand times over the past thirty years.Copied by other films such as "Beyond the Door" and the awful "The Antichrist","The Exorcist" has not lost its power to shock due to the cinematography.Its documentary film style seems to add a sense of realism to the film.The special effects are as unique now as they were around thirty years ago.This is the ultimate in cinematic horror.Director William Friedkin's power is that once he goes to far,he doesn't stop.He keeps going.The film is also effective because we get to know the characters rather than go straight to the scares."The Exorcist" begins as a humanizing experience and then we are lured into a nightmarish experience.It's kind of like the film is happening to us.There is no mistake about this film."The Exorcist" pulls no punches and may victimize some film goers.A horror film is a horror film."The Exorcist" is not only a horror film.It is a reminder to us all of what fear means to us.A classic in the horror genre,"The Exorcist" doesn't just frighten,it disturbs on a high level.I respect this film and still believe this to be the scariest film ever made.Perhaps more frightening then I can imagine.
The Howling (1981)
It tries.* * *
If they never filmed that amazing transformation scene,this film probably wouldn't be as good as it is now."The Howling".A dark mysterious film .Dark,because of its atmosphere and it's ability not to frighten but to stir some interest.Special effects,along with "An American Werewolf in London" and John Carpenter's remake of "The Thing" were reaching a whole new era of special effects.Director,Joe Dante,created a classic film through the film's amazing transformation scenes.We don't don't get those kind of films these days,due to computers taking over the special effects industry."I liked the film.But I felt it should've been at least more.But I was pleased with what I got."The Howling".Although,it may not be much,It's enough for me and I liked it.
The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
A pure delight.One of the funniest zombie films ever made.Maybe not that funny.
"Return of the Living Dead" is a horror film.It's a comedy.But it should not be divided because both categories blend in together into one movie.That's the genius in this film.The film has a comic look to the film which reminds me of those graphic comic novels.Released in 1985,along with films such as "Re-Animator" and "Day of the Dead","Return of the Living Dead" appears to distant itself from the other two films,although,at the same time,it still qualifies as a zombie film.The movie can be silly at times but it seems to be worth the viewing experience.The special effects are simple,yet,not state of the art.This makes the film more enjoyable to watch.Director,Dan O'Bannon takes the zombie genre and simply turns it inside out.The film is unexpected,at times scary and at times,hilarious.Open your heads(joke)to this film.If you don't,you'll be missing a really good horror film.Put this on your DVD list.I'm going to.
Hulk (2003)
A more faithful adaptation to the Marvel comics legend.* * * *
The Hulk.A member of the Marvel Comics superhero team.He's different apart from the other superheroes.He doesn't seem to have the powers of the other superheroes.Alright,he weighs about sixteen feet tall and grows bigger the more angrier he gets.His strength increases the angrier he gets.He demolishes anything that's in his way.This is some guy that Bruce Banner would like to get rid of.The only thing is,is that Bruce Banner and the creature are the same.All Banner cares about is finding the cure.Radiation is the cause for all this and there seems to be a connection between him and his father,David Banner,played by Nick Nolte,who plays a really good villain.I am not really in favor for CGI.But the CGI is necessary for the creature's body of work.The television show was my favorite to which the technology weren't up to it's standards.Although in that show,you believed in that character.But I found myself also believing in the CGI version of that character.I felt that even though Lou Ferrigno seemed more realistic,the CGI version captured what the television couldn't in terms of what the Hulk looked from the comics."Hulk" was a bomb in 2003.But it made a fair a lot of money.It may have been a bomb,but that didn't stop me from seeing this film.I liked it.
The Sixth Sense (1999)
One of the best films of 1999 * * * *1/2
"The Sixth Sense".Nobody knew that it was going to be such a hit at the movies.But it was.A perfect combination of scares and suspense,"The Sixth Sense" is the perfect vehicle for action star Bruce Willis,who has proved to critics and moviegoers that he is more than John McClane.The movie's real spirit comes from Haley Joel Osment.He's believable,as a child actor,He really gets you to believe in his character and the character development between Bruce Willis,Haley Joel Osment and Toni Collette are first rate.Director,M.Night Shymalan knows all the punches and he doesn't hold back.This is one of the best films of 1999.It knows how to scare and the movie's ending(which I will not giveaway)will knock you off your chair.It is very rare for a horror film to come out that relies less on blood and gore and more on atmosphere."The Sixth Sense" is atmosphere.It wraps around you and you keep wanting more.Released in the fourth quarter of 1999,"The Sixth Sense" was one of the good reasons to go to the movies.One of the best films that deals with the supernatural.Depending on what type of person you are,it knows how to scare.The genius behind this film is how M.Night Shymalon throws these clues at us and we tend to not catch them until it hits us in the head."The Sixth Sense" is brilliant and in most cases,frightening.It'a all in the atmosphere and suspense.Not in the gore."The Sixth Sense" has just a tiny bit of it,but the suspense wins over.
Ultraviolet (2006)
It tries.But doesn't try hard enough. * *1/2
Mila Jovavich.She's incredibly beautiful and in the past has proved herself to fans to be a really good female action hero.The films that she has starred in:"The Fifth Element","Resident Evil" and "Resident Evil:Apocalypse" are all examples of how her presence on screen carries the films.In the film "Ultraviolet",the film seems to try to capture the Japanese Mango action look through the look of the film.The action scenes are pretty good and so are the fight scenes.Mila Jovavich seems to be the right casting choice for this film.But the filmmakers along with the special effects artists don't appear to have any sense of seriosness in the film.Some of the effects are good but most of the effects lack what I wanted to see.I felt the CGI sets needed a touch of realism.The film is colorful which was a problem for me.It should have been dark.The Japanese Mango worked in some areas but that was it."Ultraviolet" is the kind of film that that makes you hold on tight to your money.Even though in some areas it can be entertaining.But there is a limit to the entertainment that we see on the screen.If you are going to see the film,remember the film's usage of CGI.It spoils the look of the film.I will admit that Mila Jovavich is a delight to look at and she has this sense of superheroism that may appear corny.But I guess it doesn't hurt anyone just to watch "Ultraviolet".But it may hurt their wallets.My brain wasn't in the right place when I saw this film.Not as bad,but not as good.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
The original that started it all.And the best in the series.A classic.
Back in early 1985,I had no idea that this was the second film that I had seen that was directed by filmmaker Wes Craven.The first was "Deadly Blessing" back in 1981,which I liked as a nine year old. "A Nightmare on Elm Street".True,it is a horror film in which at the time we were subjected to a new horror film villain.His name was Freddy Krueger.He was played by Robert Englund.Recognizable from the television miniseries "V",Englund became more of a household name as the demonic killer who terrorizes a small community through their dreams.he was once a regular man.A man who killed children.After the parents killed him,he came back in the form of something much more evil that he was when he was alive."A Nightmare on Elm Street" works on the basis Robert Englund provides scares and humor at the same time.The film several sequels or less.Yet,none of these films could match up to the original.
Dahmer (2002)
A failure on all counts.*1/2
Everyone knew who Jeffrey Dahmer was.Everyone knew what he did.It never occurred to me that they were going to make a film on him.A film on Jeffrey Dahmer.Wow.I can't wait to see this film.Those were my thoughts before I popped the DVD in my machine.This independent low budget horror film is a piece of junk.The film only focused on Dahmer's homosexuality side rather than his monstrous side.So far "Ed Gien" was better than this crap for which I sat through.The violence is here and there,but who in the hell wants to watch two men making out.This film is an insult to true horror fans.Stick with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The Silence of the Lambs".Both of those films are ten times superior and they both make "Dahmer" look like a ride to an amusement park.
Superman Returns (2006)
This review is dedicated to Christopher Reeve.* * * * *
"Superman IV:The Quest for Peace" was a bomb back in 1987.The first two films were amazingly outstanding.But when it got to the third installment,there was nowhere for the film to go.It seemed that the "Superman" franchise was dead.Now after nearly two decades of going through "Batman","Spider-Man" and "X-Men",it seems that the franchise has returned.And thanks to director Bryan Singer,the franchise has returned with an explosive bang.This film is true at what it sets out to do.It reminds us ,or let us say,it reminded me of my childhood when I was watching 1978s "Superman:The Movie".The visual effects are better although I still prefer the flying effects in the 1978 version.In that version,you knew that Christopher Reeve was in front of a screen with background images with a specially designed camera that moved around him.In"Superman Returns",the technology has risen to a point to which we actually believe he could fly.Both films are as entertaining as the next.Brandon Routhe is incredible as Clark Kent and Superman.Watching the film,I could not help but notice how much of that Christopher Reeve Personality was in him.I am 34.I felt like a 6 year old watching the film."Superman Returns" flies high but at the same time it tries not to outdo the first two films.Watching both "Superman III"-"IV" sadly lacked what "Superman Returns" brought back.The humor is a crucial point to the film.I may be out of hand,but in my opinion,"Superman Returns" may be the best film of 2006.Brandon Routhe is the correct choice for the two roles that he plays.As Superman,he is truly one of the best actors to play the character.I thought I was looking at Christopher Reeve's twin.With Brandon Routhe donning the tights and Bryan Singer directing the sequels-hopefully-it would be interesting to see how far this series could go.With this film,I was convinced and I was happy."Superman Returns" is the most entertaining film of 2006.
RoboCop (1987)
The most violent film of 1987.
"RoboCop" is your average graphic comic book brought to life.The characters act like the kind of characters you may find in a graphic comic book.The setting of the film is urban,futuristic and grim.Set in Detroit,1997,Peter Weller is a cop who is killed in the line of duty and is then transformed in to a crime fighting machine by a corrupt corporation.This film does have its moments in terms of violence and action."RoboCop" is a riot and a lot of fun to watch.This is the best film of 1987.And as I said before,the most violent of 1987. Revenge is told with such glee in this film and the special effects are amazing.The power of "RoboCop" not only comes from its violence or visual effects,but from its look of a futuristic detroit.I was 16 when I had seen this film back in 1988 and I was deeply effected by this film.It's not that often that you will come up upon a film like "RoboCop".
Hostel (2005)
The movie dragged on.*
The only way you'll enjoy "Hostel" is if you rent the DVD,fast forward it to the second half,and watch it from there.The film is as graphic and disturbing as they say it is and blood and gore fans will find a taste for it.That's only if they're able to sit through about an hour of character development and plot setting which has not been surrounded by any suspense.Sure,there is the nudity but I didn't really care.This is sad because director Eli Roth,who directed "Cabin Fever"(Which I thought was superior.)seems to have a taste for horror films but he fails to use it in this film.Although,the film is not that bad,I felt pretty much angered by the fact that I got less of what I wanted."Hostel".It's not one of the best or one of the worst.But some horror fans may be disappointed by the lack of waiting and the lack of suspense.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
One f the most interesting films of 2005.
The belief in evil is effectedly shown to us in "The Exorcism of Emily Rose".This is a psychological thriller that makes us question the existence of what is good or what is bad."The Exorcism of Emily Rose" may appear to be about a girl who is possessed by forces of evil.That maybe for us to decide.Was the girl actually possessed or just insane? Scott Derrickson,the director of this film,approaches the viewer with a story that is very involving and with a cast that is amazingly put together.The story is as is.A priest(Tom Wilkinson)is being investigated for the death of a young girl whom he says was possessed.There are two sides to this film and those two sides are presented to us in such away that we are asked questions that are challenging to answer.I always believed that Emily was possessed.But that's me.The person next to me watching the film could think otherwise."The Exorcism of Emily Rose" isn't so much about demonic possession.It's about what we believe.Laura Linney and Tom Wilkinson both give Oscar nominated deserving performances that strengthens the quality of this film.It's a good film and should not be looked upon as a film of horror because it is not.It is more psychological.Alright,I suppose you can also call it a horror film."The Exorcism of Emily Rose" is a suspenseful film as it is a film that is very interesting.If you want to see a film about a girl possessed by demonic forces,watch "The Exorcist".That film directly approaches the topic of demonic possession while this film approaches its beliefs.One last thing.Jennifer Carpenter was wonderful in this film and even though the Academy may not nominate her for her performance,she should be.
Metropolis (1927)
The first great science fiction film.
Being born in the 70s,I was subjected to films in which movies with special effects were done with miniatures,rear projection and front projection,blue screen and model designs.These were normal for films that were released in the 70s and 80s before films went into computers in the 90s.These days a lot of the visuals we see are done through CGI and we are shown worlds that look spectacular and that amaze us."Metropolis" is a different story.The film doesn't rely on giving us spectacular "Matrix" or "Fifth Element" like effects.The film actually gives us a world without being spectacular but imaginary."Metropolis" may have been a spectacular vision for its time.But now the film seems more imaginary and more creative.The genius in "Metropolis" is not in how the futuristic society is presented to us.Its how the filmmakers came up with the visions."Metropolis" which was made in 1926 gave us a world in which we the viewer are not dazzled by the look of the effects,but we are astonished by the creativity.Films like "Star Wars" and "The Matrix" are different than "Metroplis".It's not just the evolution of movie making that pulls these films apart but it's the imagination.When I saw "Metroplis",I was more astonished the beauty of the film rather than the effects.The film is not about effects but it's about the imagination that these filmmakers had in making the film."Metroplis" is one of the most imaginative and one of the most creative films that I've seen.
Halloween II (1981)
"Halloween II" * * * 1/2
In the original "Halloween",Michael Myers was a symbol of pure evil whose character was displayed on screen as one of those forces of evil that spread fear where ever he went.He just didn't spread fear to the stars of the film.He spread fear to certain audences who watched him carry out his carnage throughout the film."Halloween" was and still is a classic.There were characters that we were really into.The music was more scarier and the film was more terrifying.Then came "Halloween II".I am going to be honest and truthful to you.I liked the film.I thought it was a pretty good sequel.Although,it lacked the suspense of the first film."Halloween II" does have its moments of fear and all,and that fear is wrapped around by scenes filled with gore.The original "Halloween" hardly had any gore.It relied more on what we cannot see while this film flashes scenes of gore to us."Halloween II" can be a trip for certain horror movie fans.Not that many people will like it.But I did and I didn't mind it at all.Not as good as the original "Halloween".But I enjoyed it.It's not one of the best sequels but I liked it.
First Blood (1982)
A hell of a film.* * * * *
The character of John Rambo became more popular in films such as "Rambo:First Blood,Part II" and "Rambo III".The character were treated like a comic book hero spawning action figures and a short lived animated series which lasted only a short while.There are not that many people who has heard of the Rambo character.He's well known through out,but today's generation would have been lucky to catch him on VHS or DVD.Back in 1982 when the character of John Rambo was introduced to movie screens,filmgoers were dealing with a character that was not displayed as an action icon,but a man who had a lot of demons within him.The best thing about "First Blood" is that John Rambo is not portrayed as an action hero.He is portrayed more as a man.A man who is haunted by memories of the Vietnam War.Sylvester Stallone plays the character of John Rambo very convincingly and Director Ted Kotcheff brings out the story to an effective scale allowing us to see the action through the character's eyes.Violence in films are the main aspects in film today.Or at least one of.It's fun to watch a violent film,but the violence in this film was not filmed to thrill the audience,but to make us understand what John Rambo is going through.I have these memories of first watching this film twenty years ago when I was twelve."First Blood" doesn't deal with CGI nor does it deal with special effects.It deals or tries to deal really hard on what is real.I like "First Blood" because I understand the character.He feels that society is against him and he is angry.A lot of films there is only one villain where as in this one society is the villain.That is according to Rambo.Actually,there is one villain named Sheriff Teasle played by Brian Dennehy.He and Rambo seemed to clash against each other and Ted Kotcheff let's us experience these two men go at it.I liked how the film shows Rambo trying to survive out in the woods while the guards are in hunting him when in turn he is hunting them creating these traps putting these officers in painful situations.The best thing about "First Blood" is that we know that John Rambo was in the Vietnam War and was trained to kill,yet,he doesn't kill a single human in the film on purpose.The killing of Galt was accidental and was deserving according to my eyes.This film is the best in the Rambo series because I understand the character and I understand why he is acting violent."First Blood" doesn't bring us John Rambo,the action hero but John Rambo,a regular man with a lot of demons he must face."First Blood" is the best of the Rambo series.
Batman (1989)
The best of the series,and the darkest. Until "Batman Begins".
Around the time "Beetlejuice" was released in theaters,I was reading "Starlog Magazine". It was announced that they were going to film a "Batman" movie.The last time I remembered seeing "Batman" was from the 70s-the early 80s.The show was campy and really dumb to watch and the comics seemed to be more darker than the television series.At that time,the "Superman" films were dying,thanks to "Superman III" and "Superman IV:The Quest for Peace".It was hard for me to accept that a film like "Batman" was coming to the big screen.My only thought was how corny it was going to be.Almost a year later,I realized that I was wrong."Batman" works on all forms.It is a wonderful film which captures the darkness and the imagination of what I did not expect from the film.Tim Burton directs the film with such glee that I was having a good time just by looking at the film.The casting for "Batman" is appropriately well made for the screen.The art direction and costume design are given a 1940s noir style and the cinematography gives "Batman" a comic book look to the film.Michael Keaton is fierce as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jack Nicholson is gruesomely hilarious as The Joker."Batman" is a dark film with fantastic special effects with a totally different look that had me feeling that I was being part of the movie."Batman" is a film that is fun to watch.
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987)
Even with Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman back,the franchize has died.* *
I was fifteen when this film came out.And I liked it.Years later when I had seen the film on television,the film had lost its touch.The humor was gone.The action was spoiled due to really bad visual effects and the film was spoiled due to the villain that was presented on the screen.Nuclear Man has to be one of the worst villains that I have seen on the screen.The first two Superman films had really great villains that were even worth cheering for.But by the time "Superman III" came out we were given villains that were hokey and not even fun to watch.The casting,as in the previous Superman is off target.Anyone tell me what was Jon Cryer doing in the film playing Lex Luthor's nephew?Christopher Reeve is good in the film.But the lousy effects and story doesn't allow him to act like the Superman we knew and liked.The entire film is treated more like the filmmakers did not take the franchize seriously.The filmmakers for the first two films took the first two seriously and the first two were entertaining on a grand epic scale.The last two,including this one has none of the entertaining value the first two had."Superman IV:The Quest for Peace" maybe alright for younger children.But when they grow up,they'll probably look back and asked why they chose to see this film.
Superman III (1983)
"Superman III" * * 1/2
"Superman III" works only because Christopher Reeve is in the film.But the casting of Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn in order to give the film a comic style doesn't work at all.The first two films were great and fun and the filmmakers gave us what we wanted which A great time at the movies.I was disappointed also at the locations they used for Metropolis."Superman III" suffers from the visual effects.They're not good but they're not that bad.The vision of "Superman III" had me wishing the film could get better.Director Richard Lester I think added a lot of weight to the series which made it difficult for me to enjoy.Stick with the first two.They're the best in the series.
13 Going on 30 (2004)
Silly and confusing * *1/2
"13 Going on 30" is watchable. But it is also a silly film that confused me beyond my beliefs.I believe in films that deal with the supernatural and magic.But when was the last time you've seen people dance to Michael Jackson's Thriller and thirteen year olds dance and sing to Pat Benatar's Love is a Battlefield in the year 2004?The main character's shift from 1987-2004 was confusing.Did she go with time or through time?Jennifer Garner is fun to watch and is cute and all.But the story threw everything at me that I thought was so corny.I knew what I was getting myself into when I viewed the film.This film plays like a cutesy version of the 80s.I don't really need that now.
AVP: Alien vs. Predator (2004)
I liked it but I wouldn't suggest this film to fans of the "Alien" and "Predator" films. * * *
"Alien vs "Predator" is what it appears to be on the big screen.Two different groups of monsters battling against each other throughout the film.It is fun to watch and the special effects are good along with the design of the creatures."Alien" vs "Predator" seems to have the look in terms of art direction that I really liked.But if you compare it to the last four "Alien" films and the last two "Predator" films,it's not all the same.Sure,the violence is almost the same and all,but,the effect is mostly gone.The fact that this film was released with a PG-13 rating instead of an R surprised me me.I find it odd and disappointing.After all,I am talking about two of the most popular sci-fi,horror film franchizes.I went to see the the film anyways and I liked it.But when I left the theater,I felt that the filmmakers who made the film did not know what the audience wanted.As I watched the film,the audience around me showed no signs of enjoying the film.I guess that means this film won't last long.The next time I see this film,it'll be on DVD.I'm pretty sure they'll come out with an R rated version then.
The Thing (1982)
One of John Carpenter's best films.* * * * *
It would be unfair for me to judge a film just for the special effects that are contained in that film.But how can I when 22 years later,the special effects are the stars of that film?By saying that the special effects are necessary because it fits within the story."The Thing" is labeled to me as a work of art that makes me wonder how this film would have turned out if CGI was used.I like CGI,but "The Thing" is a prime example in which the special effects done without the use of CGI seems alot better and more realistic.Director John Carpenter directs a solid cast that provides adds more suspense to the film that is already given to the film by Carpenter himself."The Thing" along with "Alien" works on various different levels.We never get to see what the alien looks like.We never know who is the alien.The special effects in the film are given a sense of realism.That is because no computers were used in this film.Each of the actors do so well in portraying characters who are paranoid because of their lack of trust for each other.They have nno trust for each other because of the alien that is stalking them."The Thing" is one of the greatest of John Carpenter's films.He and Kurt Russell work well together and Rob Bottin provides alot of fun with his inventive special effects.The movie still stands out after 22 years.It's one of the few examples in which I would call this film one of the greatest monster films of my time."The Thing" works because of that and I hope that if there is ever a rerelease,no CGI is used.I liked it alot and I still do.
Freddy Got Fingered (2001)
Where was the humor. *
The filmmakers of this film meant to film this as a comedy.They figured watching an infant swung around by the umbilical cord with blood splattering against the walls would be funny.They figured that child molestation would be funny.They also figured seeing a kid repeatedly get his faced smashed in with various hard objects would be funny.Because the filmmakers thought this,their attempts in making a humorous film fails on all accounts.Normally,I would give a film like this no stars.But I am giving it one star because the only thing preventing me from leaving the theater was Tom Green.I had to watch him.I had to watch him make a fool out of himself.I'm laughing.Not for Tom Green,but at him.He spends alot of the time acting more like an idiot than he does a comedian."Freddy Got Fingered" doesn't go anywhere with its grossout gags.It wastes the talents of Rip Torn and it wasted my time."Freddy Got Fingered" is the worst of 2001.It doesn't belong in the comedy genre.It belongs in the flush down the toilet genre.I am not finished yet.There is a scene where Tom Green's accuses his father of molesting his brother who is taken to some hospital for abused children.How could the filmmakers think this to be funny?Even though this film was offensive,I was never offended.I was more upset at the fact that the producers figured this would be a comedy when it's actually a waste of my time.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
A surprisingly good remake of a cult classic. * * * 1/2
"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was a controversal film based on the events of Ed Gein who was a serial killer back in the 1950s.The film shocked moviegoers due to the violence and material that followed it.Moviegoers reacted in ways such as leaving the theater.None of these people didn't have to watch the film,but they chose to and those who had seen the film would probably tell you that it was one of the most disturbing films they had seen in years.I wonder what those same people would say about the remake.I have seen both the 1974 and 2003 versions.To simply tell you,I thought they were both pretty good.Although I think the original is better because it was raw and was more sadistic and twisted.The remake was a good time at the movies for me.I thought it brilliantly recreated the old days of splatter and added some new twists to the film.Director Marc Nipsel or Nispel does a pretty good job whith the film because he takes the entire film and mixes it with scenes that were never filmed in the original.This is one of those films that had me staring at the screen because I wanted to see more.I know people who would object to seeing this film because they think the original was better,which it was.I prefer the original because it was in your face and the violence was subtle.The remake is enjoyable and I liked it because of its ability to make me remember the old days of film splatter.
Blood Feast (1963)
"Blood Feast" is so bad,I thought it was funny.* *
I happen to think that "Blood Feast" is one of the most silliest horror films that I have ever seen.It is corny and unscary but that is the whole point for the film.The way this film was directed,this is the way that Herschell Gordon Lewis wanted this film to be.I have tried watching other films that were were directed by this man and each of his films are so campy,I felt compelled to either laugh at the movie or laugh at myself for renting them.Even though I think that "Blood Feast" is one of the worst films I have seen,I ask you fans of Herschell Gordon Lewis not to hang a noose around my neck yet.I also have some positive things to say about the director and this film.This film belongs in horror film history not for being so bad but for being so daring in its attempt to shock the audience.This is the first gore film.Remember,this was back in 1963 and there was never a film like this before.Herschell Gordon Lewis took a film and shoved in our faces and said I want you to feel like you are feeling now.He made this film to challenge us.Personally to me "Blood Feast" is so corny that it's a cult classic.I am being to hard on Herschell Gordon Lewis.The film itself is a failed attempt at what we expect to see in horror films but I accept that.Even though I already mentioned that this is one of the worst,I also have some respect for this film because of its challenge.The film challenged those who watched this film to take what was shown and it challenges others today too.This is why "Blood Feast" is a cult classic.OK,maybe this is not one of the worst but it's still bad.So bad,it's good.But not good.Well,you know what I mean.