Reviews

* I'm sure that the resurgence of the dead-teenager/mad-slasher genre in the 90's (most notably attributed to "Scream") motivated New Line to bring back Jason for another film, but the executives should have realized that "Scream" was making fun of movies like this.

* It's never a good sign when the best actor in the movie is the guy who has his face covered by a hockey mask.

* By my count Jason kills 30 people in this movie; that works out to about 1 kill every 3 minutes. The Truth.com better not find out about this statistic, it could put them out of business.

* Fans of the series will appreciate some of the formula elements that you expect from a "Friday" picture:

- The Forwarning: Rowan, the woman who was frozen along with Jason, tells of the numerous ways in which they tried to kill Jason and yet when Jason is on the lose she is assured by the ships optimistic professor that there is nothing to worry about. - Inventive slaughters: Jason dunks a girls head into nitroglycerin, then smashes it into several pieces against a wall.

- Horny Teenagers: Since when are science students this hot, dressed in clothes that would make Madonna blush and excused from lab in order to fornicate.

- False Death of Jason: I've seen Jason come back from being hung, axed and macheted to the head, electricuted, drowned, drenched with toxic waste and sent to hell, but I never I thought I would see him get up after he had his head blown off in this one.

* Yes, this movie sets up for a sequel, but when are we going to see Freddy vs. Jason?

* With regards to the special effects: They Suck!. Now that everybody is using computer graphics, it's time to limit there use just for the films that can afford to use them well. The space scenes in this movie are on par with the worst of the original Star Trek series. This gives more evidence that what Tom Savini was able to do back in the original "Friday" was a real breakthrough and it is too bad that this film is connected to that film.

The gift of the IMDB is that it gives people like me the oppurtunity to voice his reaction to a film and now I am going to indulge on this privilege. THIS WAS ONE OF THE WORST FILMS I HAVE EVER SEEN! First of all the music overwhelmed the dialogue: during the action sequences the actors lips would be moving but all you would hear would be the techno-musical score that resembled the sound of a hammer pounding on a bag full of electronics. Perhaps the filmakers were so embarassed of their final product that they tried to cover it up with the soundtrack. Another thing that I noticed was that there were few establishing master shots, so the actors would go from room to room and the audience would not have a clear idea of where they were coming from or where they were going. It could be that the producers didn't want to invest any money into a good production design so we are stuck with tight, cookie-cutter shots of the enviroment. That takes me to the story itself, which is nothing more than elements from other, better movies (Alien, Dawn of the Dead and Outbreak). And worst of all, just when you think it's over, the movie adds on an epilogue to set up a sequel. All I can do is hope that this film losses enough money to convince the producers that to make a sequel would be truly evil.

To think critically about this movie is an exercise in futility. It is not self-conscious, therefore we see things that we thought we would never see a grown man do. This is exactly why it is so appealing. If you have the kind of sense of humor that laughs at actors making fools of themselves then you will love NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER.

Ed Gein may have been the inspiration for "Psycho" and "The Texas Chain saw Massacre", but on his own he is not interesting enough to be the centerpiece of a film. What was shocking about his crimes is that they happened in a relatively peaceful community and that he was considered by most to be a harmless person, if not a little strange. This film decides not to show that perspective of the story, rather we are told the story through the point of view of Ed. The biggest failure of the movie is that the film makers don't seem to have any idea as to what made Ed Gein tick. We are simply shown that he had an overbearing mother and that her death affected him in a negative way. The film is more interested in the grave robbing and murders and less interested in the underlying motivation. I will go easy on the actors in the movie, I think that they do as well as they can with the material they are provided. Many scenes in the film were probably conceptual nightmares for any intelligent actor. But the main reason why the film doesn't work is because the film makers decided that Ed would make a good protagonist and if this is the case who do they suppose would be the antagonists, the people that he killed?

Seeing "Bring It On" was more painful than having my wisdom teeth removed!! How this film made 17 million dollars in one weekend is even more beguiling. Is this what teenagers today relate to or were there just a lot of dirty old men who wanted to be teased by scantily clad adolescents? This film wants to be R rated but stay safely in the PG-13 zone, so what we get are ugly camera shots that are positioned just above the frontal nudity format.

The plot: A 5 time national champion cheerleading squad has to redeem itself after it is discovered that their award winning routine has been stolen from a much more talented inner city cheerleading squad. It's supposed to be a comedy but the only thing that made me laugh was the fact that this film was made. The young characters are so absorbed in cheerleading that you wonder how they plan to make a living after they graduate from high school: they barely acknowledge the fact that they have classes to go to. None of them seem to have any genuine emotions and all of them are downright annoying. If these kids were in "Friday the 13th" people just might cheer for Jason.

As I was watching it I began to realize that each scene was getting worse and worse. Some examples. The laborious scene where the cheerleaders audition a new member for their squad: the captain insists on the weird girl while the other cheerleaders complain saying the process is supposed to be a democracy, their corrected and told it's a "cheerocracy". Then the captain is later referred to as a "cheertator". There is also the scene where a choreographer, who is recycled out of every dance movie ever made, trains the girls. Amongst other things he tells one girl to starve herself to get thin; that's just a wonderful idea to put into a teenage girl's head. Then there are the scenes with the inner city cheerleading squad that so tirelessly stereotype African American speech and manner that I was amazed that this film was released in the year 2000 and not 1950.

What's depressing is that as this movie played I actually heard young people laughing. This is humorous to them? Then I came to the conclusion that as long as they keep going to movies like this we'll keep getting movie like this. Perhaps one day there will actually be a film that shows what it's truly like to be a teenager and it might even star actors who aren't in their thirty's. Until then we're stuck with this AWFUL, TRITE, APALLING, HORRENDOUS, ODIOUS, REVOLTING, HIDEOUS, LOATHSOME, REPULSIVE, IMMATURE, NIGHTMARISH, HORRID PIECE OF TRASH!!!!!!!!

Part of the appeal of 3-D is that can lift a relatively boring movie to more than it should be. That is the case in Jaws #3. Having pretty much gotten all they could from the creature from the deep franchise the producers were left with no other choice than to attach a gimmick to this movie to draw an audience.

All I can remember about seeing Jaws 3-D in the theaters was that I had a lot fun. Being young I didn't care much for plot or characters. All that mattered was that I was entertained and I was. I just saw the movie recently on tape and it was all I could do to stay awake. It was just a ripoff of the original and all it's clones. If the tape had been in 3-D I might have been more alert.

The only good thing that I can say for the film is that if you can't go to Sea World you can at least get an idea of what it is like from this movie.

"Prom Night" takes all the elements of more successful horror films, but doesn't have any style or content to make it a worthwhile feature. It follows the standard mad slasher formula: something bad happens in the past and years later, on the anniversary of the crime, a killer takes revenge. And like most others in the genre it takes place on a special occasion in this case the high school prom.

The tragedy in this film is the death of a young girl as her peers are teasing her. Each one of the kids involved in her death vows never to tell anyone, but of course, somebody witnessed it and plans to get even with them. So, SIX YEARS LATER, on the day of the prom, the masked killer goes into action. He starts by calling all of the kids to warn them and they are required by the plot to pass it off as a crank call. Later, he cuts out their yearbook pictures and places them in each of their respective lockers with malicious implications. Again, they don't take note of the warning. And by the time the prom begins, they have all but forgotten their threats (they all must have ADD). The movie tries to be a mystery setting up possible suspects such as the weird greens keeper or a horribly burned mental patient, but even those with the lowest IQ can figure out who the killer is.

Since none of the victims seem to have any remorse about what they did or have any interesting personality corks, it is hard to develop any sympathy for them. They all have the old clichéd teenager problems such as getting a date, competing for attention, and not giving in to their desires. And when there in danger they act so stupidly that they almost deserve to die. For example, the masked assailant is chasing a girl and first she locks herself in a car, miraculously, she manages to escape, only to hide in a storage closet. At least the murders are done with a minimal amount of blood and gore.

The star of the film, Jamie Lee Curtis, isn't even involved with the revenge plot and only is in danger at the very end of the movie because the killer targets her boyfriend. Oddly enough her scenes are almost unconnected to the rest of the movie. The best scene in the film has to be when she and her boyfriend do a cheesy spot light dance. And people wonder why disco went out of style. The film also stars Leslie Nielson, who got top billing, but disappears half way through the picture. It's as if the producers told him that this wasn't a comedy.

If Quentin Tarantino were to have written "Little Red Ridding Hood", "Freeway" is probably what you would get. Reese Witherspoon plays Vanessa, the modern Red Ridding Hood, who is the type of girl you would see on Jerry Springer (as the film begins she is struggling to read the sentence "The cat drinks milk"). Kiefer Sutherland plays Bob Wolverton, the big bad wolf.

After her mother and stepfather are taken to jail for being just too darn sleazy, Vanessa handcuffs her social worker to her bed and steals her car to go to her grandma's trailer. She isn't sure if her grandma is going to accept her with open arms, after all, her mother did throw acid in her face. When her car breaks down on the freeway she is picked up by the seemingly nice Bob.

Bob at first seems to be generally concerned about Vanessa, but this is Kiefer Sutherland we're talking about here. We know that it's just a matter of time before he attacks her and he does. Up too this point I thought I knew where this movie was going, but the result of Bob's attempt to murder Vanessa sends the movie into an entirely different direction.

A modern Red Ridding Hood would have to be a force to be reckoned with, especially if she came from a poor white trash background. There are more big bad wolves these days then there were in Grimm's time. What's good about "Freeway" is how it has all the elements of the fairy tale but it's crossed with a satire of true crime stories. I especially liked the way the actors stayed completely in reality even when faced with the most absurd situations. Kiefer Sutherland is stuck with an odd grimace for the second half of the movies and he also has to smoke through his throat. Reese Witherspoon encounters such events as: coming home from school to see her mom outside their motel room turning tricks, getting told to respect her stepfather because he spent all day standing in line getting rent vouchers, and later a female inmate in a juvenile detention center tries to make out with her. And both actors maintain believability throughout. If you are a fan of over the top humor then "Freeway" is definitely one for you to watch.

And I won't waste too many words on this film. It stinks, stinks, stinks. A ripoff of "Rocky IV" and "The Karate Kid" is all that needs to be said. If you find yourself in the situation where it is on your television, run like hell!!!! I think that this movie may actually kill brain cells.

Halloween 4 at least makes an attempt to create suspense and mood as opposed to just being another gore fest. The plot is pretty simple: Michael Myers escapes from yet another mental health facility to wreak havoc on quiet town of Haddonfield. This time the his target is his 8 year old niece, Jamie, played with style by Danielle Harris. The film was shot in darker tones which adds to the creepy mood and the gore is kept somewhat tame.

There are some draw backs, however. The first is Donald Pleasence, who, of course, should be dead, considering what happened at the end of Halloween II. I loved his performances in the first two Halloweens, his speeches on Michael Myers gave the shape the wonderful characterization of "..purely and simply evil." In this film, though, he seemed tired and unattached to his pursuit. My other complaint is the ending. Where the first film ended with a true sense of dread that the evil was still loose, this one has an ending that is done simply for the purpose of another sequel.

Still I liked it enough to recommend it to any fan of the series.

Critics were probably quick to dismiss "Midnight Madness" as a film that was so bad that it could only get an audience if it played in drive-ins and at midnight screenings. Well they were right. But that's the point because this is "Camp" cinema. I don't know if made like this on purpose, but in the end it really doesn't matter.

I just saw the film (for the first time as an adult) recently at a friend's house. It was a Friday around midnight when we started to watch it. I was tired and not too excited about our viewing choice. As the movie played I found myself strangely engaged. The film is kind of a cross between "Thank God It's Friday" and "The Cannonball Run" (not exactly to of the best films ever made). It chronicles the efforts of a bunch of different groups of college kids each trying to be the first to complete a scavenger hunt set up by a reclusive genius.

Artistically there isn't much to recommend about "Midnight Madness". There are no real characters, just character types: hero, villain, angry young man, and the girl. And the supporting players are all stereotypes: nerds, jocks, fat women and feminists. There are no intriguing plot points or laugh out loud moments. And yet, late at night, with a beer in my hand, I sank into my seat and thoroughly enjoyed this classic example of a bygone form of cinema.

I imagine the pitch for "Hollow Man" went something like this:

AMBITIOUS YOUNG SCREENWRITER: Mr. Big, I have an idea for a movie.

BIG STUDIO EXECUTIVE: Okay, young man, what's it about.

AYS: It's about an invisible man.

BSE: An invisible man, that's one that hasn't been done in a while. What do you want to do with that premise?

AYS: That's the thing, there's so much we can do: we could have him steal food from a fancy restaurant, we could have him sneak aboard plane going to Bermuda, or we could give him Tourette's syndrome and see how people react when they hear all these insults coming out of thin air. You know the possibilities are endless.

BSE: Yeah, those sound like some good ideas, but we'll do is this instead: We'll make him a military scientist (cause you know the government would want to have the power to turn people invisible) so that way when he's invisible he can terrorize his fellow scientists in an underground lab. While he's invisible, we'll have him do what all invisible men want to do. He'll fondle a woman's breast while she's asleep and later we'll have him sexually assault his across-the-courtyard neighbor (who, incidentally, will look like a Victoria's Secret model). And we'll end by making him a mad slasher who cannot be killed. Basically he'll be an invisible Jason Voorhees.

AYS: I don't know, that's kind of weak. We could do so much more with this idea instead of just turning it into a routine horror flick. I mean your story, it's flat, it's just real "hollow", man.

A light bulb goes off over the Big Studio Executive's head.

This is easily Brian De Palma's best film. The theme of public apathy against the backdrop of a political assassination runs incredibly smoothly throughout this film. All of the characters seem to lack humanity, which illustrates the bleakness of modern America. Even though John Travolta's Jack Terry is the film's protagonist, by the end it seems that all he cared about was getting the sound right for the film he was working on. It is also a remarkably well made movie that engages the viewer from start to finish.