Ghostbusters (1984) review

(8/10)

"Who ya gonna call?" This line has become one of the most popular taglines in movie history, and it's easy to see why. This movie is funny, creative, and just full of laughs for all senses of humor.

PLOT:Professors Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Raymond Stantz (Dan Akyroyd), and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are all leading in parapsychology. One day, they are called to the library to investigate a particular ghost siting, which sets them off into their new career. After they're kicked out of the college they teach at, the get some money and start a "ghost-busting" business made to catch ghosts and keep the city safe. After their first big job at a famous hotel, they become worldwide hits! However, things start to get dangerous when they find out that a certain apartment building is being haunted by the Sumerian god, Gozer, and its two minions. These minions head after Venkman's crush, Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) and her nerdy neighbor, Louis Tully (Rick Moranis). Now it's up to our ghostbusters and their new employee, Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson), to stop Gozer and save the town from a near apocalypse. It's a great plot exected very well.



ACTING:All of the performances in here are great. I think the star of the show would be Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman; his sharp, dry humor propelled the movie forward and kept it more entertaining. The other shiners would be Dan Akyroyd as Raymond Stantz, Harold Ramis as Egon Spenkler, Sigourney Weaver as Dana Barrett, Rick Moranis as Louis Tully, Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddmore, William Atherton as Walter Peck, and Slavitza Johan as Gozer. Rick Moranis did outstanding playing the character of the awkward nerd; I felt that it fit him very well. Sigourney Weaver played a very good part by playing of off Murray's sarcastic dialogue. Though Akyroyd did a good job, I don't think this was his best role, for he was very childlike.

SCORE:The score is pretty good. It's composed of some curious and creepy themes. The soundtrack is pretty great too; it contains the title track by Ray Parker, Jr. as well as some oldies and creepy-sounding songs. I'd buy it.

EFFECTS:The effects in here weren't a marvel, but they were pretty fantastic. The effects they used to make the ghosts were pretty realistic as well as ridiculous-looking. The green blob-of-a-ghost is very well known because of this. The effects of the ghost dogs, Gozer and the temple, and the "streams" all looked great as well, thanks to the typical '80s effects.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie is definitely an '80s classic among everyone. It's funny, a little freaky, and very loveable. The humor in here is very diversified; it ranges from dry and sarcastic to harsh and stereotypical and even to dirty jokes. The humor has a little something for everyone. The scenes with the dogs and Gozer also ended up being pretty freaky in the end, which, in turn, makes them seem pretty well done. One thing in particular about this movie is the fact of how its humour and entertainment value make it a loveable classic among everyone. However, the '80s cheese brings some flaws to it. Upon rewatching, I notice that the dialogue can get pretty cheesy in parts as well as certain situations. This will forever hold its '80s classic reputation due to the cheesiness. Only a few scenes come off as cheesy and jumpy, but it's overall an entertaining movie.

OVERALL,a great comedy with a great plot, great performances, creepy score and great soundtrack, fantastic effects, a variety of humor, well-crafted freaky moments, and a high entertainment factors, but the dialogue can get cheesy and the plot can get shaky in some parts.

Trick 'r Treat (2006) review

(9/10)

This has to be one of the best Halloween and horror films of modern times. It's scary, clever, and just well done overall.

PLOT:It's Halloween night in Warren Valley, Ohio, and everybody's celebrating, but not always in the most pleasant ways. We follow four stories in this film which are all intertwined together. The stories include that of a school prinicpal, Mr. Wilkins (Dylan Baker), who moonlights on Halloween killing schoolchildren, a group of young teenagers who revisit the site of a school bus massacre, a young, petite, 22-year-old virgin girl (Anna Paquin) who's about to get hers tonight with the help of her friends, and an old, cranky loner named Mr. Kreeg (Brian Cox) who is being haunted and hunted by a little Halloween spirit. All of these happen on the same night and are intertwined within each other in this horror anthology. It's a great plot executed brilliantly.

ACTING:The performances in here are very great. I don't think there's really a bad one in here. The best (shiners) would be Dylan Baker as Mr. Wilkins, Brian Cox as Mr. Kreeg, Anna Paquin as Laurie, Leslie Bibb as Emma, Samm Todd as Rhonda, Richard Harmon as the Vampire Kid, and Jon-Luc Bilodeau as Schrader. The most significant to me are Dylan Baker as Mr. Wilkins and Brian Cox as Mr. Kreeg. They both play their parts perfectly, matching each persona very well. As I said before, however, mostly all performances are great.



SCORE:The score in here is quite intense and creepy. I'd say it kept the film going very well. It isn't as significant a theme as The Exorcist or Halloween, but it was pretty good.

EFFECTS:The blood and gore flows freely in this horror film. The blood effects are very good and enhance the scariness of this film, from small cuts to big guts and even too puking it. It all enhances the scares. The effects were also pretty great for the werewolves, the zombies, and Sam the Halloween kid. They all kept the film's scares going.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one of the best horror films I've seen in the modern age. It's scary, campy, clever, and just an instant classic. This film piles up on scares and puts in some dark humor to add a campy feeling to it. The writer did very well incorporating all of this together. This film's scares are also disturbing enough to put a shiver of Halloween glory and madness down your spine. It's also pretty clever and suspenseful how it connects all of the scares together by one storyline with several different subplots going on. This horror film brings back the good days of classic horror, from werewolves, to creative kills, to trick-or-treat murders, and even to revengeful zombies. This is an instant horror classic due to its craftiness. However, it's missing some decently important film elements, such as character development, which in turn makes it a pretty shallow horror film to some.  Either way, Michael Dougherty, I thank you for a great time.

OVERALL,an awesome Halloween horror film with a brillaintly-executed plot, very great acting, intense score, great blood and monster effects, disturbing scares, campy dark humor, clever writing, and a feeling of a good, old horror scare, but the absence of elements like character development could make one consider it fairly shallow, or that it could have been done a different way.

Claymation Comedy of Horrors (1992) review

(6/10)

This is an odd special. The animation is great as ever, but it's pretty wild and wierd, even for me.

PLOT:The greedy Wilshire Pig and his shy companion, Sheldon the Snail, are trying to make money through a Halloween carnival ride until they stumble upon the diary of Frankenswine, the mad scientist. By retrieving the dairy, the two get a map to Frankenswine's castle and an opportunity to find his monster. Wilshire takes this as an opportunity to make money and drags Sheldon (who has the map on his tongue) with him to the castle. However, once they find it and get in, they should be begging to get out! A Halloween party of monsters, zombies, and non-mortals gather there every year, and now Wilshire and Sheldon must find their way out of it while searching for the monster! It's a decent plot executed fairly well.



VOICES:The voices are actually pretty annoying to me. I don't know who did the voice acting, but Wilshire Pig's voice really annoyed me, and Sheldon barely even spoke! Most of the other voices were pretty annoying as well, but I'd say I liked the voice best for Famine, one of the skeleton warriors of the apocalypse. It was pretty comedic.

SCORE:The score wasn't really important, but the theme was done in a pretty fun way. It wasn't anything spectacular, but just a fun theme with an annoying song near the end sung by Wilshire.

ANIMATION:The animation is what really sold this special for me. The animation is composed by the great Will Vinton, who gave us the same for his delightful Claymation Christmas Special and his underrated film, The Adventures of Mark Twain. The animation was very detailed and expressed emotion in every character as well as animate certain aspects of the creatures.



OTHER CONTENT:This special was actually a weird one; it just didn't seem to do the job well for me. It was a wild and fun Halloween celebration, but at the end it just came off as empty. It didn't have the true Halloween spirit that it should've had. The humor was mainly hit-or-miss in here. There were a couple of humorous moments, such as meeting the horsemen of the apocalypse and seeing the monster revealed to the audience, but a lot of it was just basic, such as "Dr. Jekyl's experiment" or the ending. I'd usually like something like this because of its wild, Halloween nature, but it just left me feeling empty at the end. It's definitely a unique feature, but it borrows so much that it can't be anything more than JUST a TV special. Also, I really didn't care for the persona of Wilshire Pig or Sheldon the Snail; they are not lovable characters! It makes me miss the Christmas special more.

OVERALL,an ok Halloween special with a decent plot, annoying voices, a fun theme, great Vinton animation, an empty feeling, hit-or-miss humor, and unlikeable characters, but it did have its moments, and it is unique.

An American Werewolf in London (1981) review

(8/10)

This is one of the best and best-known werewolf movies, and it's a classic in itself with it's great make-up effects and whip-sharp humor.

PLOT:Two American friends, David Kessler (David Naughton) adn Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne), go on a backpacking trip to northern England, around the area of London and the moors. They walk for a while (after hitching a ride with a shepherd) until they come upon an old pub named the Slaughtered Lamb, in which they find a five-point star and several warnings to stick to the roads and beware the moon. These two foolish young men disregard their advice and end up getting lost off course, which brings them face-to-face with a werewolf. David survives and is taken to the nearest hospital, but Jack and the werewolf are dead. As David recovers with the help of his nurse, Alex (Jenny Agutter), he is visited by his undead friend and warned that he is the next werewolf and must kill himself before it's too late. For a while, David ignores it and bunks with Alex at her house, but little does he know that he's going to go through a big change. It's a good plot executed pretty well.



ACTING:The performances in here are pretty great. David Naughton as David and Griffin Dunne as Jack play off each other very well and just fill their characters with personality. Each has a similar sense of humor and charisma; however, David plays the change of the werewolf, and he plays it greatly. The other shiners would be Jenny Agutter as Alex, John Woodvine as Dr. Hirsch, Brian Glover as the chess player, David Shofield as the dart player, and Frank Oz as Mr. Collins.

SCORE:The score is pretty well done. It doesn't effect the film drastically, as that of Argento's films, but it's still pretty good. The soundtrack played alongside the humor, as the songs were all based on the moon. ("Blue Moon", "Moondance", "Bad Moon Rising") I liked it.

EFFECTS:These are what made the film so good. The make-up effects in here are brilliant. The effects of the bloody corpses, fresh and rotted, along with the severed body parts and werewolf itself are all brilliantly done. Also, the werewolf change in this film has to be one of the best; it's well-acted by David Naughton and done in detail from nails to teeth to fingers to face. The film is worth watching just for the effects, if not the horror!



OTHER CONTENT:This werewolf film is definitely a horror classic. It's scary and has a sharp, campy sense of humor. The scenes of horrific suspense, just waiting for the wolf to pop up and attack everyone is scary in itself; not to mention the howling in the background makes it all the better. John Landis definitely has a knack for capturing a shot at the right time and angle. Also, he has a pretty campy sense of humor. The humor he incorporates in here is dark, sharp, and dry all to the point of campiness. The film is great fun for horror fans alike. There is one big thing I didn't really like about the film though, and that is the ending. I expected the ending to have a bit more substance instead of being so abrupt. I thought that it should have had an epilogue or at least more dialogue. It just left me wondering what was next.

OVERALL,a great werewolf film with a good plot, great performances, well done score and comedic soundtrack, brilliant make-up effects with one of the best werewolf transformations ever, scary suspense, great direction by Landis, and a campy sense of humor, but the ending just left me wanting more.

Suspiria (1977) review

(9/10)

This is the film that Argento seems to be most famous for, and I can see why. It's full of suspense, extreme scares, and has a compelling story.

PLOT:Suzy Bannion (Jessica Harper) has just moved from America to a big ballet school overseas. However, she has come at a pretty bad time. She sees a student (Eva Axen) running away from school and mumbling some nonsensical things, and later that night, that student is murdered gruesomely. Suzy thinks next to nothing of it, and even makes a friend named Sara (Stefania Cosini). As soon as she gets there, she notices things aren't right. From maggots falling from the ceiling to poison in here food, among a few other disappearances, things don't seem natural here at all. After a while, Suzy begins to learn that this may have been a meeting place for witches for a long time. It's a great plot executed quite well.



ACTING:The performances in this film are pretty great, I'd say. I've seen Jessica Harper in a few other movies after this (Phantom of the Paradise, Shock Treatment), but I have to say that she did pretty well for an early performance. She hasn't always been the best actress, but this role seems to have been written right for her. Other shiners would be Stefania Cosini as Sara, Eva Axen as Pat, Flavio Bucci as Daniel, Alida Valli as the Mistress, and Joan Bennet as Madame Blanc.

SCORE:The score was brilliantly done by Argento's choice band, Goblin. The score was very disturbing and enhanced the mood of each scene. It also let you know when something was about to happen. It was perfect for a horror and a suspense.

EFFECTS:The effects are traditionally that of Argento: bright, red blood after bizarre violence. The effects in here were used very well for scares, from the bloodflow to the eerie lighting; I loved the way he experimented with lighting in here by changing its colors frequently from red to blue to green. This one he really put his effects out there.



OTHER CONTENT:This Argento horror film was very good. The suspense builds up greatly and is released through either little, spooky scenes in which something is built further, or extreme, violent impulses which make this film all the more great. This one, unlike the past two I've reviewed, hasn't borrowed a lot plotwise. Suspiria exists within its own horror ecosystem and provides scares in its own way. This is truly a unique, horror landmark of the 70s. However, it also doesn't go as far out with its scares as the past two have. It does have a few extremely violent scenes, but it doesn't scare as bad as the past two have. Either way, it doesn't fall short from Argento's reputation any.

OVERALL,an awesome Argento horror film with a great plot, great performances, brilliant score by Goblin, Argento experimental effects, built-up suspese, extreme releases of horror, and a different plot build-up than the past two, but it wasn't as scary to me as that of Deep Red, etc.

Deep Red (1975) review

(9/10)

This chapter in Argento's collection is a very odd and complex one, but it is very scary and well-crafted. Only a few minor flaws throw it off its axis of greatness.

PLOT:Jazz pianist, Marcus Daly (David Hemmings), witnesses a murder through a window of paranormal psychic, Helga (Macha Meril), who sensed her murderer coming. Things don't seem so bad afterwards, despite the fact that he's shaky, but then strange things start to happen. The unforseen killer starts to kill any friend or aquaintance of Marc that may have a connection to this person's history or a key to the murders. Marcus then becomes enthralled by figuring it out and teams up with his drunk best friend, Carlo (Gabriele Lavia), photographer Gianna (Daria Nicolodi), and Helga's friend, Giordani (Glauco Mauri), to solve the murders and put this killer's history together. It's a good plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The performances in this film are pretty much outstanding overall. David Hemmings played a pretty respectable part as Marcus Daly, the main protagonist of the film, but he was not the only outstanding peformance in the film. The others, I guess I could call them shiners too, would be Gabriele Lavia as Carlo, Clara Calamai as Carlo's mother, Macha Meril as Helga, and Glauco Mauri as Giordani. I felt the passion in the parts of Helga and Giordani. The emotion the put into their parts was just brilliant. I could also feel the emotion in the other two, but it was more dramatic than outstanding. Either way, the performances this film holds are all worthy of praise.

SCORE:The score was very unique and well done by a band named Goblin. I had heard about these guys and how they helped Argento's films, and now I must say that I love their musical vision. They sound like a combination with horror score and futuristic rock, which go together rather well. Not to mention this film had a theme creepier than any other I've heard (the one with the child singing). That theme song just sends shivers down my spine. I hope to see much more good stuff from Goblin in Argento's next few films.



EFFECTS:The effects used in here were pretty great, as well as standard in Argento's style. Argento's typical bright-red blood color and harsh prop violence enhance this film's creepiness and shock, making it all the more scary.

CAMERAWORK:Dario Argento has a certain style for how he wants his films to be shot, and it is seen clearly in here through the different pans and zooms that go with the mood ever so well. He has a vision much like Kubrick with the camera.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one of the few horror films that scared me fairly well. It was very scary, well-crafted together, stylized, complex, odd, and mysterious. It was definitely like almost no other film; notice that I said almost. One of the few flaws this film has is being very similar in structure to that of his past work, The Bird With the Crystal Plumage. In both, a guy witnesses a murder and gets ensnared in the mystery, an overly important detail from the beginning comes back as a shocker to the main character and audience, a brief climax is shown before the mystery is solved, and the aquaintances of the main character are hunted and killed. It's very similar, but this film is more advanced in its plot twists and uniqueness. This one is way more of a horror than a slight thriller/horror combo. Also, I hated that the copy I had of the film shot the dialogue in both English and Italian dub, alternating at random times. That just became aggrivating after a while and along with the organization,  threw the film off of its axis of greatness.

OVERALL,an awesome Argento horror with a brillaint plot, outstanding performances, unique score by Goblin with an overtly creepy theme, classic Argento effects, Argento style camerawork, very scary moments, well-crafted plot elements, stylized aspects, complex plot twists, a good mystery, and an odd feeling, but it borrowed a bit from his past films, and the double-dubs threw the film off a miniscule bit.

The Game Plan (2007) review

(3/10)

I saw this once on my birthday when I was younger. Now, I think its pretty much shallow and predictable, running on the same family movie formula as used several times before.

PLOT:Joe Kingman (Dwayne Johnson) is the famous quarterback for the Boston Rebels. He's always been the King, who never says no, and is full of himself in every aspect. However, the King's bubble is bursted when he finds out he has an 8-year-old daughter named Peyton (Madison Pettis), who has unexpectedly arrived at his doorstep to stay with him. Things immediately turn upside down from then. Things start to be more about Peyton than about Joe, and he doesn't really like it much. He clearly isn't used to being a father, considering he leaves her at a nightclub, sets up game plans of where she can go, and even disregards every word she says. However, it's possible that this young girl can warm this tough quarterback's warm heart. It's a basic plot executed in a formulaic way.



ACTING:The acting in here is ok. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson''s part as the tough quarterback father, Joe Kingman, was mainly pretty shallow, due to his script. He was just simply ok, but he was the best performance in the movie. Madison Pettis played a pretty basic part as the young daughter Peyton. She was mainly just a regular child actor, but she did have her moments where she said a snappy line or stirred an emotional response. There aren't really any other shiners, not even Kyra Sedgewick as his cold agent, Stella. She actually did pretty awful.

SCORE:The score was mainly made up of either some cheesy inspirational schlock or some good classic rock soundtrack. I spotted songs in here from the likes of Elvis, E.L.O., and even Marvin Gaye. The soundtrack itself wasn't bad, but the score was just cheese.



OTHER CONTENT:This is just another family movie Disney made to make money, endorsing football and their new star, at the time, Madison Pettis, who played on the Disney Channel show, "Cory in the House". This movie is cheesy, shallow, and predictable for the most part. However, this movie did have some positive aspects. It did teach a good lesson with some heart-warming moments and some clever moments, but it's overall pretty formulaic. Also, the second half of the movie is way better than the first. It was less shallow and a little more cleanly edited.

OVERALL,a bad movie with a formulaic plot, ok acting, cheesy score and a good soundtrack, cheesiness, shallow execution, and predictability, but it did have its moments with its simple lesson, and it had a better, well-edited second half.