The Haunting (1963) review

(8/10)

   Though greatly outdated and a tad uneven, The Haunting still remains one of the most prestigious horror films of its time with an excellent cast, expert camerawork, and a harrowing psychological question.

PLOT: The legend of Hill House has been passed down from generation to generation. The house is said to be extremely haunted by the ghosts of the past owners who died inside. One day, anthropologist Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson) invites the house's future heir, Luke Sanderson (Russ Tamblyn), uptight ESP expert, Theodora (Claire Bloom), and unstable friend, Eleanor Vance (Julie Harris) out to the house to spend a few nights and investigate the haunted legends of Hill House. Throughout their stay in the house, things start getting creepier and creepier, instilling a fear that the legends may be true, especially for poor Eleanor, who's either going insane or being taken over by the house. The plot is a very classic idea from a classic novel and is executed fairly well. We're injected with a ton of wavering suspense throughout the film as small scares arise every so often. Along with this aspect, a kind of dramatic story is established through the characters' conversations.

ACTING: The cast in this film did excellent jobs at their parts. One of my favorite parts of this film is probably the chemistry the cast establishes among each other. The best performances were probably from Russ Tamblyn as Luke Sanderson, Julie Harris as Eleanor Vance, and Richard Johnson as Dr. Markway. Tamblyn provided a subtle comedy relief from the spookiness of  the house, Harris convinced me of her characters questioning insanity, and Johnson just fit his part well. The cast did very excellent jobs at their parts.

SCORE: The score for this film was very nostalgic and well done. It set the spooky mood very well.

CAMERAWORK: The camerawork in this film was quite excellently done. At each scare and moment of tight suspense, the camera was perfectly suited to catch the creepiest yet clearest angle it could get. The film is shot brilliantly.

OTHER CONTENT: This film was a classic in its time, but compared to today's standards, it stands more as a paranormal suspense or psychological thriller than a horror. The times it felt most like a horror film was the telling of the family history near the beginning and within the scattered scares near the end. The film feels more like anticipation with no release. However, when a scare does pop up, the suspense succeeds in making it decently effective. I think, really, The Haunting works more as a psychological horror of a sort, because throughout the whole film, we're left questioning whether Eleanor is possessed by the house or driven mad by her own paranoid thoughts. This where the film succeeds most, next to the acting and cinematography. Watching her go insane as the house falls down around her is a quite harrowing sequence.

   The Haunting is a rather outdated and slow horror film, but it does succeed in promoting a stellar cast, expert cinematography, and the bare bones of a psychological horror. The suspense, though tedious at times, helps create effective jump scares. For its time, The Haunting was probably one of the few horror films containing cinematic style, and not just a cheap thrill.

Freaks (1932) review

(9/10)

   Combining the elements of pure horror and compelling drama, Freaks lives to be more than just your basic shocker. It lives to be as true a variety show as it portrays, but never falling short of a few chills.

PLOT: The story takes place in your average traveling circus with its own special set of sideshow freaks, including things from bearded ladies and sword swallowers to things as extreme as limbless, deformed, and Siamese twin humans. All of the entertainers are very close to each other except for a certain two people: Cleopatra, Queen of the Trapeze (Olga Baclanova) and Hercules (Henry Victor). These two are perfectly normal, beautiful, and talented people and separate themselves from the other acts. However, one of the acts, a dwarf named Hans (Harry Earles) falls in love with Cleopatra and plans to leave his prior engagement for her. Cleopatra at first uses Hans as a servant and an entertainer, but when she finds out he has a small fortune hidden away, Cleopatra decides to marry him. After the wedding and a good few drinks, Cleopatra and Hercules yell in disgust at the freaks when they try to accept them as one of their own, revealing their true colors. Afterwards, all of the freaks hate Cleo and Herc, including Hans, and plan on getting revenge, especially after finding out she might be poisoning Hans. The plot is very well developed and executed excellently, with every element standing out and finding its place, from shock and horror to comedy and tragedy. The story elements fall perfectly into place all the way up to the chilling ending.

ACTING: The performances in this film are excellent. Olga Baclanova and Henry Victor both are excellent as Cleopatra and Hercules, establishing definitive duo of villains. They stood out about as much as the actual sideshow acts. One of the best features of this film's cast is the idea the filmmakers had to use real circus freaks in the cast. Harry Earles is really a dwarf. Daisy and Violet Hilton are real Siamese twins. The living torsos and pinhead-like beings are real. This effect in the cast makes the film extremely authentic and that much more chilling. The cast is well picked and excellently talented, keeping the tension high all the way up to the outstanding ending.

SCORE: The score is very haunting and effective, instilling a nostalgic feeling of horror and despair for the film.

OTHER CONTENT: This film may have some truly terrifying moments,which are filmed excellently enough to create an ominous, suspenseful mood, but Freaks itself contains all the elements of the variety show within the film. This film has comedy, tragedy, terror, a compelling story, and is overall very much like the circus within the film. Though a little cheesier compared to today's standards, the film does very much remain a classic of its time.

   Freaks is very much a show; the comedy, tragedy, horror and story are all there. However, it's a show memorable through its haunting camerawork and ominous, suspenseful mood building up the the shocker ending. The film is a lot of fun, but also a lot of serious emotion, enhanced by the excellently-picked cast.

The Evil Dead (1981) review

(10/10)

If there was such a thing as a perfect horror film, this would be the top contender for me. It's scary, dark, and perfectly set-up.

PLOT:Ash (Bruce Campbell), his girlfriend, Linda (Betsy Baker), his best friend, Scott (Richard Demanincor), his sister, Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss), and his best friend's girl, Shelly (Theresa Tilly) travel to Tennesse to a hidden cabin in the woods with party on their mind. The cabin is freaky, old, and located across an unsafe bridge. Once they get settled in, strange things start happening causing Ash and Scott venture down in the cellar. They find a tape recorder, a spooky sword, and an old book. They listen to the recordings later and find out this used to be a site for Kandarian demon possessions caused by reading the Book of the Dead aloud. One transcript reads off a passage and it summons the demons. Strange things start to happen involving trees, possession, and dismemberment and now the teens must try and make it out of the house alive. It's a great plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting in here was pretty good. Because of the way this movie was made (low-budget and campy), the acting was supposed to be overdone, but it comes off as just right to evoke the right senses of insanity and horror in the characters. Bruce Campbell did a great job as the main protagonist, Ash. He definitely lead the pack. The other shiners were Betsy Baker as Linda, Ellen Sandweiss as Cheryl, and Richard Demanincor as Scott.

SCORE:The score was only there to set the mood right and unnerve the person watching, which it did. The creepy feel of the movie combined with the score to make a truly unnerving set of scenes.



EFFECTS:The effects had to be cheap, considering this was a low-budget film, but they got the job done well. From chocolate syrup as blood, to green cottage cheese as oozing pus, to painted eyelids, every effect was done basically. However, these effects made it much more real and scary compared to today's CG effects.

ANIMATION:The animation in here is used like part of the special effects, but it's still claymation. Some very detailed claymation was used for the ending sequence to enhance the rotting flesh of the demons. I loved this part most because of the artistic view put into it all.

CAMERAWORK:Though the film was low-budget, the director definitely had a vision for cinematography, for he captured each shot to the fullest extent and feeling. Some shots alone freaked me out. Thank you, Raimi.



OTHER CONTENT:Every thing about this film as a horror came together to make the formula for a perfect horror film. It's scary, funny, unforgiving, campy, dark, simple, well-crafted, controversial, and even creatively executed. The effects and mood of the film just unnerve the viewer and possibly sends shivers down their spines. Even in the latter scenes all the way up to the climactic battle at the end, the feeling of true horror and the rarely captured feeling of pure insanity is seen in here, beautifully created by the actors. I also liked how they experimented with sound to make the demon voices just right to scare. It's just a perfect horror film becuase it has everything it needs.

OVERALL,an epic horror film with a basic plot executed to the best degree, acting that fit the mood of the film, unnerving score, working low-budget effects, beautifully gruesome claymation animation, full extent camerawork, the feeling of insanity and pure horror, just right demon voices, and all it takes to make a perfect horror film.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012) review

(10/10)

I've been waiting to see this film for what I've heard about it, though I haven't seen any of Wes Anderson's work. However, I believe this was a good introduction to his direction style, because I almost immediately fell in love with it.

PLOT:Sam (Jared Gilman) is a boy scout who is an orphan that nobody really likes. Suzy (Kara Haywood) is a weird girl with several brothers and is known to her parents as the problem child. These two meet curiously one night at a play and fall in love at first sight. They start to write to each other and about a year later, they devise a secret plan to meet up and run away with each other. Sam resigns from his troop and sneaks away, and Suzy packs her stuff and runs away from her home. After they meet up and run away, a search party is formed between policeman Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), Suzy's dad, Mr. Bishop (Bill Murray), Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton), Mrs. Bishop (Frances McDormand), and the other scouts. Will the two twelve-year-olds get away with their loving escape in this September of 1965? I'll leave you there. It's a great plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting in here was excellent. Each performance was unique and carefully staged. Jared Gilman and Kara Haywood as Sam and Suzy had to be a couple of the best child actors I've seen lately. They performed very well. The film revolves more around them than the talented adult actors. The other shiners would be Bruce Willis as Captain Sharp, Bill Murray as Mr. Bishop, Frances McDormand as Mrs. Bishop, Edward Norton as Scout Master Ward, Tilda Swinton as Social Services, Harvey Keitel as Commander Pierce, Jason Schwartzman as Cousin Ben, Bob Balaban as the narrator, and  Gabriel Rush as Skotak. There really wasn't a bad performance in this film.

SCORE:The score was fun and quirky and really helped the film flow better with its overall feeling.



CAMERAWORK:I can see the direction of Wes Anderson has a lot in store just due to the camerawork in this film. The camerawork in this film is clean cut and unique both at the same time, giving Anderson the better hand as a director.

EFFECTS:There weren't that many effects, but they were fairly realistic of what I saw. They were realistic and vivid, from the blood to the fire to the lightning.



OTHER CONTENT:This film evoked so many feelings and emotional stirs in me that I didn't expect it to find. The film is quirky, fun, sad, and romantic. The feeling of teenage adolescense between the two main characters, their dream of being able to run away, and the love they had for each other in the few hours they had all found my sense of passion and hit a hidden emotion of wanting a simple relationship as they had. You will too, if you have the right mindset. The adventure, romance, and wacky quirks of the film all draw together to make a truly compelling teenage dream of a simple relationship.

OVERALL,an epic film with a brilliant plot, excellent performance, quirky score, clean cut camerawork, realistic effects, romance, a passion for a simple relationship, and a sense of quirky adventure.

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.

Prophecy (1979) review

(6/10)

This just screams B-movie and every essence of it, but the message, suspense, and effects just draw it to a near-win.

PLOT:Dr. Rob (Robert Foxworth) has never been remembered for anything he's done to help people, but his chance finally comes when a close friend asks him to go to a forest that's the subject matter of a war between the original Indians that have lived there for a long time and a leading paper mill that has been using the lake and other resources for about 20 years. He flies down there with his musician wife, Maggie (Talia Shire, who's character is also "secretly" pregnant), to bring some peace to the dispute, but things start to go weird when Rob catches rumors of unexplained deaths and sees bizarre sights (such as a fish the size of a boat). The Indian people also speak of an animal they've seen combined with all the others. Through a careful investigation, Rob discovers the paper mill is polluting the lake and the effects of the pollution are turning the local animals into monsters, including an angry, mutated bear. It's a good plot executed decently.



ACTING:The acting isn't great, but it does have some good performances. Robert Foxworth and Talia Shire play a respectable part as the two lead protagonists, Rob and Maggie. They were by far the stars of the show. The other shiners would be Victoria Racimo as Ramona and Richard Dysart as Isley. I don't believe Armand Assante played a very emotional part of the Indian lead protagonist, John Hawks. I believe he had about as much emotion as Kristen Stewart, and that's bad. His is the only real bad one, I'd say.

SCORE:The score wasn't really important. It was just some new, horror score that went with the mood. It didn't repeat itself as the likes of "Creature from the Black Lagoon" did, but it didn't play a major part.

EFFECTS:The effects are cheap, to say the least, but I also believe they are pretty well-made. The movements are easily labeled as cheaply done, but the design is still pretty freaky and unnerving as it is.

CAMERAWORK:I actually appreciated the camerawork in this movie, for it was closely-cut and very tongue-in-cheek with its style. I liked it.



OTHER CONTENT:This is basically just a shlock 70s B-movie, but it isn't the worst you'll ever see. Aside from the decent leads and freaky costume design, the movie also sent a sad message and packed a lot of suspense. The message this movie sent off was to save the environment and stop pollution, and I'd say it succeeded in delivering that message through scares and tears. It's actually kind of sad when you think about it. Also, the director (John Frankenheimer) is said to be a very good suspense creator, and this movie shows it. There are a couple parts in this movie where the suspense can almost be cut with a knife, and I appreciate that. However, this movie does have a lot of cons to its few pros. The movie itself is very cheesy and almost laughable. There were a few scenes I found myself chuckling at the shlockiness of it all, but it's not the worst B-movie you'll ever see. Yes, it's still pretty bad, but it does have some positive aspects to it, if you seek to find them. I got chills.

OVERALL,an ok B-movie with a decent plot, some good performances, unimportant score, cheaply unnerving effects, closely-cut camerawork, a good message, and plenty of suspense, but it was very cheesy and very laughable; if one were to fail to find the good aspects in it, this would just be a bad movie altogether.

Dead Poets Society (1989) review

(10/10)

I'm not sure if I'm overrating this film, but either way, I loved the powerful performances and message in here.

PLOT:It's a new semester at Welton Academy in 1959, and Todd Anderson (Ethan Hawke) is new to the high-honors school. A lot is expected of him considering he is the brother of one of their best students. Some of the students who befriend him include the all-around guy, Neil Pery (Robert Sean Leonard), who keeps his passion for actin secretive from his strict father (Kurtwood Smith), and love-struck Knox Overstreet (Josh Charles) among many others. What makes this year different from all the rest is that the old English teacher has retired and been replaced with former student, Mr. John Keating (Robin Williams). Mr. Keating has a very unique vision of being a freethinker through poetry and "sucking the marrow out of life". Things start to pick up when the boys find out that Mr. Keating used to be a member of the Dead Poets Society, which was a bunch of students reading poetry in a cave off of school grounds. The students decide to take Mr. Keating's inspiration and advice and start the Society back up, creating new personalities and passions in each student. It's a very good plot idea executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The performances in here are beyond great. Robin Williams plays the role of free-thinking Mr. Keating very well, as everything this film has set out for him succeeds. I think he should try drama more often than comedy sometimes. The young leads of the students were pretty great too. The shiners aside from Williams would be Robert Sean Leonard as Neil Perry, Ethan Hawke as Todd Anderson, Josh Charles as Knox Overstreet, Gale Hansen as Charlie Dalton, Allelon Ruggiero as Steven Meeks, James Waterston as Gerard Pitts, Carla Belver as Mrs. Perry, Lara Flynn Boyle as Ginny Danburry. The two best young leads in particular were Leonard and Hawke as Neil and Todd, with Charles coming in third as Knox. I saw the most emotion in these characters. Also, it was great to see Kurtwood Smith from "That 70s Show" playing the strict dad yet again.

SCORE:The score was very well composed by Maurice Jarre and director Peter Weir. It was very powerful and emotional.



OTHER CONTENT:This is a phenomenal film. The film packs such an emotional message about how to seize the day before it's gone and enjoy what you have when you can. I believe everyone should see this film some time in their life. It's dark yet uplifting at the same time. It's also a strong statement to poetry everywhere. This film has gotten me into Peter Weir's strong direction.

OVERALL,an epic film with a brilliant plot, very great performances, powerful score, and an emotional punch of a message.

The War of the Roses (1989) review

(9/10)

DeVito has done it again with his usual dark style of direction with abundant dark humor and a meaningful moral.

PLOT:Young businessman Oliver (Michael Douglas) finds it as love as first sight when he runs into a pretty young woman named Barbara (Kathleen Turner). They immediately hit it off and start to build their lives together, buying cars, having kids, and buying a huge, beautiful house to fill with expensive artifacts and work. However, the love begins to die between the two as they begin to see the real person in each other. When the file for divorce, they end up in a battle between each other over who would keep the house. This is no regular battle, however; these two go tooth-and-nail crazy in a war to see who can keep the house. With the help of their associate, Gavin (Danny DeVito, who's also the narrator), they try to pull through. It's a good plot idea executed creatively.



ACTING:The performances in here were pretty great. Douglas and Turner stole the show, as each played off each other perfectly. There were some scenes I could truly see their best moments in. Danny DeVito also played a pretty respectable part as Gavin/the narrator. He told the story with a unique sense of wisdom and philosophy. He made the end of the movie all worthwhile. There weren't very many other performances in this movie aside from these three, but the ones I can honorably mention would be Marianne Sagebrecht as Susan, Sean Astin as Josh, Heather Fairfield as Carolyn, and Rika Hofmann as Elke.

SCORE:There really isn't that much to say about the score, but it was pretty well done to fit the mood.

CAMERAWORK:DeVito, like Kubrick, has a certain vision for capturing things just right. I like his style of camerawork, for he always gets good, quirky, and unique shots.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie is one that can be quite overlooked sometimes. It's unique with its execution, darkly hilarious, and with a meaningful moral at the end. The moral of this story would be to cherish who you have while you have them so you don't end up in an all-out war with each other, over anything. The ending made the whole movie worthwhile, aside from everything else. However, I could see a few ways it could be better. The whole movie up to the divorce war is moving in fast-forward, so to speak, so you miss out on some possible character situations to help you better know their personalities. I understand if they stretched it out that way, it would be long, but I'd risk it for better development.

OVERALL,an awesome comedy with a creatively executed plot, great acting, well done score, DeVito style camerawork, abundant dark humor, and a great moral that fills the movie, but there are a few ways this could be made better.

The Killing (1956) review

(8/10)

Even for this film being one of Kubrick's early works, it still screams his essence in each scene, with a clever plot and iconic scenes together.

PLOT:Mastermind Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) has done some time in the past and is now home with his wife (Coleen Gray). However, he once again plans to commit a crime and knock off a horse track with the help of some fellow companions. The companions include the likes of the $5 bookie, George Peatty (Elisha Cook, Jr.), the track bartender, Mike O'Reilly (Joe Sawyer), gun salesman, Nikki Arane (Timothy Carey) and many others. It seems like the perfect crime, but George's wife, Sherry (Mary Windsor), and her lover (Vince Edwards) get involved and things get mixed up. It's a good plot idea executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting can get kind of basic in some parts, but overall it was pretty great. Sterling Hayden played a very sufficient lead as the mastermind; however, his part didn't get real good until the crime is committed. The other shiners would have to be Elisha Cook, Jr. as George Peatty, Timothy Carey as Nikki, Mary Windsor as Sherry, and Jay C. Flippen as Marvin Unger.

SCORE:The score was pretty basic as well, but it fit the mood very well and actually wasn't a generic burden as some other basic scores can be.

CAMERAWORK:Even though this is one of Kubrick's first films, his type of camerawork is present in here. He caught some very nice shots with a lot of his usual style present. For an early start, he did very well.



OTHER CONTENT:This is one of Kubrick's first films, but that doesn't mean it's one of his weaker films by far. The plot is very well thought-out, as every aspect of the crime is tied up cleverly. The script has some very nice dialogue in it, but it is Kubrick, so what can you expect? This film is also pretty iconic from the robbery scene, in which the lead puts on a clown mask to protect his identity, and from the finale in the airport with the suitcase. This is truly one of the best classic gangster films. However, it does have its faults. One thing I found kind of flawed with the film is the character development; there is little. What we find out is presented to us in a weak manner as we are just plunged into the whole robbery story. If there had been a bit more character development, the characters would have seemed more real to us. Also flawed with this film is that some of the way its filmed comes off as cheesy. It does include some typical gangster personalities and situations, including the narration, that cause it to come off as a bit cheesy: just a bit, not too much to be considered bad.

OVERALL,a great Kubrick film with a brilliantly-executed plot, basic and great acting, well-fitting score, Kubrick's usual camerawork, thought-out plot twists, a well-written script, and a few choice iconic scenes, but there is poor character development and a few cheesy aspects to the film.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) review

(6/10)

I don't know why I didn't like this that much, aside from the several ways it's different from its source.

PLOT:After getting in a shipwreck off a boat headed to a hunt, world-renowned hunter, Bob Rainsford (Joel McCrea) swims to a mysterious island where he finds a castle lead by a Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks), a Russian Cossack that has also has a passion for the hunt. While there, Rainsford also discovers two more shipwreck survivors, heavy-drinking Martin Trowbridge (Robert Armstrong) and his beautiful sister, Eve Trowbridge (Fay Wray). They chat for a while, and Rainsford finds out by Zaroff that, on this certain island, Zaroff hunts the most dangerous game. Zaroff tells about how he got bored hunting some usually dangerous animals (such as tigers), and how he wanted a prey that can use reason. Through this we find out the most dangerous game is humans. After a suspenseful turn of events, Rainsford and Eve must play the role of the hunted and win against him within a day. It's a great plot executed decently.



ACTING:The acting in here is not so great. You can tell by far that it's dated. McCrea plays a decent part of Rainsford, but the screenplay does him almost no justice. Wray did a pretty great job of playing her usual damsel-in-distress character. She was a little over-dramatic, but overall she did great, as did Banks as Zaroff. Banks did a pretty great job as Zaroff as well, but he sounded angry almost all the time, as opposed to his role in the story of being smooth and calm. I think Zaroff's character would've much better been played by the likes of Bela Lugosi. It has the dramatic death scene and everything! The minor performances overall didn't really matter as well.

SCORE:The score was pretty cheesy, but for its time, it was pretty top notch, so I'll give it credit for that much.

CAMERAWORK:I noticed in here a pretty good use of the camera to capture the emotions of the actors, as used in old horror films. The director actually hit spot on with trying to capture the emotions with the camera.



OTHER CONTENT:I really don't know why I didn't like this film as much as I wanted to. I read the story before I watched it, and as early as the start of the film, I spotted about a thousand differences from the story that make the film lose some of its wit. That kind of ticked me off. If a film strays too far from its source material, I tend to get frustrated. The film also seemed to lag a bit in the middle and lose the suspense it did acheive. The film did have a good bit of suspenseful scenes, and it even used a handful of horror tactics to make things better. However, it altogether ended up pretty dated and mediocre.

OVERALL,an ok film with a decently-executed plot, dated acting, top notch score for the time being, pretty good use of the camera, some great suspense, and even some horror techniques, but the screenplay did the actors hardly any justice, the film falls from its source material greatly, and it lagged a good bit in the middle.

Jaws (1975) review

(10/10)

Steven Spielberg definitely has a knack for horror as well as drama. In fact, he came up with the acknowledged best horror film of all-time.

PLOT:It's summer on Amity Island and everyone's getting ready to have beach parties by the water. That is, until talk of a huge shark killing people starts buzzing around. Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) starts getting nervous and protective about the citizens and tourists of Amity Island, so he calls up oceanologist, Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss), to help gather information and convince the mayor to close the beaches and send someone out to kill the shark. The mayor says no, until another fatal attack occurs. The mayor succumbs and hires expert shark-hunter, Captain Quint (Robert Shaw), who goes for a high price. Now the chief, oceanologist, and Quint must go out on the ocean and catch the beast. It's a good plot idea executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The performances in here are all great and memorable. The three main characters definitely clicked somehow and stole the show. The shiners, including the three main characters, were Roy Sheider as Chief Brody, Richard Dreyfuss as Matt Hooper, Robert Shaw as Quint, Murray Hamilton as Mayor Larry Vaughn, Susan Backlinie as Chrissie Watkins, and Lee Fierro as Mrs. Kintner. Each played a truly memorable part.

SCORE:The score is brilliantly done by the great John Willams. The score is not only memorable, but iconic, as everyone remembers the Jaws theme.

EFFECTS:The effects of the blood, remains, and the shark itself are still today haunting and as scary as they were. They also looked more real than any blood effects you might find today. If you didn't know, they used a mix of stock footage and a mechanical shark to make "Jaws" real. The result (though in behind-the-scens interviews, they say the shark was malfunctioning) was a violent, scary, and harrowing trip into the water and back out.

CAMERAWORK:The camerawork in here was actually pretty good. Spielberg caught some amazingly creepy and artsy shots. I didn't think Spielberg was that much of a camera expert.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is iconic to everyone who has seen it. No one can forget such a memorable film. If you ask someone, "What's the movie with the shark?", they'll most likely say "Jaws". Everything is memorable in here, from lines, to characters, to certain scenes, and to even the music! More importantly, today this is still extremely scary and can make more than one person scared to get in the water, and can fill just about anyone with undeniable terror. Even more importantly than that, it's so scary because it's real. This monster isn't a regular Frankenstein or zombie, it's a real-life, natural animal. The same goes for the characters. Everything in here could very well be true. That's what makes it so good. Spielberg's sense of perfection came out in a different form, but it was definitely there.

OVERALL,an epic horror film with a brilliantly executed plot, great acting, iconic score, haunting effects, good camerawork, extreme terror, real events, and everything about this film becoming memorable.

Live Animals (2008) review

(2/10)

Just another, twisted, low-budget, Saw-wannabe that isn't even good.

PLOT:A group of teens go out partying at the lake and are suddenly ambushed and tranquelized in the night. When they wake up, they find themselves in a stable chained to the wall. As it turns out, an evil livestock baron (John Still) has captured them and is planning on selling them in the human-trafficing business to the white trade, like cattle on a farm. It's an interesting horror plot executed horribly.

ACTING:The acting in here was purely mediocre. I could hardly believe anyone's screams or terror. The only actors that I believe did a pretty good job are John Still as the livestock baron and Christian Walker as the main guy character. No, names do not seem to matter that much in here.

SCORE:The score was mainly to set the mood, but it was more dramatic, so it wasn't terrible. I liked it a little bit.

EFFECTS:They could have paid ME to use better effects than they did in here. Each bit of blood and gore was cheap and over-the-top and NOT in a good way. They made a simple cut look like a rotten burn. The low-budget feel in here is VERY easy to see..

CAMERAWORK:I have two things to say about the camerawork, and they're a bit more constructive. They got some good shots and angles in here, but the camera's own quality was so low everything looked digital and lagged. If you're going to be artistic and attempt to capture some good angles, at least use a camera fit for the job.

OTHER CONTENT:This low-budget, indie horror is just another "Saw" mock-up with a different plot to make it seem new. There's hardly anything good about this movie except a couple performances and the plot idea. Besides all I've named, it's also pointless, has no character development whatsoever, steps over the line of horror by killing off a young child, and has just stupidly cheesy twists. This is definitely just a regular, wannabe indie movie.

OVERALL,a sucky indie horror with a interesting but horribly-executed plot, mainly mediocre acting, dramatic score, cheaply overdone effects, good shots yet bad camera quality, pointless violence, no character development, a step too far over the line of horror, and stupid twists.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) review

(10/10)

Give yourself over to absolute pleasure...my favorite film.

PLOT:Newly engaged Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick) and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon) leave off to see their friend Dr. Scott (Jonathan Adams) to tell him the news when their tire goes flat on their car in the pouring rain. They walk to a castle where they meet crazed, transvestite scienteist, Frank N. Furter (Tim Curry) and are forced to stay the night with him and his "creation", Rocky Horror (Peter Hinwood). While there, they each fall into seduction, mischief, murder, and "an erotic nightmare beyond any measure". The plot is a very cool twist on the classic Frankenstein/sci-fi genre and helps to express individualty, sexual freedom, and campiness, all in a clever mind-freak.



ACTING:The acting is somewhat timed and precise as a stage show, but that was the goal writer Richard O'Brien and the director were trying to get at. Wooden, yet precise to exhibit the ultimate campiness. I believe everyone did a pretty good job with their parts. The shiners to me are Tim Curry as Frank Furter, Richard O'Brien as Riff Raff, Susan Sarandon as Janet Weiss, Meat Loaf as Eddie, and Charles Gray as the criminologist. This had to be Curry's best performance in a film; he does his job with such a fury that it seemed he was born for the role. I also liked the fact that they cast the writer as one of the characters. Good idea. In my opinion, my least favorite performance was Little Nell a.k.a. Nell Campbell as Columbia. Everyone at one point had to admit she was annoying.

SCORE:The soundtrack is without a doubt the best thing about this movie, next to its message. The soundtrack exhibits a different feel in every song, from seduction in "Touch-A Touch-A Touch Me", to nostalgia in "What Ever Happened to Saturday Night?" and even to a good time in "Time Warp". Beautiful guitar + rockin' sax + sci-fi piano + definitive feelings and moods = a perfect campy musical soundtrack.

EFFECTS:The effects were all pretty low-budget looking, but they all worked to enhance the campy feeling of the film. It ranged from stage props to cheap computer cutouts, but it all worked.

CAMERAWORK:The camerawork in this film is very well done. It's forboding, creative, and captures every aspect of the film's emotions.



OTHER CONTENT:The movie was meant to be so bad, that it came out good in a glossy layer of campiness. The sexual akwardness, zombie-horror feel, rockin' music, pretty ladies, uneven wrongness, and overloaded campiness sends shivers down my spine and sends me into an "orgasmic rush of lust". The whole film gives me a pleasurable, shivery feeling like I can sense and feel everything the characters do. I'm a Frankie fan, or a Rocky Horror buff if you will.

OVERALL,an epic campy film with a cooly-adapted plot with great hidden messages, timed acting that comes off as that of a stage show, a rockin' soundtrack, campy effects, well done camerawork, overloaded campiness, and a feeling that all Rocky Horror fans should end up getting.

The Tree of Life (2011) review

(9/10)

I don't know if this could be considered THE BEST film of 2011, but it's definitely one of the most beautiful.

PLOT:In this film, we follow a Midwestern family in the 1950's led by a tough father (Brad Pitt) and an open-minded mother (Jessica Chastain). Mainly, we follow the life of the eldest son, Jack (played as a child by Hunter McCracken, and played as an adult by Sean Penn) and his struggle with choosing which path of rules to follow, his parents' impression on him, and the question of faith. It's a pretty good plot idea, executed beautifully.

ACTING:The acting wasn't the main focus of the film, but it was good nevertheless. Everybody did a great job, including Sean Penn as adult Jack, who barely appears in the film. The other shiners were Brad Pitt as the father, Jessica Chastain as the mother, and Hunter McCracken as young Jack. McCracken did very well for a child actor, despite the deep southern accent that would get on some people's nerves.



SCORE:The score was a beautiful mix of classical music, monk-like chants, and a few subtle organ/piano themes. I believe the score carried a good bit of this film along and enhanced most of its fascinating imagery very well. It doesn't get in the way of the intricate sound effects, however. They combine together to make a symphony of perfect sound division.

EFFECTS:The effects in here ranged from rolling clouds, to volcanic eruptions, to cosmic clusters, and even to a few dinosaurs. I believe the effects, real and CG alike, were beautiful and led the imagery of the film way ahead.

CAMERAWORK:The director incorporated a good bit of nice shots, cut-scenes, pans, and angles that set a certain emotion or captured a certain beauty that could be captured few other ways. Needless to say, I loved it.



OTHER CONTENT:I'm new to Terrence Malick's direction style, and I have to admit that he has an artistic vision of beauty, utter life, picturesque faith, and vague metaphors, which I'll explain in a minute. This film reminds me of "2001", because it's filmed in a similar way that it comes off as beautiful. It has character development, beauty, wisdom, emotion, a story, and even some experienced filmmaking. The only flaw I could find in this film is that Malick's use of unrelated cutscenes as vague metaphors is often misleading and confusing; it was hard to follow at times.

OVERALL,an awesome film with a beautifully executed plot, great acting, beautiful score, beautiful effects, loving camerawork, and everything a film of this type needs, but it can be very hard to follow at times.

Apocalypse Now (1979) review

(10/10)

I'm not one for war films, but this had me hooked from the start.

PLOT:In this Vietnam War epic, we follow Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) as he's assigned to a mission to hunt down and kill a rogue colonel who went insane and took his troops with him, Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando). Capt. Willard boards a boat with a group of guys who agree to take him to this location. This film is his descent into the deep trenches of the 'Nam war. The plot is pretty basic, but executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting was great. Sheen did a brilliant job, as did Brando. I saw the toughness and insanity in each ones story through their acting. Besides these two stars of the show, the other shiners were Fredric Forrest as Chef, Albert Hall as Chief, and Dennis Hopper as the photo journalist with honorable mentions to Harrison Ford as the colonel, Laurence Fishbourne as Clean, and the camoes of Francis Ford Coppola as the director and the Playmates.

SCORE:The score is mixed up of several types of themes, from The Doors, to creepy horror score, to intense 80s-sounding score. They all mixed in to make fitting moods either way.

CAMERAWORK:This earned an Academy Award for Best Cinematography, and it shows. The shots captured by Coppola and his camera crew are harrowing and unique, as that of Kubrick. This is my first Coppola film other than The Outsiders, which I also enjoyed, and this has already gotten me hooked to him. Well played, Francis, well played.



OTHER CONTENT:People say this is the greatest war film ever created. Even though I haven't seen many, I would agree so far. The Vietnam War was a haunting, disturbing, scary war, and this captured everything and then some. It was brutal. It was twisted. It was all made in a brilliant way. This movie was memorable from its disturbing situations all the way down to its unique quotes. This is truly a brilliant film.

OVERALL,an epic war film with a brilliantly executed plot, great acting, mixed score, harrowing camerawork, and everything needed to make an accurate Vietnam War film.

Throw Momma from the Train (1987) review

(7/10)

A dark comedy that seems to be a hidden gem.

PLOT:Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) is an author and the teacher of an adult's creative writing class. He hasn't written a good novel ever since his ex-wife left him, stole his masterwork, and labeled it as her own making millions. One of his students, Owen Lift (Danny DeVito) is having his own problems with his mom (Anne Ramsey) always bullying him. One night when Owen finds Larry seeking advice for a murder mystery he is writing, Larry unknowingly tells Owen how they can get rid of their problems with their relatives: eliminate the motive and criss-cross murders. When it appears that Owen has murdered Larry's ex-wife, Larry is pushed to murder Owen's mother so he won't get caught by the police. Will he do it? Will they be found out? I'll leave you there. It's a pretty well thought-out plot inspired by a similar Hitchcock mystery, that's executed like an ordinary dark comedy.



ACTING:The acting is more than decent in this movie. Crystal does a delightful job as Larry Donner. I love how he can be so calm one minute and then blow up the next. He is so neurotic. I didn't really care much for DeVito in here. I don't like it when DeVito is stuck with the role of an idiot; he does much better as a smarter man (such as in Batman Begins or The War of the Roses). He did a good job, but it wasn't his best by far. Anne Ramsey was just a filler character that did the job she was supposed to be dreadfully. She was the comic relief, and I believe she kind of disrupted the movie's flow. Though it wouldn't work if the mom was nice, she overdid the simple slapstick humor just a tad. Everyone else did a decent job, especially Kim Greist as Beth.

SCORE:The score was either mainly played for comical effect or emotional impact, so it wasn't anything really special. It worked, but it was just there to evoke the right emotion.

CAMERAWORK:I actually was quite fond of the cinematography here. DeVito did the directing for this flick, and I can tell he had a vision to catch certain shots at certain points with a creative and steady hand. The shots are just made so smooth for such a rough film.














OTHER CONTENT:This movie is really nothing more than a simply-made dark buddy comedy with a tender amount of slapstick. I like slapstick comedy, but not if it just grows dreadful and unnecessary. In here, it is necessary to make the movie feel as fun as the idea is. It was silly, but that's the whole point of the movie is to be a mock-up of a mystery. I liked the chemistry in here among Crystal and DeVito as well; it really clicked into making a funny film. Some say it was ridiculous, but I think it made the film more unique. This is somewhat of a hidden gem because though silly, it is well-inspired and well-made. It reminds me of odd charmers such as Matilda (of course) and Death Becomes Her. This movie is nothing more than a simple dark comedy though. Not special, but a fun little trip.

OVERALL,a good dark comedy with a well thought-out plot, more than decent acting, generic score, creative and steady camerawork, decent slapstick comedy, a well inspiration and a great maker.