Stevek-48 Reviews

Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007 Video)

What were they thinking?

[3/10 · 13 September 2008]

There are no real saving graces to this film. It has its share of gore, which will please horror fans, but it is so derivative, not only of the original film (OK the remake of an original film from way back) that it just doesn't have any suspense. It has the jittery editing, which is quite disturbing, but there is nothing about any of the characters to care about. Most of them are just being lined up to die in ever more bizarre ways. And when one character is literally pulled apart by bedsheets (I kid you not) I just found myself wondering whether once one arm had been pulled off whether he really would explode like that. It's a bit of a damning indictment when you're wondering about the physics of the scene without being drawn into it. And the face being sliced off - clever effects, but why?

It's a sequel; they've tried to do something different, but basically they've come up with much of the same. Jeffrey Coombs must be just lining his bank account, because he has very little to do here and there's no real point to his character like there was in the original.

There's a very slim plot about a statue that has special powers of some description. Steven Pacey has the most indistinguishable accent since Dick van Dyke played in Mary Poppins. Everybody dies in the order you'd expect and nobody really cares. The shots are clichéd, the script seems written by committee and the ending is such an anticlimax that you just feel grateful it's only 88 minutes of your life that you've wasted watching the film.

I actually bought this on DVD because I thought the original was deeply disturbing and weird and I expected something similar here. But they've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Just using some similar effects doesn't make it a great film. It had such potential and they've wasted it. The acting is okay if you like cardboard cutouts, there's a huge amount of blood and the editor obviously worked hard for the money. Oh and if you can be bothered to wait until the end of the credits, there's a little extra scene, means nothing, but it seems like any excuse to have a girl take her bikini top off...

Jumpin' Jack Flash (1986)

A real fun film - not the best comedy ever, but if you want a light film with no pretensions...

[8/10 · 31 August 2008]

I have to admit to liking this film. I'm not sure or not how well it did on its release. I don't think there are any spoilers in revealing that Whoopi plays a computer genius who is contacted by a guy who needs her help (since it says so on the back of the DVD!). So as well as a comedy, there are some thrills thrown in as well.

It's well written, with some pretty obvious stuff in there, but it makes it kind of fun. Whoopi Goldberg puts in a good performance. Today it's fun to watch because the computers are SO out of date and because at one point Whoopi hits about 40 keyboard keys to type the work 'Hi"! Just listen to the sound of the keys. Whoopi's a good actress and comedian, but she's no typist - at least by the evidence here. And it's good to see Carol Kane and Stephen Collins, who both look about 12.

There are some fabulous continuity errors as well for anyone looking for them - in the scene in the police station, not only does the blanket Whoopi's wearing change places from scene to scene, so does her collar.

If you want a fun film that won't stretch your brain, this is well worth a look. Ingmar Bergman it isn't, but it's a nice feel good movie for those times when you just want to sit down and turn your brain off it's great. And if you want to know what computers used to look like and why you practically needed a second mortgage for somewhere to store them look no further.

The Shining (1980)

Kubrick's less than authentic take on a great novel

[5/10 · 14 August 2008]

I was so looking forward to this film when it came out. The Shining was the first Stephen King novel I ever read and I thought it was brilliant. Sadly, the same can't be said for the film version. Whilst it does retain some aspects of the plot, there are so many changes (many of them unnecessary and confusing) that it ceases to be the story King was trying to tell.

There are some great set pieces - the bike riding down the hall, Jack Nicholson going bonkers, and of course the famous 'Heeeeere's Johnny!' scene, which is good but not actually terrifying, despite Shelley DuVall's very believable performance.

I was impressed by the fact that most of it is filmed in the light, so that Kubrick doesn't rely on dark corners and jumps to frighten you, but overall the film doesn't work for me. It's overlong for a start, the stuff with the barman and the photo is pointless and doesn't make sense; and poor old Halloran. He hears Danny's shining and travels halfway across America to help, only to be immediately hit with an axe! Kubrick is just cheating the audience.

So set pieces aside, this is really one for the Kubrick fans only in my opinion. Anyone looking for the authentic King story is going to be disappointed, and I defy anyone to tell me what the end to this film version actually means. I seem to remember that when interviewed even Kubrick wasn't quite sure.

So it's The Shining, but it doesn't shine.

Cloverfield (2008)

Very good, but I wanted it to be better!

[8/10 · 25 June 2008]

I'd heard lots of good things about this film and have just watched the DVD version of it. I enjoyed it enormously - the writer, director and actors did a great job, but somehow there was something missing for me.

There are a couple of conceits in the story that are necessary, but just a little annoying. Why do these outer space monsters always attack big cities? Why is it always New York? Yes it looks good having the Statue of Liberty's head rolling down the street, but... And I defy anyone to be under attack from a hardly seen monstrous creature and still try to film it rather than running for their lives. But they're small points.

The hand-held thing is good - it's kind of Blair Witch, but with an actual plot. Occasionally it's a bit wearing, but I really like the way it allows us to see glimpses of different parts of the story and just a hint (mostly) of the monster. The monster itself is a bit bizarre. It's not actually that scary, except for the fact that it's incredibly huge. You don't see that much of it, just the results of its actions. Not explaining where it comes from or why it's here is a great way to unsettle an audience. There's nothing reasonable or even credible about what it's doing. It's just on a rampage and we're in the way. Is it eating people because it's hungry or just because they're there. Given the size of it we can't be much more than an olive starter for the monster, so it's not really clear why it would even bother.

The actors do a great job, with what is really almost an improvised piece (or it sounds like it is - no offence to the writer!) Trying to make these characters real and making an audience care is not easy. And the fact that any one of them can be killed at any time ups the tension (not like your normal stalk and slash film where you can just about tell who is going to die and who'll be in the final reel). And those parasite things are a little too reminiscent of the facehuggers in Alien.

It's a bleak film - there's no happy ending, no tidy tying up of all the plot points and no explanation at all of what actually happened.

I really enjoyed the film - and I can't even really put my finger on why it wasn't as good as I wanted it to be. The tension is high, but it didn't leave me gasping in amazement. it just lacks a certain something that would have really racked up the suspense and I think that's a missed opportunity. Still it's definitely a film worth watching.

Superman Returns (2006)

Tries hard to follow a classic. Not brilliant, but not bad either.

[7/10 · 7 May 2008]

It was never going to be an easy task making a new Superman movie. Christopher Reeve (though not the first filmed 'Superman') will always be associated with the character, and his sad death has was even more poignant given the circumstances.

For this film, they have played it very cleverly. Brandon Routh has a passing resemblance to Reeve, they have used the musical themes from the original and played to some of the nuances and in-jokes that audiences will appreciate. They have also incorporated some of the Smallville bits about character - Kevin Spacey looks exactly like an older Michael Rosenbaum.

And Lex is given his original cookie girlfriend, played wonderfully by Parker Posey (an actress who has always deserved much more attention than she has had).

There are references to 'is it a bird... is it a plane...?' and to the flying sequence from the original Superman film. And it still remains a mystery why 'Clark' can go off on sabbatical and return at the exact time Superman returns, and his 'disguise' is just a pair of glasses as Clark and a kiss-curl as Superman - yet nobody catches on! Especially as Superman ends up in the hospital, but nobody seems to notice Clark is missing at the same time.

The suit is better - darker colours, and not the big pants outside the tights - more of a Calvin Klein number. And at the end of the film, the flying sequence doesn't turn the suit from blue to green as it did in the original!

CGI effects are terrific. Story is not quite as convincing. And though she acts well, Kate Bosworth just doesn't make a good Lois Lane. There's none of the feisty no-nonsense woman we all expect. Sure she manages to survive being thrown around in a plunging jet (despite being flung at the jet walls, floor, luggage, roof and anything else going, she manages not to have a single bruise!) And the idea of her being partnered up and having a son was a nice twist, though I'm not sure it worked. Given his superhuman strength and ability to fly at the speed of whatever, just how long did it take him to get to Krypton and back? And the son thing isn't explored as much as it should be - maybe they're hoping for a sequel, which would take things into completely unchartered territory so far.

All in all a good romp that will be somewhat familiar to those who've seen the Christopher Reeve original, but updated and with a different storyline so it's not a remake. Definitely one to watch with the brain switched to low, but not as bad as it could have been.

Silent Hill (2006)

Not bad and really disturbing in parts

[7/10 · 6 April 2008]

I'm glad I read here that this is based on a video game, because it all comes to make sense now. I'm still not convinced it's as good have some have said, but I do get it. There are some very difficult scenes to watch, because they are awfully disturbing, and it's definitely not your common or garden slasher movie.

It's a weird movie actually - you do have to keep your brain in gear, which you don't often have to do for this kind of thing. The images are very cleverly thought out and (as I've never played the video game) there's no way of knowing what's going to happen next. The dream versus reality parts are very well done. The acting is on the whole good. Alice Krige is suitably creepy, Laurie Holden does a fab job (though the uniform is very non-standard issue!) Strangely the only one I didn't like is the lead as Rose. She did a good job it has to be said and did nothing wrong really, but there was just something that didn't quite work for me.

In the end it's really a morality tale about the evil of child abuse - and religious abuse for that matter. OK, it's gone to the nth degree, because it is fictional after all, but it's quite strange how the beginning of the film which seems to be a standard horror film turns into a different thing altogether.

So it's definitely a couple of hours well spent, won't please everyone, but does pack a punch beyond the CGI and horror effects. In fact, thinking about it, it would make a good film without any of the horror moments - just a woman looking for her missing child in a strange, unreal place and coming upon these weird religious nuts, who want to burn people they don't like or agree with.

And well done to the people who were the 'monsters'. It wouldn't have worked without those costumes and effects and they deserve the praise.

So enjoy it with an open mind.

King Kong (2005)

Kong, but far from King

[6/10 · 30 March 2008]

This is such a weird film - it has lots of good points and many not so good.

Obviously the CGI effects have come so far we don't need claymation any more, and Kong himself is pretty good. Only in a couple of scenes is he more obviously a computer generated facsimile. But there are way too many of them. In the original (let's ignore the very badly thought out 70s remake), Kong himself was the main frightener, with a tyrannosaurus thrown in for good measure. Suddenly we now have Kong, stampeding dinosaurs, at least 3 tyrannosauruses, hordes of prehistoric insects, worms and general nastiness and a flock of vampire bats that Dracula would be proud to call his own.

On the plus side, the insects are really creepy; on the minus they get shot with one little tommy gun shot by someone with his eyes closed? They are swarming - even when the cavalry arrives, the insects wouldn't have been so easily defeated.

The tyrannosaurus stuff is exciting but barely credible. Kong holds Anne in his hand for the entire time. Given that he's bashing in dinosaurs and flinging his arms around and she does apparently have a spine, it's just not feasible that she wouldn't be dead or at least in traction for the rest of her life.

And while we're talking barely credible, Ann spends the entire time on Skull Island in a skimpy dress, with no shoes. She runs, she falls, she gets hit, almost eaten, thrown into muddy ponds: you name it this woman goes through it. Yet are her feet bleeding from running through a jungle, being thrown onto rocks? No. Does she ever get more than a very flattering smudge of dirt? No. When she's finally rescued does her hair look like a matted, dirty, nasty mess? No. She looks like she's in a L'Oreal commercial.

And I really have a problem with Naomi Watts in this. She's very nice and sweet looking, but if you watch her face, her expression doesn't seem to change from one minute to the next. It's a kind of open-mouthed 'what AM I doing here' look. Whatever, she's faced with, she just looks ever so slightly vacant. Look at her in the end sequence when she's in the musical review. Her look is practically identical the one she has when faced with a dinosaur. Even the 'love scenes' with Kong, apart from a bit of dewy-eyedness, her look is the same. Oh, she does add a smile at one point.

Again, though towards the end, there's snow everywhere and ice for the nicely touching scene with her and Kong. She's wearing what could easily pass as a negligee, yet she doesn't appear in the lease bit cold or uncomfortable. Even when she's on top of the Empire State Building!

I've marked the film six out of ten, because it does provide good entertainment - albeit probably an hour's more than necessary. And I do like the way they've made it much more of a love story between Darrow and Kong. The effects are undoubtedly superb, but they they do get in the way of the film's whole credibility in the end. But Jack Black manages to keep his comic ways in check (and deliver the last line, which is one of the cheesiest in movie history, but still hits the mark), Adrian Brody, Jamie Bell and Colin Hanks are great, and overall I found more to like than dislike.

The original film was and is a classic. The 70s remake was misguided in the extreme. This one fits somewhere in between. Not really a classic, but a very good attempt at remaking one for a modern audience. Just lay off the computers once in a while and make it believable.

The Lady Vanishes (1979)

Remake of a classic. Missing nanny, and in this case missing acting.

[2/10 · 2 March 2008]

I am completely amazed by some of the other comments here, which claim it's a flawed if reasonable movie. The film is a remake of a classic, which wasn't that great in the first place, but this is simply dire. Let's just think about some of its points:

The Acting: I use the term loosely. I'm really not sure what anyone was on when this was made. I don't know if people didn't like each other, whether they were doing it for a bet or what. I have huge respect for all the actors: Angela Lansbury is a treasure (and is probably the only one to come out the film well), Elliot Gould tries his best with this nonsense and Cybill Shephard works her socks off to try to make the role something else. But somehow everyone ends up as though they know they're not in an danger of repeating a classic and so just walk through the roles. If you watch as Cybill and Elliot deliver their lines, whether or not it was ad libbing, lots of it just looks, sounds and is played like a rehearsal - and not a good one at that.

The Story: It's a good mystery story, but it comes off as fake. There is nobody to care about, nobody to go along with. Cybill's character comes across as just a plain spoiled brat. What's with the million pounds bit? I know the rest of the casehave to believe she's a bit mad and that her story isn't true, but I really wanted HER to vanish, not Miss Froy! Updating it correctly so it has the Nazi references is good, but the Nazis are played as comic-book baddies, so it's just odd. And the English are comic book goodies too. Arthur Lowe and Ian Carmichael do the roles to perfection, but you do end up wanting to slap them.

The Direction, Script, Production... I'm putting all the rest of what's wrong with this in the same place. Other reviews have called this a much maligned film, but it really does deserve maligning. There's almost nothing good about it, unless you count its comic relief potential. It's too bizarre for words - some of the scenes should not have made it into a finished project.

This is just a bad film; everything's wrong with it from the stereotypes to the casting to the direction to the look of the whole thing. It would be nice to look at it now and forgive it its flaws, but there are just too many of them! Any film you can't watch without cringing doesn't deserve a good review.

It gets 2 out of 10 from me because of its classic heritage and because of Angela Lansbury. Otherwise it wouldn't merit a score.

The Fog (2005)

Why remake it?

[3/10 · 24 September 2007]

Remakes rarely work and this one certainly doesn't. It retains enough of the original and adds some vague twists to it. If I'm honest, the original had a few loopholes, but at least it was scary. I bought the DVD to see Tom Welling in a role he was the right age for and to see Maggie Grace in something else. Both are good actors, but somehow the whole package just doesn't work. The scares that are put in don't work for some reason. There's very little tension and even the 'jump' moments aren't really frightening. The famous body rising scene in the morgue just looks like a guy desperate for a date. And the extra baggage of back story only seems to prove how preposterous the original story was. Trying to make extra sense of it only dilutes the possibilities. It also takes a hell of a long time for the fog to actually make a full appearance! I've put a spoiler in here because I'm discussing the plot, but really anyone who's seen the original already knows much of it, despite the slightly bizarre extras the new film has included. When the ship is first seen it's really eerie, but the murders are just not that frightening. The original film was flawed, but it had atmosphere and tension. Unfortunately the new version just has fog.

Final Destination 3 (2006)

Definitely a second sequel

[5/10 · 13 June 2007]

Some SPOILERS may follow, but they're not specific.

It's not an appalling film by any means, but it is just a complete retread of all that's gone before, only with people nobody's heard of until now. That's a little harsh I know, because the actors all seem perfectly good at what they do.

The modes of death have been played up, and there are some clever and disturbing shots. Like the previous films, it keeps you on your toes knowing exactly when the death is coming - lots of build up and red herrings.

Overall, though, I found myself not caring at all about any of the characters. Everyone was a cypher and you can trace their roles right back to the first film. The tension isn't as good as it once was, because nothing's new - we all know something's going to happen and instead of being particularly frightening, it's more of a fun roller-coaster ride (pun intended). And please - what's with the characters who you know are going to die saying 'hey it missed me' or words to that effect? If you've never seen a horror film, this kind of shtick might be surprising, but anyone who's seen any slasher/stalker film will know what's coming.

The filming is pretty good, especially in the big scenes, and the ending does manage a bit of a surprise - though again you might be ready for it.

So it's not a bad film - just not in the least original, which is a shame.

Poseidon (2006)

Plenty of characters, but no character. Sinks like a stone

[3/10 · 13 April 2007]

The original was pretty cheesy, but very memorable. You remember the characters and the actors playing them. There was humour, there was terror, there were some very unexpected deaths that really made you feel, because you'd been engaged with these characters for so long. Even the now infamous Shelley Winters swim was very affecting, because it meant something and the death of a character we'd grown to like, who had a mission as the reason for the voyage, was really sad.

Here in this 'remake' we have a similar group of characters, but with the possible exception of the young boy, there's nobody to care about. The editing and the effects are incredible, as you'd expect from such a big-budget extravaganza, but the film has no soul. Most of the characters would be interchangeable - and where are the fat ones, the old ones, the not-so- good-looking ones? That's what made the original so good. Not all those who went on the quest to survive were models!

The cast do their best, but Kurt Russell, sadly, is not the man to carry a movie any more. I wish he were - he's done it in the past. Richard Dreyfuss as a suicidal gay older man is a bit ridiculous. Did they hide the title of the movie from him when he signed up?

And after what was presumably the equivalent of the Shelley Winters drowning death (though she didn't actually drown) there's a thirty second moment of people looking a bit distraught, followed by someone saying 'Come on everyone', and off they go!

It would have been better as a cheaper TV movie remake, where some of the faults could be forgiven. So many bits aren't followed through - one character effectively kills another to save himself, which is fair enough in the situation, but he's a character who would have a problem with that, as might the others, but hey, it's OK.

I also wondered how come when they're all under water, they manage to see so well. This isn't a swimming pool, it's the ocean - the very salty water ocean, and when was the last time you put salt water in your eyes and could see clearly? Plus they all seem to have the lungs of the cast of The Big Blue, since they can all survive underwater for minutes at a time.

And the last scene with the raft and the boat ready to finally sink... a very easy way out. And very unlikely, given the size of the ship, that the sea wouldn't consume them all anyway, as the a ship sinking creates amazing forces.

All in all it's a roller-coaster ride that you're just watching, not taking part in.

Legend of the Mummy (1998)

Complete Waste of Time

[1/10 · 16 February 2007]

I bought this film cheap and boy am I glad I did. I don't think I'm including any spoilers by telling you it's the story of a mummy who wants to come back to life and spends the best part of 90 minutes trying to do so. The film is full of people you kind of know from other things, and I spent a much more lucrative time looking them up on Google than I did watching their performances. There's really not too much to say about the film - it's supposed to be based on Bram Stoker's novel, but there's no coherent story here. All the characters seem to be in different stories, and I don't know why it has an 18 certificate (except for a slightly explicit sex scene at the end). The horror is incredibly underplayed and every time you think the film is leading up to something, it shies away at the end. A dull horror film - can there be any worse? It's the kind of film you and a few buddies might enjoy whilst splitting a pizza and a few bevvies, but it's not even up there with the really good bad films. Lou Gossett Jr chews the scenery a bit, but even he seems to know he's in a prize thanksgiving turkey. A case of take the mummy and run methinks.

Ancient Evil: Scream of the Mummy (2000)

It should stay bandaged.

[1/10 · 16 February 2007]

Having sat through Legend of the Mummy 1, I thought this couldn't be any worse and I was right. It's equally terrible, though for different reasons. Once again we have a mummy on the loose, this time pursuing a group of archaeology students, and I hope they really are archaeology students, because they're certainly not actors, judging by the number of over the top and under the top performances given here. The mummy itself is marginally more horrific than in LOTM 1, though all the budget seems to have been spent on a scary face. It walks like it's advertising adult diapers and his is full. Does the story make sense? No. Some mumbo-jumbo about rain gods and bullying. Are the characters likable? No. Most are interchangeable cyphers, typical of most stalk and slash horror but not as well written. Plus points: one guy looks good in his tighty whities and the final heroine is not your typical busty blonde. But the horror (apart from the script) is generally off-screen. The mummy has a very large curved knife that is put to good use on wiping out the general population, but never gets a bloodstain on it. You hear a lot, but don't see much - perhaps something more visceral would have helped to take your mind off the tedium. A truly dreadful attempt at film-making.

Derailed (2002)

One of the worst of the Van Damme oeuvre

[2/10 · 8 August 2006]

I've ticked the spoiler warning box, but I'm not sure anything could spoil this more than the writers and actors already did.

It's a very ordinary story really - and it's all been done before. Van Damme is some kind of undercover agent, but his family don't know (True Lies anyone?) He's given the job of accompanying a mysterious woman on a journey from Eastern Europe to Munich. (Any number of spy films) She happens to be carrying a deadly virus about her person (Cassandra Crossing) and terrorists take over the train (Under Siege 2)

It really is one of the most inept movies I've ever seen. There are no real thrills at all, despite the fights and everyone jumping about all over the place. Even the fact that a virus is released that could kill all the passengers is so lamely played out, it's almost laughable.

The 'terrorists' are all so stock character, you could put them in any of these kings of films. And they do exactly what stock terrorists do: kill innocent people for no reason, kill their own for no reason - all in an effort to prove how evil they are. The acting is generally appalling, as though the actors knew that they were in a turkey and just went along with it for the money.

Van Damme's wife (who surprises him on his train journey, along with the kids) just happens to be a doctor, so she can treat the ones afflicted with the deadly smallpox virus. Oh and the boy just happens to know kickboxing enough to use it at a key point in the story - though of course this is telegraphed early on in the 'plot'

The supporting cast, who have the unenviable job of delivering the worst lines in the whole thing - 'it's our only choice; if we don't millions will die' etc. - are not sufficiently versed in English to sound convincing and instead end up sounding as though they are auditioning for a part in Mel Brooks's Springtime for Hitler.

The director doesn't seem to know whether he's making a film or a pop video. The use of slo-mo and split screen in a few places just takes away from the action completely. It's the director drawing attention to himself; it does nothing for the film.

It's sadly not awful enough to be truly entertaining. But perhaps the saddest part is that JCVD is looking a lot older these days and while he can still move, his acting hasn't improved at all.

Oh and the CGI effects are bad.

Sorry, as you can tell, I didn't enjoy this one at all.