brokenlovesongs

This movie was similar to the first Saw in that it had the same style of plot (the killer is the same person, victims must save themselves, the internal conflicts of the film deal with familial problems), but this time instead of two main victims (Dr. Gordon & Adam), there are many- eight or nine victims I believe. This increase in the number of victims warrants a different approach to the material; there are more victims to kill off, so naturally there will be a higher body count, less character depth, and more of a focus on the ways in which people are killed rather than why the lives of these characters are worth saving. Although the first film heavily emphasized its desire to get creative with blood and guts, it functioned as more of a character sketch than this film does. I feel like I know a lot about Dr. Gordon and Adam, but I can't even remember the names of the characters in this movie, give or take a few. This movie is much more of an exercise in bloody visual effects- it doesn't care about its characters like the original Saw does. Its primary function is to gross the audience out- and that's just fine for a 'halloween' movie. I would say that I appreciated the first film more, just because I liked getting to know the characters better (although it is nice that we get to know John a bit better in this film). There are some creative gory sequences in this film, but they are no more creative than the kills in the first film. Therefore, I would say that while this film is not as good as the original Saw, it is still worth seeing if you're looking for some blood and guts in your movies.

I randomly selected this from my local video store, half expecting it to really suck, but I am amazed at how decent it really was. Unlike most of the backwoods horror movies I've seen, this one actually manages to create some genuine tension. The plot has been done many times before, but the film is so well executed here that I could easily forgive this. The movie has great visual style and doesn't count on excessive gore to capture the audience. Good acting, good execution, and some great moments of high intensity! A good choice if you're looking for a scary backwoods slasher. This movie rightfully earns a (3/4).

I Spit on Your Grave (1978) is a relatively simple story that revolves around a woman and four men. It begins with a woman moving into a summer home. Four random men discover her whereabouts, sneak up on her when she least expects it, and rape and beat her multiple times. Two weeks later, the woman goes back and kills the four men one by one, and the movie ends. Fans of the film have long disagreed with Ebert's harsh review of the movie's moral fiber. Ebert writes, "This is a film without a shred of artistic distinction. It lacks even simple craftsmanship. There is no possible motive for exhibiting it, other than the totally cynical hope that it might make money" (Ebert). Ebert has observably made it known that the violence in this movie, at least in his eyes, serves no purpose and lacks any sort of redemption, but perhaps he has missed some crucial elements of the film.

First of all, I Spit on Your Grave is not the original name of Meir Zarchi's film; the movie's original title was Day of the Woman. This tells one that Zarchi obviously had the theme of 'the strength of a woman' on his mind when coming up with the plot and events that occur in the film. While the title I Spit on Your Grave seems to imply that the film has a pessimistic and unwarrantable agenda, the title Day of the Woman inspires feelings of female empowerment. Looking at aspects aside from the wording of the title, the female lead is a woman who travels to a cabin in order to write a feminist novel. If this woman were solely 'going on a vacation,' the film would lose some of its feministic command. So how does the violence in I Spit on Your Grave redeem itself? The film's use of plentiful violence adds extra emphasis to the strong feminist message against the common but inappropriate sexual gazes and motivations of men. Again, this is a movie that is almost completely comprised of relentlessly violent scenes, so if the violence did not exist within the film, the film would not exist, and the attempts to make the audience believe that women can be as capable as men, both mentally and physically, would be lost. Although the feminist message of the film may be slightly skewed because of its popular title, Ebert should have looked into the deeper connotations of the film before reacting so harshly towards it due to its necessary violence.

OK, so I've just finished watching the uncut version of this film at my fraternity. A few people asked to watch it with me when I mentioned that some believe it to be the most disturbing film in the world. It ended up being about eight of us watching it, like it was some sort of brotherhood event. Five of us stuck through it to the ending. This movie is disturbing and equally disturbed. None of us knew exactly what to say about it when it was finished. One friend mentioned that sitting through this movie was literally as he imagined what it must be like sitting in hell. "We've just been to hell and back," he said. Most of the group felt that the film was utterly without purpose. I could see Pasolini's intent in Salo, however, and I believe that the film truly has merit. I cannot recommend the movie, but I can highly commend it for accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish. For those who are looking to view the film as sheer exploitation, don't. It isn't worth your time if you can't appreciate the dialog and the message behind the madness. In the minds of the Duke, the Bishop, and the President, pure liberty come in the form of complete willfulness. If you can understand this concept, then maybe you are ready to tackle Salo. If not, just give your cravings for exploitation a rest: this isn't meant to be viewed in such a way. The most tragic part with this movie is its feasibility, no matter how outrageous it seems in our time.

OK, I'm normally not the kind of guy who thinks bad movies are funny. If I see a movie that is truly terrible, then I may have a couple of laughs, but I will be disappointed overall. That's why I am finding it hard to say, as nearly everybody who has seen the film does, that Elves is a bad movie. I loved it. I don't think that I have ever laughed so hard at a movie in all of my life. Here's a memorable quote. Grizzly Adams, let me repeat, GRIZZLY ADAMS: "Tell me about the connection between the elves and the Nazis." If you find this line at all interesting or humorous then I have to say, SEE ELVES. The story: A Nazi grandfather has selectively inbred to create a girl who, when impregnated by an elf, will create the Nazi 4th Reich: An army of Nazi elves who will take over the world! Yeah, this plot is incredibly stupid, but you have to admit that whoever thought up this idea was a pretty creative individual, and I give him a lot of credit. The movie follows the young girl who is being hunted by a sex crazed elf and Grizzly Adams' character, who is doing everything in his power to try and help the girl. Grizzly is pursued by a group of unknown men who are attempting to stop his hunt for the elf at any cost. This results in an especially gut-busting scene in which we see Grizzly Adams dive roll out of a speeding car right before it explodes. HAHA! I'm laughing right now just thinking about it. Do you want to see a perverted department store Santa killed by a mutant elf who stabs him repeatably in the genitalia? See Elves. The acting is great, and by great a mean absolutely hilarious; it's NOT that bad, it's just really funny. I suppose I am really hyping this movie up. I watched it with a large group of friends who all claimed that the movie was bad, and yet they were laughing just as hard as me through the whole thing. Maybe you will think Elves is a bad movie, but I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it.

The Toolbox Murders starts out with 20 minutes or so of grisly and very well done kill scenes, all of which involve tools. If you like violence, then you'll love the introduction of this film. I personally don't have a preference when it comes to nudity in horror films (since it's overdone and pointless 90% of the time), but if you're a sucker for that sort of thing, then you'll appreciate the introduction to this film for that as well. After the kills are complete, however, many people will be bored by the lack of action that takes place on screen until the final moments of the movie. The middle portion of this movie is a lot of talk with little or no gore. I didn't mind this, because I found the dialog between the killer and the kidnapped girl to be very interesting. "What's it like?" the killer asks, referring to dying. The girl responds that "everything is purple, like a lollipop, and you can't see God, and there are people flying around, and you can see all of their thoughts, and you know the answers to all of their questions, but you can't answer them because nobody can talk." I enjoyed listening to this conversation, and although I'm sure I didn't get it word for word, there is something creative and maybe even worthy in here. Lots of people complain that the acting in this movie is terrible. These people cannot be horror buffs, as I have seen countless other films in which the acting is much MUCH worse. I would go as far to say that the acting in this film is very decent. If you have the attention span to sit through 'slower' moments of this film, then you'll find something to enjoy in it. I give The Toolbox Murders an 8/10.

You don't rent a movie like Spookies if you are looking for a quality horror film. Anyone can tell you that. The only reason I rented this was to see the pretty 80s monster effects, and that's what I got. Pretty and rustic 80s horror. Unfortunately, the movie has a ridiculous plot with the sole intention of showing off the monsters created for the film. There are mud monsters, a reaper, a spider woman, lots and lots of zombies, random creatures, and my favorite, little gremlin-esquire lizard monsters. There are no exciting death sequences. Die hard Horror fans should check this out. You'll enjoy the cheesy effects. There isn't much else in this movie to enjoy.

People looking for a HORROR movie should read:

This movie has a great concept. A serial killer who uses a miniature crossbow to shoot suburban civilians from their very own rooftops! This movie could have been so good! But it's not. It's actually pretty terrible, ranking among the worst horror movies that I have ever seen. First of all, the entire movie takes place in the middle of broad daylight. The atmosphere is bright, and sunny, and happy. Couldn't the director have chosen a moodier setting? Yes, he could have. What was the deal? Did this movie really have so small a budget that they couldn't afford to properly light a night scene? That at least would have created a bit of suspense, but no, this movie contains no suspense. The main reason for this is that we, as the audience, don't care about the characters, mainly because we can tell that they are not really afraid about their circumstances. They are not very good actresses. Also, every time a kill takes place, it is extremely uninteresting: nothing more than a tiny, dart-like, arrow piercing through the victim's chest. The unmasking of the killer is played off as if it is some great epiphany. Oh My! The killer is just a kid! Who cares? I sure didn't, and neither would anybody else who has an attention span higher than that of some kid with ADD. The artwork on the front of the box is so pretty, and the description on the back of the box is so intriguing, but don't be fooled like I was. Stay away! The only interesting part of this film was the opening credits in which one of the characters listens to the radio as it spouts information about the serial killer. There is a direct reference to the sniper who terrorized the east coast recently. The director must have seen that story on the news and thought he could play off of it. Sicko. This movie gets a 1/10.

Continued: for the people who have been bashing my comment:

You're right, this wasn't a horror movie, but it was still complete and utter garbage that contained no suspense, terrible acting, a stupid killer, awfully done death scenes, and not one hint of hope that anything good could come out of whoever made this heap of trash. HORROR FANS STAY CLEAR- this isn't horror! It's supposed to be suspense/thriller. However, it should be filed under its own specific genre of BAD. You have to agree with me here though: Lion's Gate made this film look like it was a serial killer slasher/ horror film, and for that they are total jerks! (Sorry lion's gate, I mostly Love you!)And here's the thing about the darkness: We are instinctively afraid of what we cannot see, of what could be waiting for us in the dark silence. If this movie was supposed to be suspenseful, was supposed to have a killer stalking from house to house by means of rooftop, then the movie should not have taken place entirely at the middle of the day! What kind of a stupid killer would go out and jump from rooftop to rooftop killing many people at random in the middle of suburbia during the afternoon??? You can bet he'd be caught before he got too far! Stupid movie. Stupid, STUPID movie. I could go on forever about how horrible it truly is. Maybe I will...

The dialog (some go as far to say that there is some humor in it- nope) is laughable in a 'this is so bad I can't laugh' sort of way. The lead actress say she's taken classes on serial killer behavior, and she spouts off the same clichéd information that has been recited in every serial killer movie ever made. Not to mention, the information she does know serves absolutely no purpose in the progression of the plot. It's just randomly thrown in there because the director though he had to put it in there somewhere. It comes at an unbelievably boring scene in which the girls sit around and waste time doing nothing.

People, I am in love with horror/suspense/thriller films. There are really really good ones out there. See the movies "Halloween" or "Silence of the Lambs" or "Seven" or, if you're looking for low budget, see "Open Water". I especially recommend Dario Argento's "Opera." Those are all a billion times more suspenseful than this. There is a reason that they are or have remained popular over the years. "Serial Slayer" nearly put me to sleep. Avoid it at ALL COSTS! Re-rating: 0/10. And that is the lowest and most absolute zero I can give.

80s horror is awesome, and any horror buff will tell you that, but when you're into this sort of thing, there are so many movies you run across that basically just suck. This movie is one of those. The concept is somewhat interesting. A brother and sister are home alone in a haunted house their family recently inherited, but the antagonist isn't the ghost of the performer who once lived in the home. The bad guys in this movie are a group of punks who find their enjoyment in terrorizing the brother and sister. This is definitely a workable plot, but this movie fails on many different levels. First of all, the acting is the sort of stuff you see on bad television; second, the brother and sister are much more carefree and upbeat than they should be in their particular situation, and the gang of punks seems so sadistic that it is practically impossible to think that the police would not have done anything to protect this family. It is a cool idea that the ghost who haunts the house helps the brother and sister kill off the gang of punks, but the kill scenes are terribly uninteresting, and these scenes do not warrant the level of creativity which they attempt to convey. The ending is for those with a very very low attention span. If you're a huge horror buff, like me, then watch this movie for its intriguing concept. Everybody else- stay away.