jason_13

Somewhere around the hour mark it becomes apparent what's about to be revealed and it's very on the nose about it, as is the case with most agent pushing movies nowadays. Too bad, because it could've been a decent horror drama about the complexities of marriage, but the script lacks subtlety and opts for familiar tropes.

I am in no way involved with this movie and I'm actually pleased that so far there are no fake 10/10 "BEST MOVIE EVER" reviews that would only distance viewers away. It's not perfect and it definitely requires patience, but if you like this type of psychological horror-thrillers, you'll be rewarded. The main actor is doing a surprisingly good job as a struggling screenwriter whose solitude and drinking seem to worsen while he struggles to remember an obviously traumatic event from the past. His female co-star is doing a fine job as well. The dream-like atmosphere is achieved almost perfectly (which saves the movie from being pretentious and/or boring) and the ending is memorable. Give it a shot.

Experimental filmmaking by untalented hipster director, falsely advertised as horror, goes nowhere. We've seen this so many times before. The "ghosts" are merely used as plot device to introduce a boring drama about the romantic connection between a ghost and the main dude. The movie tries to say something about loneliness, but it's done poorly and without character development, resulting in an abrupt ending that resembles a commercial for suicide. The actors are somewhat decent which is basically the only decent element about it.

P. S. Oh yeah, the black & white for no reason trope? Really? The unmistakable sign of pretentiousness.

There seems to be a new trend of bad horror movies that go for abstract storytelling without actually saying anything under its supposed cryptic plot. My guess is they want to follow the success of movies like The Babadook, The Witch, The Lighthouse, even, to a lesser extent, the Moorhead-Benson duo. However, you quickly realize the director doesn't have what it takes to carry out the intention. The nightmarish life of paramedics is already an interesting concept for the horror genre, but what we get here is a boring attempt at a morality tale, mixed with Requiem for a Dream-like second part, but without the good acting. The constant nighttime atmosphere is a welcome idea, but that's as far, as it gets. The character's actions make no sense and it's hard to tell what's even happening towards the end. You might as well skip this one and watch Synchronic.

It was bound to happen, judging from some of last season's episodes. Jonah is called white as an insult, but what really angers him is that he isn't considered feminist enough, because he took photos with women at a restaurant (a sure sign he's the Devil).

Like with most shows nowadays, the writers are checking stunning & brave boxes and there's little room left for comedy. It's an awful strategy choice just when your major star left the show, but what're gonna do, it's 2020. Let's hope for a better episode next week, otherwise people will quickly change the channel.

I'll never understand why shows do that and why the writers agree. This ending includes major differences, compared to the book. For one, Hope does end up dead which puts Laurie's decision in a much different light. After the second victim she is sure her son is mentally sick and potentially dangerous to anyone he comes in contact with. The show makes it seem like, despite the Hope scare, nothing really happens and Laurie simply decides to kill her son, because she doesn't believe him and refuses to live with constant doubts. Sorry, but that's not good enough.

Also, the show tries to rush the family drama into basically two 60-minute episodes after having 8 episodes of classical tense court drama/mystery and it feels tonally uneven. They should've focused on this element earlier in order to develop it properly. The family feud seems rushed, even weird at times. I mean last week they all of a sudden talked about how their marriage only depends on Jacob. What?! How, why, when did that happen? There were literally no clues beforehand. A minor disagreement here and there, sure, but considering the situation, they looked like a pretty solid couple overall.

I get that having Hope alive further underlines the message that Jacob will forever be viewed as a guilty person, but that was a pretty obvious plot point 2-3 episodes ago, they didn't need to change a major part of the book to spoonfeed it to the average viewer.

Overall, great acting and great episodes for the most part, but changing the original, much more meaningful ending for no apparent reason was hardly the wisest decision on behalf of the writers staff.

Whoever saw Community will hardly find this episode that much of a shock. Dan Harmon is a great TV writer, but once he hits a brick wall creatively, meta humor becomes his automatic preservation mechanism. Like in Community, this episode of Rick & Morty is a hit and miss. It mostly relies on its loyal fanbase who will lose sleep explaining how you 'don't get it' before admitting some parts of this show might not be a masterpiece. That being said, it's too early to write this show off. Unlike Community, this one is open for much more scenarios that can be explored with less laziness in the writing process.

After two "woke" episodes here we have Dave running over a bunny. Really tells you a lot about the state of TV comedy when shows like this are hyped.

The main arc is familiar enough. A rock star has a stalker, bla-bla, quite the predictable stuff right to the reveal. Tookie's side-story was much better (aaand tastier). Same goes for Grey and Ansel who is just such a sweet soul, you could tell he felt abandoned the moment Grey started conversing with the woman. I thought it was an organic build-up on the last episode. Grey has his own complicated life and Ansel is starting to realize that which is probably painful for him. PS: What's with all the paranoid "homophobe" accusations? Dex is bi in the graphic novel, it'd be a good idea if they explore that in a deeper and more meaningful manner. This episode's pseudo-romance felt forced and formulatic. Fiona actually addressing the situation while being interrogated? It felt very pulp and ultimately lead to nothing.

Owen Wilson, the famous COMEDY guy, stars in this almost surreal thriller-drama about a different kind of serial killer who travels along the country to pick up innocent victims and poison them for their soul defects and obvious unhappiness.

As you could suggest, Wilson is the highlight here. The storyline is very deep, but it never manages to top his impressive performance. The guy should do more drama. I never knew he was that talented until The Minus Man. Considering Wilson's undoubtedly successful career as a comedian, this movie is his art moment and it's not that famous. Too bad, because it's been almost 10 years and Wilson hasn't made anything like that. What a pity.

Anyway, the storyline is indeed very deep and thoughtful, full of things you can't understand or apprehend at the moment. It requires second viewing although the "experience" element won't be there. It's a very emotional ride, but if you insist on receiving explanations for everything, you'd better avoid The Minus Man and pick up something like Ridley Scott's Hanibal. This movie is definitely not for everyone.

I guess I could call it innovative since Wilson's character is one of a kind serial killer. He says "I feel like a light in the dark, they come to me like moths, because I shine". Vann is intelligent, quiet and friendly. He is the perfect "Good guy" who simply can't be suspicious. This is some terrific writing. I've never watch such a simple, yet incredibly complex killer-thriller.

The Minus Man is highly recommended. Perfect dark, psychological thriller with almost no flaws, splendid music tone and high class acting.

Timber Falls is the typical horror movie about teens having big troubles in the woods. Without introducing something we've never seen before, Timber Falls manages to be entertaining for the most part.

Mike and Sheryl are young, traveling couple whose destination is a lake in the woods. While enjoying the beauty of nature, the two meet inhospitable hunters who act weird only to steal $50 from the couple. After this bizarre event is forgotten, Mike and Sheryl spend the night in a tent. The problem is that they are not alone. Somebody spies on them. When Mike wakes up at the next morning, there is no Sheryl. Having realized something is terribly wrong, Mike goes after the hunters, blaming them for his girlfriend's disappearance. They are not the kidnappers though.

Timber Falls is not a waste of time although this storyline is really one of the biggest clichés around. Location - woods, characters - dumb, killers - disfigured or sheriffs. However, the movies has its moments for sure. The first 20 minutes are an almost perfect build-up for any kind of story. There is this beautiful location which helps for the increasing tension although I didn't feel tense. But it's there and it's obvious what purposes it serves. The second part is completely different with the characters being tortured underground. Maybe I didn't fall for that, but still, the first act is quite impressive for something that has been made for over three decades. Director Tony Giglio, although not experienced enough, has shot some good material. The opening sequence for example. We are shown a scared, tortured girl whose friends are supposedly killed, but we never get to see what happens to her. The scene's fast pace leaves the grotesque for the imagination. A very smart move by the creators although it does resemble Wrong Turn a bit.

Now, I do have some remarks concerning the acting. OK, I can live with Josh Randall's weird, never ending screams. I can even bare Brianna Brown's horrible performance in the second act, but I simply hated the villains. From what I understand, Beth Broderick, as the crazy old lady, is considered the highlight of the film. However, I have a completely different opinion about her heroine - Ida. I mean, this woman wasn't believable at all. She is one of the first supporting characters introduced and you could clearly tell she's not what it seems. Maybe, just maybe, that was intentional, but still, it's a terrible moment for the plot development, because you know the main characters will have an unpleasant, second encounter with that lady. As for Nick Searcy, who plays Ida's husband - well, I didn't care about him. He was impersonal and tedious. Besides, his overacting was irritating. Good that there is this German guy who plays a disfigured retard who does the dirty work for the old couple. He's a nice addition to the otherwise boring villains.

Overally, Timber Falls is worth a look. It's flawed, but the final result is rather satisfying. Check it out.

The Reaping is one of the many high budget horror movies, doing their best to "resurrect" the genre. Although being watchable and even creative at times, it fails to complete the mission.

Katherine Winter is sent to a small town with the task of solving the death of a boy. She soon finds out the river, the boy's body has been found, is red. Locals claim it's human blood, but Katherine refuses to believe.

Stephen Hopkins, a popular director, makes another movie that is almost successful, but couple of wrong decisions affect the overall result. I really can't say I was disappointed. For my surprise, Swank is not a miscast. She does a decent, believable performance. The film's major mistakes involve needless plot details that could easily annoy the viewer.

Somewhere in the middle of the film, clichés take over the action. Most of the plot ending becomes predictable. Pointless, long scenes of flashbacks, romances and dialogs contradicts the general idea of the film. The second act is almost not horror, but a rather dramatic ride through Katherine's past. It's obvious that the movie depends too much on good acting moments. Something that is not typical for horror and so, I was normally upset by the emptiness of some scenes. Emptiness, that nearly made me fall asleep.

Hopkins's movie has the premises. It isn't only the high-budget and big names to help the movie reach the theaters. The story involves element from the religion which appears to be a really big cliché these days. However, the structure of the film remains balanced thanks to the good writing. The idea of Katherine's personal nightmares, being a barrier between reality and illusion fits perfectly into the plot.

There are also some great visuals that recreate a feeling of realistic terror.

The Reaping could have been better, but still, it deserves a look. There are some impressive scenes, I'm sure all whimsical horror fans will like.

The Tripper is a movie, directed by the famous actor David Arquette. It's about couple of teens, heading to a concert when their plans change direction. A serial killer is on the loose.

At least for me, Arquette's directing skills are much more interesting than the movie itself. Whether the good old Dewey Reily is good behind the camera, or he is just wasting his time, after having already achieved pretty much everything.

The Tripper's directing is completely casual. There is absolutely nothing original or surprising in terms of direction, editing or even writing. Cheap dialog, fast paced chase scenes, everything, you'll find in slashers today. However, The Tripper manages to keep all slasher rules. Despite the first impressions, the movie is far from being ambitious. That turns out to be a big plus later on, when you realize The Tripper is a perfectly bearable horror film.

The cast deserves a look. Thomas Jane, Jamie King, Jason Mewes and of course David Arquette. Most are average at best, but their popularity does bring refinement to the picture in some weird way. There is even a ridiculous Courtney Cox cameo near the end of the film. I appreciate her acting skills, she's a good actress, but that was pathetic. It's like, her and David were having an argument whether she deserves a role in his movie and their decision is a brainless, ten seconds cameo.

Apart from the eccentric cast, The Tripper is a fine, contemporary slasher. The killer appears to be a fan of president Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, the opening scene shows us the background of the villain and there is a complete lack of mystery and suspense during the final 15-20 minutes. This is the movie's major flaw. You really do have to think twice before trying to trick the audience in such a naive way. There is a scene where we are supposed to believe that one of the chicks's ex-boyfriend is the killer. I mean, this is dumb. What's the point of the first scene? The killer's profile is good. I liked it. As I said, we know who he is, but that doesn't affect his image though. There is a very high amount of death scenes. Slasher fans, such as myself, won't be disappointed. Althougt most of the gore is used in a comic way, it's still graphic.

Overall, The Tripper is a positive surprise, horror fans should view. Not flawless, not great, but quite watchable and entertaining for what it is.

We rarely see movies like Cache. Beautiful, unforgettable and probably one of the top 5 most original films of the 00s.

Bizarre video tapes disturb a married couple. Georges and Anne can't understand what are the tapes about, but are absolutely positive, someone has intentionally sent them to their house.

There is something about Cache that makes it better and better every time it accidentally crosses your mind, months after the first viewing. I watched it couple of months ago and today, I like it better without having seen in for second time. Another prove for Cache's unique creativity.

European cinema is always something special. You know the movie carries a deep meaning. That's the case with Cache as well. The character Georges is perfectly written. Very complex and crafty person who hides something about his past that might be related to the his nowadays concerns. Director and writer, Michael Haneke creates Georges as a metaphor for man's inability to share and be honest with his family. In the second and third act, he becomes a different person that may very well be considered a suspect for what's going on. His life becomes a unceasing nightmare. Haneke uses a "voyeur" camera, showing us that even though Georges's family doesn't know about his secrets, we do. Generally, Haneke has included plenty of hints about the thin connection between the viewer and the characters in his film.

As the mystery develops, the viewer realizes the characters are much more interesting than a possible twist. Looking through their personality solves the movie. All short dialogs are like a puzzle. Nothing in this movie is there by accident. Everything means something, but not in the confusing way when you have to read essays in order to find an answer to your questions. Cache is like a huge, beautiful garden with only one exist that you have to find, but you prefer admiring its charm. You just stop caring about the ending, even though Haneke wouldn't give clues to his character's importance.

Anyway, this is not the place for sharing my theory, so I will just say, Cache is a masterpiece. A movie that provokes your moral and imagination in the best way possible.

I've never supported the idea of discussing underrated or overrated action movies, because basically, they are all the same. Crying Freeman proved me wrong and I am thankful. Even a 90s action might earn your respect.

Yo Hinomura/Freeman is an assassin who is captured killing Yakuza mobsters. As he risks his life in a bloody battle for leadership and respect, a beautiful woman falls in love with him, offering her help.

First, I want to note that Crying Freeman is one of the most beautiful action movies, ever shot. It's not the "gunshots" that make it attractive. It's not the experimental directing style that provokes your curiosity. It's the lightly, rhythmical plot development. There are a couple of very beautiful shots that you'll never find in a Steven Segal film. The creators show how much they care about that story which is based on anime series. I always like movies that are made out of artistic passion and love for the particular genre.

Crying Freeman, unlike most 90s "boom-boom" flicks, tells a story about honor and human will. Freeman is a perfectly shaped character, quite likable, although he is not "the guy who saved the world". Silent and prepared, dangerous and wise. I never asked for such things before watching the movie and I am sure nobody has. Maybe that is why I loved it.

It's the depth of the story that made the movie very different for me. This is arguably one of a kind film that depends on its own style. Crying Freeman is almost modest and unambitious which is something, I personally, haven't seen in the past couple of year. Christophe Gans's movie promises to remain a classic if future generations manage to look through its "soul".

Of course, comments about the cast could hardly be made. Due to realism purposes, the creators have gathered a cast of almost unknown performers who do their best and in my opinion, succeed, delivering good performances.

The bad points are almost imperceptible. I kinda disliked how some scenes are way too dark. I've always hated that in movies. Yes, it is more authentic, but you can easily miss a character being killed or something like that. I had hard times, recognizing the villains in the third act, because some of them are killed in the first half on the movie.

Crying Freeman makes us realize we were in a big mistake. There are action movies about moral values.

Kevin Spacey is without a doubt one of the best actors of the 90s. After his performances in The Usual Suspect, Se7en and American Beauty, you expect more and more from him. That is why Ordinary Decent Criminal is a huge disappointment.

Michael Lynch is the most artful criminal in Dublin who is never in a bad mood. His next heist becomes an obsession when his partners start questioning Michael's ability to plan everything perfectly, although this is the only thing he does when he isn't playing good father at home.

I guess, it's partly my fault for not paying enough attention to the thousand plot details which sadly turn out to be the "essence" of the film. I gave the movie a chance by calling it a parody and.... well, parodies are always funny, no matter what they spoof or how they do it. So, it wasn't after all a complete parody on purpose. It's just a different con movie that desperately tries to be funny and fails.

Unlike some of his "colleagues", Ordinary Decent Criminal depends too much on story development and logical continuity, forgetting what's the main reason, the viewer has picked this kind of movie - to be entertained. This is definitely not entertainment. It includes one of the most ridiculous scenes ever - the introduction of Michael's TWO wives. I don't know whether it's some kind of a mindless metaphor or strange, dark humor, but the chicks are sisters. Remember, Spacey's character has kids.

Ordinary Decent Criminal is complex and confusing. You are not waiting for a funny scene. Instead, you carefully follow the dialog, because there is a big possibility of losing yourself into the boring, pale universe, the film has inhabited.

Let's go back to Spacey. I wonder in what condition he has been, signing for that movie. It's not miscasting, but something much worse. An insult to his work in American Beauty, released an year before Ordinary Decent Criminal. The character Michael is eccentric and talkative. Spacey is almost pathetic at times. The only cure for this, is thinking of Lester Burnham and Roger Kint.

Writer, Gerrard Stembridge should definitely re-consider his screen writing abilities and be more objective this time. Because, the dialog is very weak and the scenes are often pointless. And we are still talking about a comedy.

Ordinary Decent Criminal is a really bad crime comedy which does not deserve your attention.

Being a big fan of Mat Dillon's acting style, I was really curious to see him in this movie.

Dillon plays a constantly nervous man called Randy. The movie opens with him confessing all his problems to a calm, gambling person called Burmeister, played by Michael Douglas. Randy meets a beautiful woman - Jewel, played by Liv Tyler, who puts him into a lot of trouble, involving a murder and plenty of robberies.

One Night at McCool's has that typical comedy style, quickly unfolding the story, mixing it with characters who act unnatural, but after all, you still laugh at times, gaining respect for all those good actors, seeking for some genre variety.

Matt Dillon's comic performance is quite successful. I never thought he could be funny again after There's Something About Mary, but it turned out he could. He recreates his character with a lot of enthusiasm. As a matter of fact, he might very well be considered the highlight of the movie. There are a couple of hilarious scenes with him. The way he utters his lines is great. There is that moment when a thief enters Randy's place and forces him to hand over the car keys and Dillon's character responds "I don't have a car". The reaction of the thief, and the whole moment of spoiling the little seriousness is just hilarious.

The plot is more of a self-parody than witty and creative. Paul Reiser, for example, plays the most eccentric character in the whole movie. He is Randy's cousin. His character is given present day story all the way from the third act. Before that, there is a spread segment of him, having a hilarious dialog with a shrink. Reiser is very funny in this one. A good cast decision.

Aside from all those positive things, One Night at McCool's is far from being a flawless comedy. The second act is rather boring and unfunny. Sex jokes repeat one after another in different context. I definitely hated the John Goodman's character - a cop who falls for Jewel and threatens Randy with jail as being the prime suspect for a murder. Michael Douglas, another surprising cast choice for such film, also doesn't fit in the whole story. His character has very few lines until the third act, which is ridiculous for an actor of such magnitude.

One Night at McCool's is great entertainment, but be sure you're not watching it for the cast. Dillon and Reiser are very fresh, but Douglas and Goodman are offensively unfunny. If you think you've never seen them in bad roles, avoid this flick. If you need a good laugh, One Night at McCool's is the right choice.

Persona is one of the most unique films, ever made. A nurse develops a bizarre friendship with mentally disturbed patient, refusing to speak.

Bergman is undoubtedly, one of the greatest artists of all time. He proves it with Persona. A movie that is so provocative and beautiful, that you begin enjoying its allegorical path. Everything seems weird. The plot is like a puzzle the viewer has to fix. The experience begins.

The nurse, Alma, firstly seems like a typical young girl. Innocent and pretty, friendly and smiling. She feels for her new "task" and puts a great effort in order to start the treatment. Alma obviously suffers from loneliness, sharing very private things with Elisabth - the patient. Alma realizes, the best decision is fresh air, far away from the depressing hospital.

Persona is not a typical surreal film. It doesn't contain elements from David Lynch or Luis Bunuel's work. It's a character study with its own methods of creating an illusion. The first half of the movie is full of monologues. The storyline doesn't develop. Just another one of those movies about nothing, but you still enjoy them. The second half of the movie, however, is one of the most impressive cinematic experiences ever. Every scene holds a significance, a key to the explanation of what's really happening.... according to you.

Alma finds out that Elisabeth is making fun of her in a letter, and feels betrayed. Her heroine becomes much more complex, almost scary to watch. Alma's actions become more and more unpredictable and weird until she fails to find an answer to her own existence, losing herself into a world of delusion and moral emptiness. Alma's past starts chasing her conscience. She becomes a completely different person. Elisabeth is still silent and too weak to overcome the problems she has faced over the past.

Bergman covers the existentialism issue by creating two characters, blending into one. Elisabeth doesn't speak, because something horrible has happened to her. However, she is not scared, but rather desperate, re-thinking the meaning of life. As an actress, she is too eccentric to reveal what's inside her. Bergman, perfectly contrasts Alma's confessions with Elisabeth's mysteriousness.

Persona is so great, because your interpretation solves the movie. Bergman provokes your imagination by describing the plot as two women, becoming one, which is pretty confusing. As I said, the movie is an experience. You just sit and enjoy its weirdness, thinking of all kinds of explanations.

The acting is pure greatness. Bibi Andersson and Live Ullmann deliver two of the greatest performances ever.

Persona is like the stage of falling asleep, dreaming. Things are normal, boring and pointless when you go to bed. Your dream, however, depicts barely connected, vaguely images which you interpret at the next day.

Bergman's direction is again, phenomenal. There are a couple of close-ups which change the whole concept of the particular scene. Much like the relationship between the two women, the camera moves falteringly, with calm atmosphere, lack of any tension. Only a true artist could make a movie disturbing by classic character development.

Persona is one of the greatest movies ever and quite possibly, Bergman's true masterpiece. A beautiful, disturbing character study that is pure example of beautiful cinema.

Wasabi is an ambitious, mindless action-comedy, written by Luc Besson, starring Jean Reno and a bunch of unknown actors, most of which are pretty annoying.

The story revolves around a French cop, Hubert, who finds out he has a daughter and goes to Japan to take care of her. Shortly after, Hubert, his daughter Yumi and his colleague Maurice are being chased by angry mobs, without knowing why.

The high budget doesn't repair any bad part of the storyline. Thankfully, Wasabi is fast paced which is the thing that saves it from being a complete disaster and quite possibly, the worst action film of the 00s. All characters are dull and simply, do not fit into the whole thing. Reno's supposed "hilarious" lines are often a waste of time. The "good guy" is too boring this time. Apart from the first scene, the rest of his on screen presence is pail and highly forgettable. Reno is a good actor, but the character he plays is simply uninteresting and childish.

Wasabi, for my surprise, is violent and impudent for such an ordinary action flick, appreciated only by kids, tired of Adam Sandler and Eddie Murphy. Lots of action scenes, blood, dead bodies - completely unbalanced plot following. The comedy element is noticeable, only because of the lack of dramatic themes. Terrible humor, terrible dialog.

However, Wasabi is a modernized action, with impressive special effects, entertaining stunts and big name under the "Screnwritter" column. It deserves some points for that.

As I said, the acting is horrid. The Asian girl, who plays Reno's daughter is almost unbearable. The so called villains are unintentionally funny, completely separated from character individuality that some viewers still expect, even from action films.

Besson himself said "Jean Reno is an incredible actor. I have watched him in great roles, but I also have seen him in pretty bad roles". Too bad, that great director didn't know that right there, he was reviewing one of his own creations since the script and the dialog are two of Wasabi's biggest flaws.

Asian horror cinema became a salvation, a die hard horror fan seeks all day long. Some say movies like Ringu and Ju-On are overrated with the argument that people are ready to like any contemporary horror that hasn't been made by Americans. Asian horror includes a brave approach with dark atmosphere, a package of jump out of the seat moments and a compulsory twist. Pon isn't exactly what I though it would be.

A little girl answers a mobile phone and seconds later, she starts screaming like she has seen an evil clown. The main heroine is with the mission of solving the mystery, facing unexpected troubles connected with a terrible event from the past.

Pon is the first Asian horror flick that I find very identical to most USA scary movies we watch these days. First of all, there is almost no drama. All attempts of creating a wet characters is completely covered with a scary expression coming out of nowhere. Yes, this is probably typical for that kind of movies, but not in the way, Pon shows it. At some point, those moments become annoying. It's just that they are far too much for a profound storyline such as the one Pon pretends to tell. There are over 5-6 scenes where a calm atmosphere has captured the screen and suddenly, the main character sees what is supposed to be the ghost of a previously killed female. It's scary at first, but the balance is completely destroyed in the later period of the film. It's not something incredibly retarded, but it becomes obvious that the creators is out of ideas since such story could easily be filmed in 40-50 minutes. What I mean by lack of balance: The second act is full of flashbacks, telling the viewer what is going on. And then, the same stuff continues to control the movie's fable. For example, suddenly opened eyes, supported by the sound of a nail, driven in someone's head. Too much of the same erases the well developed story.

I begun with the bad points, but with a couple of compromises, we could definitely call Pon a decent film. The storyline is quite original, building another house in the city of horror that exists above the grounds of classics such as The Shining. Yes, nobody expects a masterpiece, but Pon is an inspiring, atmospheric tale. Good acting, good use of effects although their amount is too high for the movie's own good. And most important, the movie reaches a level of mystery, capable of making you a witness. In terms of horror, screams might not win your attention, but you should definitely appreciate the thoughtful plot

Overall, an enjoyable horror movie with great potential, lost somewhere in the lack of principles.

Ils is a great addition to the otherwise terrible 2006 - a bad, bad year for horror. I doubt we even expect fear in the "new" horror. At least, I surrendered long time ago. That is why Ils is something more than a positive surprise. It's a golden mine.

Lucas and Clementine are a happy couple, living in a distant house. One night, Clementine is woken up by the sound of strange noises, coming from the front of the house. Uninivted guests have occupied the place, but the main characters are not able to see them. They have no choice, but to run and hide in a night full of craziness and terror.

Ils delivers a level of realism, I honestly, haven't witnessed in a long time. Usually, we have monsters that are first kept in mystery in order to fool the viewer that a killer is going after the characters. Basically, Ils's plot is not all that original and never seen before, but the first scene builds up tension and mystery, supporting the rest of the movie. There are only two characters which leaves more space for visual beauty. Nature around the house, the house itself, the night - very nice location. It's like the creators have tried to create a specific atmosphere, fitting into the later introduced strain.

Ils is scary in a way that could hardly be described. As I said, storytelling is not that impressive, nor revolutionary, but the authors are obviously talented enough to turn it into a scary experience. The viewer is curious to find out what or who is behind the murders. By murders, I mean the first scene where unknown woman and her daughter are killed off screen. What is their motive? All that stuff is not just a mystery, because the film is rather silent and tensed than slow paced with lots of dialogs.

It is said that the movie is based on true events which leaves even more questions. Personally I don't have faith in this kind of stuff anymore. I mean if a similar event has occurred, it is always different than the movie. I suppose it's the same story here. The movie's weakest point is exactly that attempt to influence the viewer by a made-up story. Horror makers should stop this. It has been original 30 years ago with TCM. Now, it has become annoying.

Ils is definitely among the best horror movies in years. A European, scary flick, you will appreciate the least.

Horror is not always bloody, disgusting and scary. Sometimes horror is the truth itself. The truth people are afraid to admit. Key word - afraid. Even though May is not much of a philosophical horror-drama, it makes its point by exposing moral values and humaneness.

May is a young woman, desperately trying to find friendship and love, but memories from the childhood and her obvious weirdness become something, she has no power to overcome.

It's quite rarely that a horror movie reaches a level of psychological point where the main character is both positive and negative. May is not a heavy drama, nor a tear-jerker. May is a simple film that might have been misunderstood by people, waiting for the monster to jump out of nowhere and eat all characters. Yes, that would be cool and unexpected, but it's not what we are talking about. Firstly, I want to share opinion that might answer why May is a horror. Indeed, it consists of pretty bizarre elements, but that's not the reason it is considered horror. The character May represents both good and evil, both happiness and sadness and both laughing and smiling. In her world, everything is unknown and what humans fear the most is the unknown. You can't beat it, because you are not familiar with its shape and mind. In many terms, May is not familiar with life. Although she starts a relationship with a reticent man, she still finds it difficult to adapt. Despite the early impression, the movie leaves in us, we can't say May's life has been destroyed long time ago. Not at all. She has a job, she has a nice house and she even takes benefits out of loneliness. Things go wrong when she falls in love - a feeling, she is completely unacquainted with. The movie opens with childhood flashbacks where we get a glimpse of the terrible upbringing, May has received from her crazy parents. There is nothing scarier than being unfamiliar with feelings such as love and trust. May is constantly paranoid and unsure about her sexuality. By the way, there is some kind of a clock that represents her understandings on life. May is a horror movie, because the main heroine doesn't understand simple things and that drives her crazy. Her degradation is a result of the everyday life she starts hating after meeting Adam. And the strongest proof of my theory comes at the end when May comes to the conclusion that the only salvation is murder.

Angela Bettis is great as May. Troumendous job in recreating an anti-social, confused girl. A talented actress, we saw in a MOH episode. I don't know whether she is devoted on horror in some strange way, but I am absolutely positive both May and the MOH episodes are decent, little horrors.

The main issue, I have with May is its purpose. I couldn't understand how am I supposed to react to a scene that is both strange and funny. I guess it depends on my views, but I can't agree May is depressing and dark whereas that definition could be seen in most reviews of the film. It's a bit sad, but in a weird way. Depressing is just a wrong word. May is not a victim. It's her that fixes her life in the wrong way. And childhood is too much of a cliché to be taken seriously. Dark is another word, I doubt I'll ever use, describing the movie. There is a sexual subtext as well as intentional humor. I guess lesbian scenes don't bring much darkness to any form of art.

May is a movie about misunderstandings. I liked it. Whethet it is provocative or overrated - it depends on the person watching. One thing is for sure - it is fresh and it's worth the look.

Deep Red is one of Dario Argento's first movies where you see his genuine style that sill brings freshness to the genre. Italian horror has earned my respect, but Argento is a whole lot of a different story.

Marcus is a devoted musician, looking for a better future when he witnesses the murder of a young woman. With the help of a cheesy reporter, Marcus enters the mystery, looking for clues with the feeling of knowing the killer's personality. The murderer obviously knows that and starts going after Marcus with the purpose of eliminating him from his path of rage and madness.

Profondo Rosso is a movie like no other. I've seen enough Argento movies to judge for his style, but this is something that really formed my general impression about his point of view concerning the so called "beautiful" horror movies where even the death of a character you like, becomes an extraordinary experience, you enjoy. Profondo Rosso includes characters dealing with something very evil and even though they are on the right track, Marcus and Gianna are too naive for their own enthusiasm. Following this logic, Deep Red is more of a character-killer movie than a killer-character. Since I mentioned Profondo Rosso is a bit different than most Argento movie, I would like to expand my views. The way the story is brought to life resembles a classic mystery where everything is too complex and unpredictable even for idealistic characters. I expected high amount of gore. Instead, I received a romantic addition to a story full of darkness. Yes, the connection between Marcus and Gianna grows up as they find more and more difficulties, some of which put their life at risk. Something, I've never discovered in an Argento film. Usually, he creates relationships as something that is out of absolutely no importance. Deep Red emphasizes on the character's ability to love and be optimistic even though they are closed in a no exit room. I can't say I disliked it, but still, I prefer decapitations.

Argento's early attempts to change the horror are mostly connect with developing a simple "who is the killer" kind of mystery. You know, there are suspects, but you are on the edge until the very end no matter what you say about the clichés. There is a motive, mostly following an event in the past where one of the positive character has accidentally hurt the killer's feeling. I am not afraid to admit I love this kind of movies. Too bad, Profondo Rosso fails in explaining its intentions in the slasher sub-genre of mystery and love where you could hardly compare the plot to movies depending on high body count. Maybe, it's my expectations that destroyed the magic of mixing a couple of my favorite genres. I thought gore will control the movie's major point. In fact, I thought gore is the movie's major point. Opera is probably the best example. It's full of gruesome deaths and stupid characters. It has nothing to do with Deep Red. Unfortunetely, the only thing in common is the way, a death scene is directed. Something I hate about Argento movies. The death scene itself is very cool and creative, but some kind of a "casino" music appears and the particular scene becomes a parody of itself, completely erasing its seriousness with the viewer losing interest. There is a scene in Deep Red where a mechanic doll appears out of nowhere, completely shocking both victim and viewer. The scene could have been classic if it wasn't for the stupid theme I told you about.

Deep Red is one of the most bizarre mysteries you have seen and definitely memorable in terms of creating a mix between horror and suspense. But it's not a masterpiece, nor Argento's best movie. Missing, small details for pretentious fans like me, stop the movie from being what I thought it would be.

If you have never heard anything about Maniac, you will most probably suggest it's just another one of the undetermined amount of slashers. I was in the same situation until I realized Maniac is quite unusual.

Serial killer stalks and kills women he has never met before. The motive is too complex and needs a wider explanation, but it is connected with the killer's past and to be more specific - his mother.

As a slasher fan, I allow myself to separate the sub-genre to more sub-genres. Slashers containing mystery. Slashers containing gore. And slashers containing the villain as the main character. The maniac is in fact a person called Frank Zito. His appearance doesn't give out his sick desires of raping and killing a female, being advised by a dummy, Frank sees as the best "person" to share with. If we look deep into the movie, we might claim that the dummy is a symbolism of Frank's lost heart. The life he never managed to find after his childhood has been erased by an evil woman, he had no choice, but to love and subordinate. That dummy turns out to be his best and only friend in a world full of contradictions. The dummy is a character. Some might say "it ain't that deep", but believe me - not all slashers are the same although it's nearly impossible to find the differences between them. In some means, Maniac recreates invisible shades of character study elements. The main character is not running away from the knife -he is holding it. If it wasn't for the gore, Maniac might have been a solid drama.

One name just needs to be mentioned - Tom Savini. There are no words, capable of describing his achievements in the art of make-up. Maniac is one of his very first movies and the gore is indeed very graphic and impressive for 1980. Death scenes in horror movies are rarely realistic, but when they are, Tom Savini's name is always involved. I doubt slashed throat has looked cooler before Maniac. You know how late 70s slasher give very few details on the death scene itself, cutting most of its on screen gore, showing mainly the consequences. Savini manages to show more, making the movie gorier. Of course, the level of realism goes down on the expense of a bloody tale with more guts and even revulsion if you "believe" the movie so to speak. To be honest, Maniac is not as gory, as it seems from its gruesome poster, but you will definitely notice the different approach towards the rather dramatic violence and the exaggerated brutality.

Maniac is one of the better horrors of 80s, making us believe slasher is unique and unpredictable in its own universe. I've never thought I'd be deep in thought while watching that specific sub-genre. Tom Savini's amazing make-up, cool death scenes and a colorful main character create a world of horror, you will definitely enjoy.

Some horror movies are great, but you refuse to watch them repeatedly. Others are still great, but if you feel like watching horror, you'll always find it enjoyable, viewing. The Hitcher is definitely a movie I will watch again, and again, and again.

A young man called Jimm is stalked by a deranged psychopath who kills random people by pretending to be a hitch-hiker. The psycho turns out to be much more creative and smart than Jim thought after escaping from him.

It ain't easy to name the movie's biggest advantage. Never mind how hard I'll try, I am absolutely sure atmosphere could not be described with words. The Hitcher is a fast paced horror-thriller about survival, madness and something we might call love. It starts with the main character Jim, being happy about his untroubled and well arranged life. After picking up a strange hitch-hiker, he realizes his life is in danger and that only a miracle could save him in a place I'd like to call "in the middle of nowhere". That's right, Jim never finds a good covert that even a clever maniac will have difficulties revealing. Therefore, the movie engenders a feeling of dead end with the main character's disability to escape. While developing sub-plots, The Hitcher becomes darker. A girl gets involved and even though the plot is far from complex, you expect twist that has something to do with the recently appeared female character.

John Ryder is a character that could easily stuck in your mind and you don't even have to call the movie scary. It's the particular character that has provoked your feeling of disturbance. Rutger Hauer does an amazing job, bringing to life a fictional character. Acting is never important in such movies, but only a blind man could miss this performance. You never know what Ryder is gonna do next. You are tensed, unsure how evil are Ryder's intentions and how far could he go in order to completely ruin his victims's mentality. In my opinion, one of the most memorable characters, ever brought on the big screen. Too bad, The Hitcher is not a standard slasher flick and you will never see Ryder's name in some "best serial killers" list. But be sure in one thing - once you get lost, trying to decipher his mind, he will become part of your imagination's dark parts.

The Hitcher's plot is quite simple. Not to mention that 21 years later, highway horrors are just another cliché, people dislike. Maybe, this is the reason why we like it. Instead of being another cheap, gory flick, it becomes an experience you will always respect for some reason. The Hitcher emphasizes on the ability of drawing the viewer into the story and succeeds.

One of the best horror movies of the 80s. They don't do them like this anymore. Very true.