VISITORS- Probably not a movie that horror fans will like, but it's really good if you like a drama once in a while. It does have mild horror elements to it, and it's also a setting that's not used too often in any movie. I think this is what would be classified as a pyschological horror, but I'm not sure. The acting is really good, especially the lead, played by Radha Mitchell, who has been super in the few movies I've seen her in. Anyway, "Visitors" is about a woman sailing around the globe and during the last days of it she's gotta deal with cabin fever, guilt and her fears such as her mom, a possibly cheating fiancee, a pirate barge in the area and arachniphobia, all of which visit her on the ship at different times. Reality and mentality are mingled and confused in this movie that never gets boring, for a movie with hardly any action. Check it out if you need to get away from the usual dose of pure horror everyday. Also you must check out another movie starring Radha, "WHEN STRANGERS APPEAR" which is more of a straightforward suspense tale.
"PROM NIGHT 3/PROM NIGHT 4" DVD double feature. I liked part 1 and 2 a lot (part 2 is my favourite), but 3 and 4 are hardly worth renting. The gal that plays Mary Lou in part 3 is pretty and all, but the movie is just so dumb. I had no idea they wanted to make the 3rd movie a comedy. There is one good brief scene of a football that turns into a giant screw after its been thrown to a guy, but that's the only decent scene in the movie. Really dumb. For some reason, it's been heavily edited, too, even though it's the DVD release (though one gore scene is left in, for some reason, despite all the other edits). It's like it's been edited down to a PG-13 rating for some reason. The violent scenes are so badly edited down, a scene doesn't even finish in a decent "television edit" way, plus the cussing in the movie has been dubbed. I don't know what's up with the folks that released it. Part 4 has nothing to do with Mary Lou (from parts 2 and 3) nor does it have anything to do with the first movie (except that when some teens are getting drunk, one asks who or what they should toast to, and one of 'em says "Jamie Lee Curtis". The movie is REALLY boring, until about the last 10 minutes and it gets pretty good at that point (well, between decent and pretty good), but it's just not worth it. Stay away!
MANIACTS- Except for a sort of disappointing ending, this was a nice surprise. Not violent or harrowing, but great acting and sporadic insanity make this film shine bright. Kellie Waymire is absolutely irresistible in her unstable role (I was sad to find out that she died last year) and Jeff Fahey underplays his role well, which is a very good contrast to Kellie's. This movie has that strange, in-between-low-budget-and-medium-budget look to it that few movies have nowadays and a goofy atmosphere that is dark at the same time, kind of like the weird feel that the "Freeway" movies have. There's not much violence in the movie, but when there is, it's over-the-top, though brief: a woman gets her head split open by a super high-pressure firehose and a warden gets impaled with an 8 foot flagpole through a window just to name a couple of moments. If you like "Bonnie & Clyde" or "Natural Born Killer" type of movies, perhaps you'll like this one.
THE GIRL WITH THE HUNGRY EYES- I couldn't understand the story of this movie well at all and it is quite sluggish in places, but it does have a gorgeous yet eerie lady to gawk at in the main character of Louise, a vampire who is possessed by some guy who is obsessed with her finding a key and some legal papers to a building, for some reason. The opening sequence shows that something that occured in the 1930's have something to do with it, but, as I said, I couldn't figure out this movie's storyline. Gorgeous, yet at times unalluring, Kristina Fulton does a decent job of delivering her lines, but she's the kind of actress that probably would have excelled in the silent era of films, because she's much more convincing and creepy and believable when she's using her eyes, facial expressions and body language to convey her character's intentions. The movie has a couple of good cinematic angles and perspectives, but overall it's only decent. It is moody and has a nice foreign look to it, though, if you're looking for that in a movie.
LEARNING CURVE- a really great cult flick that's not considered a cult flick yet. I'd never heard of this movie anywhere; I only found out about it because I saw a trailer for it when I rented "Maniacts". The adult characters are well-portrayed and some of the students are, too, but not all of them. I guess this would be considered a suspense movie, though nobody is being chased or sought after, really, but I was always, constantly wanting to know what would happen next and I was never bored, even though the movie doesn't move very fast; it didn't matter though.
The movie does have 3 problems, though:
1) the reason for not being allowed to use the schoolbooks to teach the students was unbelievable and stupid (what school in the U.S. would ever consider anything a church group had to say?),
2) some bad casting/acting problems. The girl who was the "tease"/ "hot chick" just wasn't convincing and didn't have the looks to back up her character. The "bullies" and the "ultimate rebel" just weren't convincing enough at all times, plus the school looked too clean for a place that had been denied so much and was supposed to be in total despair.
3) For some reason, the first third of the movie was made to be comedic here and there; it just didn't work.
I loved the movie, despite those problems though.
THE HIGHWAYMEN- I was happy to see this movie, finally, but sad that it never got a theatrical release. Oh well. I first heard about the movie because I've been a Rhona Mitra fan ever since her early days as the very first Lara Croft model back in 1995. She's been gradually forming an acting career since then and she's very good and always improving. Anyway, I recommend the movie to pretty much anyone. The guy that directed "The Hitcher" directed this movie and they both have the same lonely, victim-esque atmosphere, except that the male and female leads are together for a short while and therefore have someone to be comforted by. Acting is super. Stunts are well done. Suspense very well done. [POSSIBLE SPOILER] You're lead to believe the villain is almost a type of superbeing or a robot for a while, which was a nice surprise since there's never any hint of that in the trailer (well, in the trailer I saw last year for the movie anyway). [END OF POSSIBLE SPOILER] I went into this movie with high hopes and I wasn't disappointed. I think that anyone expecting some sort of "Fast & the Furious", "Deathrace 2000" and "Friday the 13th" hybrid movie might be disappointed, though. Oh, it has a really good/appropriate soundtrack, too.
DARK ASYLUM- This was a really nice surprise. I didn't expect to like it much, but rented it anyway, because the description did sound
promising. I wasn't disappointed at all. It's simply about a killer called "The Trasher" getting caught, sent to a hospital and then trying to escape the place, which has just been locked down electronically. A psychologist/profiler and a likeable custodian are also trying to escape without getting killed by the killer. This movie has very good pacing, good acting, appropriate lighting, a few good "survival skill"/"trap-making" scenes, and a menacing ambience amongst its 90+ minutes. With the exception of the opening scene, which is well-done and has a cool "under the sewer" lair sequence, the rest of the movie is pretty much a long chase inside the hospital, but it's not tedious. A good rent if you'd like a suspense movie that's a wee bit more violent than the usual humdrum straight-to-video suspense films that are usually just filled with vocal suspense.
KING OF THE ANTS- What a strange movie. This film really stays in your mind long after watching it. The good guy is hard to root for since he's also a killer who doesn't seem remorseful. While it's not the kind of movie I was expecting to see (the director Stuart Gordon usually makes monster movies) I still enjoyed it though I feel guilty saying so due to it's nasty and gruesome atmosphere. I liked seeing George Wendt playing a bad guy; he's good at it. Almost the whole film was shot hand-held. The acting is superb, except for the main actor's line deliveries at the end of the movie. Although it's not a horror movie, lots of horrific stuff occurs, and the hallucination scenes are very wicked. Also, it's one of those few movies where things don't happen that I expect to happen. While watching this movie, I was reminded of another movie, but now I can't think of which one, which really bugs me, because I remember that I had a lot to say about the comparisons. I should have written this review last night before I fell asleep. The main thing about this film is just how strange it is: the way the story's written and the way events occur. Although some aspects have been changed from the original story (it was a novel first), the changes were not overdone in order to make it ridiculous or typical Hollywood formula. It's just an odd story about a guy who made a mistake and paid dearly for it, and from then on it's a revenge tale. Not an epic story, but it has that composition to it that makes you think it could have actually been based on a true story. Check it out, but be prepared to be grossed out at least three times in ways you've probably never been before.VISITORS