I consider the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" the greatest horror movie that's ever been produced. The grisly realism and berzerk psychology on display is, and always will be unparalleled. I could easily argue that the site of Sally Hardesty breaking down into hysterical incapacity, while Leatherface violently wielded his chainsaw in a frustrated tantrum, brought the saga to a very satisfying conclusion. Perhaps, the story could have been expanded. Unfortunately, the original was never done justice with a competent sequel. In the genre of horror, a successful brand name is rarely laid to rest. No matter how inept the ideas for future chapters appear. It's an easy way to make money.

The first attempt at a sequel came from Tobe Hooper, the man who was responsible for the original. Unfortunately, Hooper never created anything memorable, or even good after "Chainsaw"( And yes, I'm including "Poltergeist"). Hooper's plans for the continuation of his masterpiece was to take the sequel in a new direction. So in 1987, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" was unleashed, with nearly no resemblance to its predecessor, whatsoever.

Instead of grim atmosphere and the ambiguous use of gore, the idea here was to go over-the-top. While the effects on display were probably state-of-the-art at the time, thanks to the talents of Tom Savini, the constant blood bath does little to sustain much entertainment value. It's just a matter of what you see is what you get. There's no substance, just shock value. This error in judgement was mild compared to other "artistic" liberties that were forced upon the franchise.

Apparently, Hooper was under the impression that the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was hilarious?

It's true.

Hooper considered his horror classic comical. Somewhere between the gritty realism, invalids being mutilated by chainsaws, sledgehammer assaults, and a girl being left alive hanging from a meathook, the humor was lost on the audience.

Imagine that.

So once again, Hooper's plan was to go over-the-top. What the audience got was "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2"... the dark comedy.

For the most part, I experience a massive disconnect when I view dark-comedies. If I want to watch something funny, I'll watch something funny. When I want to experience horror, I'm in a different mood. Not to mention, nothing in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" is actually amusing. It's just campy and extremely irritating. Nothing is as awful as the introduction to the film, featuring two rowdy students causing mischief on the way to a football game. The dialogue is absolutely painful, and what transpires is constantly insulting to the intelligence. It's just something that I'm embarrassed to watch. Even if the movie was able to recover from the shoddy opening sequences, which it doesn't, the introduction would still serve as a black eye to the remainder of the proceedings.

As far as the family is concerned, in the sequel Hooper decided to name the clan, the Sawyers.
Get it?
See that's the kind of highbrow humor that's on display here.
Brilliant, right?

Anyway, the Sawyers are completely overexposed in this film. Leatherface is completely emasculated as he falls head-over-heels for the Stretch character. You know, for some reason, the character is far less intimidating once we witness his premature ejaculation. (That's right, without going into the ridiculous details, that actually occurs. So there's a giant, wearing a dead skin mask, violently wielding a chainsaw, and he's not the least bit imposing, because someone thought that would be funny.) "The Cook" gets entirely too much screen time rattling off limp puns (No pun intended for the previously mentioned Leatherface scene). The most offensive addition to the clan is without a doubt, Choptop. Choptop is basically a poor man's imitation of "The Hitchhiker" from the original. Anyway, he hee-haws through the entire film, poorly executing pathetic dialogue, on his way to the losing end of a humiliating cat fight with the film's female protagonist. "The Grandpa" is still alive too. You see, he has to be. This is a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" sequel, so for some reason, the writers feel that they're obligated to recreate the infamous "dinner scene". Predictably, it was performed with the utmost sloppiness this time around.

The film's only redeemable quality was Dustin Hoffman's portrayal of the "Lefty" character. He's the only actor that was able to pull of a one-liner, in a film littered with quotes that would disgust Henny Youngman. Years later, Hoffman would go onto admit that "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" was the worst film that he ever participated in. He was right.

I hate this movie, and it's not even the worst sequel in the series. It has come to my attention that it's actually a lot of people's favorite chapter in the entire series. I suppose the original "Chainsaw" can be somewhat of a chore to sit through. Especially if you're not a fan of intense horror. This is much lighter, both in mood and substance. So I guess it's just a matter of taste. You know, one man's trash...

It's easy to understand why someone would want to remake classic horror films, especially the slasher variety. From a studio standpoint, it's a financial goldmine. All you need is a director, a low budget, and the star power of Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, release it at the right time of year, and wait for the revenue to roll in.

Artistically, although most of the movies can be defended if a nostalgic connection exists, the truth is, a lot of them haven't aged all that well. Many of them weren't that good to begin with. Once you divorce yourself from the aforementioned nostalgia, this accurately summarizes the entire Friday the 13th franchise.

I was lucky enough to discover Friday the 13th as a youngster. So, there are times when I can go back and relive the ridiculous chapters from the 80's. This can be a real chore though. I still enjoy the premise and the Jason Voorhees character, so I more than welcomed an attempt to rejuvenate the franchise.

The maker's of the film didn't stray very far from the original formula. What unfolds is what you'd expect. Teenagers show up at Camp Crystal Lake to party, they encounter Jason, and they pay dearly for doing so. What you get is not a reimagining, but a contemporary version of fossilized pictures, that have lost the majority of their relevance.

What transpires actually borrows some coherent events from the first 4 chapters of the original series. So, it isn't just a remake of the original Friday the 13th. Which is a positive, because I have no desire to witness Pamela Voorhees in the slasher role. Let's be honest, one of the only reasons to watch, is to see Jason in action.

Speaking of Jason, one of the reboot's undisputed successes is their portrayal of this iconic character. What's presented here, is the quintessential version of Jason. This rendition is a fast,menacing giant with noticeable cunning and a pronounced mean streak. The writers wisely chose to avoid much backstory, which eliminated the undesirable effect of having the character come off as sympathetic. One of the better scenes in the film focuses on Jason sharpening a machete. During the task, Jason flashes back to his mother's decapitation. The thoughts launch the character into a violent tantrum. Witnessing the fit of rage, is not only unprecedented, but made Jason actually seem demented, as opposed to a nondescript zombie. It was a nice touch.

As expected, the film has its fair share of problems, but these are evident in all of the movies. First of all, it's very easy to feel apathetic toward the characters. To me, the film would be more exciting if I was actually invested in somebody's survival. As opposed to hoping that the characters are exterminated as soon as possible. It also wouldn't hurt to scale back the ridiculous antics of the teenagers. The "good times" are normally awkward celebrations that only serve to lighten the tension necessary to actually make the movie scary.

It is easy to dwell on the film's faults, and it should at least be considered a missed opportunity. If you hated these movies before, or you were hoping for a radical new direction, you'll want to run like hell from this too. On the other hand, if your expectations are to witness a good Friday the 13th movie, you shouldn't consider 2009's rendition that disappointing. These days, I'm probably more willing to sit down to this version than any of its predecessors.

The original "Halloween" is one of my favorite movies of all time. It was the first horror movie that I witnessed, and the impact that was provided, left a lasting impression on me. I've been a fan or the genre ever since. Unlike the majority of it's peers, John Carpenter's film is still creepy and suspenseful. Sure, it's not as horrifying as it was when I was 7, but it stands the test of time. "Halloween" is one of the few horror movies that didn't really require a remake.

While fans were losing interest in a long line of poorly conceived sequels, there was still a lot of money to be made off of the Michael Myers saga. That, and I can see why introducing "Halloween" to a new generation would be an attractive idea.

In 2007, the franchise was handed over to Rob Zombie. Zombie's debut, "House of a Thousand Corpses" was a complete and utter disaster, but he showed promise with his follow-up, "The Devil's Rejects". While the latter was hopelessly unoriginal and featured shaky storytelling, it was at least competent.

Unlike a lot of remakes, Zombie deserves credit for at least attempting to make "Halloween" his own. Well, that's at least half true. The movie can easily be divided into two chapters: an origin story followed up with the familiar return to Haddonfield.

The prequel chapters represent Zombie's vision of "Halloween". It is fairly well executed. In particular, the performance of Daeg Faerch as a young Michael, is very impressive. Malcolm McDowell's portrayal of the iconic Dr. Loomis is also superb. While the initial segments of the movie are the film's strongest, there are still plenty of weaknesses.

A lot of Rob Zombie's failures are glaring due to his shortcomings as a storyteller. Throughout his vision of Halloween, he has the tendency to miscast Michael Myers as a protagonist. This is aggravating to the nature of the film. During the origin phases, the body count is populated by victims that are far too deserving of their fates. Michael feasts on abusive alcoholics, bullies, and rapists. This makes the character seem less callous, and irresponsibly forces him into the role of an anti-hero. In my opinion, the desired effect is amplified when the characters haven't "earned" their eventual encounters with the slasher. The audience should fear Michael because he has no reasonable motivations. After all, he's a monster. Saddling the iconic "Shape" with a backstory easily lifted from a serial killer paint-by-numbers kit is weak, and ultimately unnecessary. The obligation to feel sorry for the character is alienating. One would figure that a horror aficionado like Zombie claims to be, would have these details figured out.

The second portion of the film is where Zombie begins borrowing heavily from John Carpenter's film. What unfolds nearly follows the original picture's chain of events to a 'T'. That said, the victims are executed with a harsh cruelty, that is no doubt, unprecedented for the franchise. I appreciate the heightened intensity. While the hostile nature of the direction keep the proceedings entertaining, the predictability and familiarity of what unfolds alleviates the necessary anxiety.

For his faults, Zombie does have the ability to make his movies look slick. His version of "The Shape" is aesthetically astute. The choice to use a former professional wrestler was wise. Seeing Michael tower over much weaker opponents makes the murders even more devastating. Zombie also uses clever direction to show Michael stalking his victims through windows and popping out of shadows. All in all, I think that Zombie's version of Myers was a great success.

In the end, 2007's Halloween is an entertaining movie. It's certainly heads and tails above any other sequel in the franchise's long history. That's probably not saying much though. I guess it also goes without saying, that the new Halloween falls miserably short of the original's greatness. Zombie's film succeeds with style, but falls short on substance.

I always enjoyed the original Evil Dead trilogy from the '80's. They're still fairly entertaining for what they are, and they're more than worthy of the cult status that they've achieved through the decades. That said, I never considered them to be great horror movies. Ever since I was a kid, I always considered the adventures of Ash, and the crude effects involved, more comedic than horrifying. I suppose the tongue-in-cheek nature of the films is part of the charm. Still, it's such a great idea, and with the upgrades in special effects over the years, whether it's blasphemy or not, I always hoped for a remake. I'm not a traditionalist, if someone can improve on a solid idea, I'm all for it. Progress is a good thing. The problem with most remakes, is that they rarely improve anything offered in the original. Even then, who cares? It was at least worth a try.

After failing to produce a remake of their own, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell handpicked the makers of a new Evil Dead. I started noticing the trailers in January, and I was immediately excited. The tone of the previews was sinister. My anticipation grew, as I wondered if this would be a full-blown and terrifying version of the Evil Dead, the one that I'd always wanted.

I'm happy to report that I wasn't disappointed. Not even close. This movie more than exceeded my expectations.

Fede Alvarez's version of the Evil Dead aims right for the jugular. After briefly becoming acquainted with the characters, the viewer is exposed to an all out assault on the senses. The picture is visually spectacular in it's wretchedness, with the content to match. What's offered is an all out barrage of downright brutality. The viewer is smothered in terror. Just when you think you've caught your breath from one episode of violence, at a cataclysmic pace, you're immediately confronted with another abomination. The hour-and-a-half is a claustrophobic journey, with no relief. Unlike the originals, there is no campy laughs to be derived from the proceedings, it is designed solely to make you uncomfortable.

The re-imagining of the Evil Dead is the best Horror movie that I've seen in a very long time. It's absolutely perfect.

If you're a fan of paranormal stupidity, where you jump when a door slams, you might want to sit this one out. You'll only embarrass yourself when you squirm out of the theater with soiled panties. If you don't like the idea of the originals being remade, sit in your Mom's basement watching the old ones in your Yoda pajamas. This doesn't require your approval. I give this movie the highest possible recommendation, if you think you can stomach it. Even if you don't enjoy it, I guarantee you'll cringe.

This was the first, in what turned out to be several, Friday the 13th sequels. The original idea was to attach the Friday the 13th moniker to a Horror movie every year, without the movies having any continuity to the original film. The "Halloween" franchise actually practiced this idea, when they released, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch". The 1983 release entirely distanced itself from the main antagonist of the series, Michael Myers. It also went on to bore audiences to tears, on it's way to bombing at the box office. Five years later Michael Myers returned. Wisely, Paramount prevented the folly of straying from an established brand, and insisted that Jason Voorhees take over as the villain in the series, and millions of dollars later, the rest is history.

Stylistically, the film is nearly identical to the original. The direction of the film borrows heavily from the Italian slasher films that came before it. In this case, borrowed heavily is a gross understatement. Steve Miner, the film's director, went on to lift scenes directly from Mario Bava's, "Twitch of the Death Nerve". The most notable example is when Jason drives a spear through a pair of lovers. The scene is a shot-for-shot ripoff of the one that originated in the Bava film a decade earlier.

Plagiarism aside, there are plenty of other things in the movie that annoy me. The body count rises so it doesn't seem quite as slow as it's predecessor. Still, it's downright brutal watching the counselors, literally killing time, in between meaningful scenes. In "Friday the 13th: Part 2", we get to see counselors playing chess, arm wrestling, and screwing around with vintage handheld video games. All the while, engaging in tediously forced dialogue.

The plot holes that became a staple of the franchise are also very evident here. What's always bothered me, is how Jason ended up discovering the "Alice" character from the previous movie. I don't understand, did he just look her up in the phone book, or what? Well, he must have, because she received a creepy phone call, just minutes before her life was ended with an ice-pick. But that would have meant that Jason called her from within her own house, right? Or, maybe she had another deranged stalker. You'd think she would have explored some witness protection options. I don't know why I'm trying to apply logic here.

Speaking of Jason, he was far from perfected at this point. Watching the character run is awkward. While watching him struggle to overtake the "Paul" character in a wrestling match is shameful. Aside from that, when Jason's on camera, he is no more intimidating than any other inebriated imbecile with a pair of overalls and a bag over his head.

In case you haven't already figured it out, I'm not a very big fan of this chapter. I suppose it's taken on some sort of cult following, but that doesn't mean it's good. If you're set on watching all of the "Friday's", I suppose this is a necessity. If you just want to see a good slasher film, might I suggest, "Twitch of the Death Nerve". The makers of this film sure must've enjoyed it.

At one point, I promised myself that I would never force myself to witness another Guillermo del Torro horror movie. That was shortly after I witnessed his previous abomination, "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark". If you were lucky enough to miss "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark", it was inspired by a 1970's made for T.V. movie, that basically dealt with deranged tooth fairies. Fortunately, I've chosen to repress any further details from that ill-fated trip to the theater in 2010. How could I ever again trust the judgement of Guillermo del Torro after such a wretched performance? Never again, I said. Of course, I don't know why I make such bold claims. One way or another, I convince myself to watch almost every horror movie. Plus, we'd already watched "Django Unchained" and the only other choice was "Gangster Squad". A bad horror movie is better than a bad gangster movie, right? Hmm, I guess I'm not sure about that. Well, at least "Mama" isn't a found-footage movie, the likes of which I absolutely loathe.

Luckily, "Mama" is better than Guillermo del Torro's previous abortion, but it still isn't very good. It basically delivers the same pattern as most modern horror movies. It starts off promising, before degenerating into a convoluted mess.

The biggest problem with "Mama" is the storytelling. The picture never knows what it wants to be. The characters that aren't entirely pointless, end up spending too much time on the fence. This is most unforgivable when it comes to the movie's antagonist. In a horror movie, or supernatural thriller, or whatever it was del Torro was shooting for here, it just muddies the film when what you're suppose to fear wears a grey hat. Then again if every single character in the film is a "-tweener", eventually you just become indifferent to the whole cast. That's how I felt about halfway through "Mama", I just quit caring, shortly afterwards I was just bored.

Guillermo del Torro does deliver some impressive CGI, and when the film's ghost is ambiguous, "Mama" delivers some creepy moments. Unfortunately, the latter portion of the film is not as subtle. Once the shroud is lifted the apparition is far less intimidating and it's given far too much screen time. Before long the visuals just become comical. If I feel like pointing and laughing at something that's suppose to be terrifying, there's obvious problems.

Although it wasn't very good, nothing offered was utterly offensive...until the ending. The conclusion is absolutely shameful. I notice this with just about every recent horror movie, writers just can't bring their stories to a satisfying conclusion. It's ridiculous. I guess it's time to brush up on H.P. Lovecraft and start studying Alfred Hitchcock, because quite frankly, they aren't getting the job done.

In the end, "Mama" is certainly worth missing. It's also just salt of the earth. With the exception of the erratic characters, you could slap the same review on "Sinister" or any other recent horror movie. They just aren't delivering the goods.

The most important thing to remember when you watch a new Texas Chainsaw Massacre film, is that you can't compare it to the original. No movie will ever reach the grisly terror that was unleashed in 1974. If you're hoping to stroll by the theater and witness anything comparable, you're setting yourself up for a massive disappointment. If you do elect to view new "Chainsaw" movies, it's best to judge them as just another slasher film. If you do, you'll realize that there have been some entertaining installments in the past 39 years. Well, few, but still.

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" came about when Platinum Dunes announced that they would not be producing any future installments of the series. This prompted Lionsgate, who enthusiastically promised great things, to secure the rights to the franchise. Volumes could be written about how poorly Platinum Dunes handled several of their remakes, but to their credit, the pair of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" movies weren't that bad. Both films were far from perfect, but they attempted to make the story their own, while delivering some sadistic brutality. Surely, if Lionsgate made good on their bold promises, fans would be in for some quality Horror movies. Unfortunately, the studio's initial effort failed miserably.

"Texas Chainsaw 3D" was intended to be a direct sequel to the 1974 classic. The best parts of the 2013 version are the first 5 minutes when they recap Tobe Hooper's film. Sadly, I'm not even exaggerating. The only good parts of this movie are the highlights of another movie. After introducing several plot holes, the story attempts to start off exactly when the original ends. Everything that transpires from that point on is just ridiculous. Even by slasher movie standards, the storytelling is absolutely shameful. The most unforgivable blunder is the fact that the filmmakers actually attempt to make the viewer feel sympathetic toward Leatherface and the Sawyer family! Really? I couldn't even make this up if I tried.
What an embarrassing error in judgement. So they begin the film by showing the clan shred an invalid with a chainsaw, before torturing his sister to the brink of mental incapacity, but this behavior is apparently excusable because the whole lot is just misunderstood. Talk about a massive departure from the realm of competent storytelling. The self-proclaimed writers are actually attempting to shovel this manure down the viewer's throat. As a lifelong fan of Horror movies, I was offended.

Aside from the horrendous liberties taken with the characters, this film offers nothing unique or even vaguely interesting. The murders are generic, the body count is slim, and to label the 3-D effects uninspired, would be a gross understatement. "Texas Chainsaw 3D" is an utter catastrophe.

The makers of this film should be entirely ashamed of the feces that they served up. They should be as embarrassed to have made this wretched film, as I am to say that I spent money on it. Here's hoping the crew responsible for this negligence aren't allowed anywhere near this franchise in the future.

I don't remember the original "The Hills Have Eyes". I saw the movie, at least a couple of times, when I was younger, but it failed to leave a lasting impression on me. I think I even owned the VHS version at some point. I don't remember it being a bad movie, boring perhaps. I seem to remember it being just another reason to consider Wes Craven criminally overrated. Maybe I'll revisit the original at some point. Until then, when I'm in the mood to watch a Horror movie, you probably won't hear me say, "You know what I'm in the mood for? I'd really like to watch the 1970's version of 'The Hills Have Eyes' directed by Wes Craven." It probably won't happen anytime soon.
The remake on the other hand, is a truly disturbing slab of cinema. It was unleashed at a time when remaking Horror movies was routine. Beginning with "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", filmmakers that were unable to capture the grisly atmosphere that made the originals terrifying, would instead, amplify the violence and gore. In most cases, while entertaining in their own way, the efforts fell significantly short of the originals. I don't think that's the case with "The Hills Have Eyes".
The 2006 version, succeeded in becoming an excruciating spectacle. Although exaggerated at times, the deformed "hill people" are a lurid visual. As foul as the antagonists are visually, the most distressing elements of the two hour journey is the sordid behavior on display. Alexandre Aja's re-imagining runs a gauntlet of malevolent moments. The viewer is exposed to mutilation, suicide, kidnapping, cannibalism, and at it's worst, delves into rape and sexual humiliation. I'd venture to guess that even the most desensitized members of the audience would find something in the film to cringe at.
It's difficult to say, whether I'd be still consider this film successful if the shock value wore off, but I imagine that's irrelevant. The point of a Horror movie is to make you uncomfortable. "The Hills Have Eyes" succeeds.

This is the film that launched the most successful Horror franchise in the history of the United States. It spawned 9 sequels, a crossover with Freddy Krueger, an eventual reboot, and a whole host of imitators. It was originally made to cash in on the success of the most brilliant slasher movie of all-time, John Carpenter's "Halloween". Needless to say, it took on a life of it's own.
Many would argue that this is the best of the Friday the 13th movies, and it's not difficult to understand their argument. After all, this was the birth of some of the most iconic characters in the history of Horror. I'm sure that it also benefited from being released prior to the eventual saturation of the slasher genre. Sean Cunningham was able to produce an ominous atmosphere, in what was probably one of the best settings ever imagined for a Horror movie. This film, along with it's sequels, had a pronounced influence on me as a child, so I'll always give Friday the 13th credit, at least from a nostalgic standpoint.
Unfortunately, I don't consider Friday the 13th that great of a movie. To me, much of the appeal of a "Friday the 13th" movie, was watching Jason kill people. The initial installment borrowed heavily from the Italian films, that were very influential at the time. The camera normally pans the surroundings with a voyeuristic approach. So in most cases, you're witnessing events from the viewpoint of the killer. It is effective at times, but it has never been my favorite technique. True to the Italian formula, the mysterious killer isn't revealed until the film's climax. In Friday the 13th, this results in a largely embarrassing cat fight between Pamela Voorhees and the "Alice" character. Further complaints would include the overly methodical pace, and the fact that after 30 years, the film hasn't aged well at all.
This is probably one of the better installments in the series, which might not be saying that much. You can certainly do worse if you're sitting down with a Friday the 13th movie, but there are far more entertaining slasher movies to spend your time on too.

For nostalgic reasons, when Summer gives way to Autumn, I really enjoy watching Horror movies. These days, I tend to stay in my comfort zone, and stick to the films that I consider classics. The genre just doesn't tend to produce anything memorable, or even watchable these days. That said, this time of year, I'll inevitably go to the theater to witness a new horror film. I know better, but I do it anyway. This year I endured, "The Possession".
The one thing that "The Possession" had going for it, was that it isn't found footage drivel. On the other hand, it's a movie that involves exorcism, so it's a forgone conclusion, that it will be a failure.
Filmmakers must stay away from exorcisms. Let's face it, there is only one competent movie that's ever been produced involving the subject matter. Attempting to reproduce or exceed that film's brilliance will always be a futile attempt. Even if the film isn't trying to replicate the classic, it will always draw comparisons to the original, superior offering. Any movie involving exorcism ultimately comes off as an attempt to pass off cow manure as ice cream. There's really no comparison. Of course, if fools like me continue to fork out cash to witness these abominations, studios will continue to make them.
Anyway, "The Possession" is completely void of any truly original ideas. Only the names, the places, and in this case, the religious denomination have been changed. On top of the stale storyline, the film is inexcusably bland. What transpires is just one monotonous scene after another. The most horrific event that takes place is basically a harmless infestation. While I'm sure being attacked by a swarm of moths is annoying and inconvenient, it's not exactly riveting suspense either. Most of the movie's attempts at unleashing horror are ultimately comical.
Needless to say, you're better off avoiding "The Possession" all together. It's a waste of time.

It's not often that you walk away from a movie, with the impression that you've witnessed something legendary. Fortunately, this was exactly how I felt after viewing Christopher Nolan's conclusion to the Batman saga. Much like the previous installments, I am overwhelmed with admiration toward the latest film. Whether or not it the greatest chapter in the series would probably have to be determined after multiple viewings, but in the end, the argument is irrelevant. "Batman Begins", "The Dark Knight", and "The Dark Knight Rises" should be considered one epic story, woven together seamlessly by one of the most brilliant directors of our time. No offense to fans of "The Lord of the Rings" or "Star Wars", but for my money, this is the greatest trilogy that's ever been produced. "The Dark Knight Rises" succeeds with innovative action sequences, a vast gallery of deep characters, and more than it's fair share of plot twists. While Bane, may not be the most memorable villain in the series, he may have been it's most effective antagonist. While it was easy to be entertained by The Joker or feel sympathetic toward Harvey Dent, Bane inspires contempt. The monstrous heel also accomplishes the rare feat of plunging Batman into the unfamiliar role of underdog. As the movie unfolds, even the harshest cynics will be clamoring for Bane to get what's coming to him. That's great storytelling. The highest compliment paid to the film, may be the fact that it's a satisfying conclusion. It's not often that that something you love is concluded adequately, but "The Dark Knight Rises" deserves a standing ovation. I could probably go on about how great these movies are for hours. Needless to say, I champion "The Dark Knight Rises" with the highest possible recommendation.

I suppose a reboot was necessary. It would have been hard to return from the butchery that Sam Raimi's crew performed on 2007's "Spider-Man 3". Still, that group did provide us with two solid chapters, so it makes Sony's timing a little awkward here. It's hard enough for those who attempt reboots to avoid being compared to previous franchises, much less attempting to clean the slate with the taste of the predecessor still fresh in the viewer's mouth. The most glaring example of this issue in 2012's "The Amazing Spider-Man", is in the plot. It would be nearly impossible to present key points, without making things feel repetitive. Not enough time has passed since the last time we witnessed a radioactive spider gnawing on Peter Parker, Flash Thompson acting like a jerk, the evolution of the suit, or the death of Uncle Ben. In the end, that's a small complaint. After all, it is a fantastic story, and it's been familiar to us for most of our lives. "The Amazing Spider-Man" also provides us with a solid cast that's capable of delivering the tale's necessary heart, while stringing together plenty of exciting action sequences. The combination results in a pretty entertaining Spider-Man movie. The film certainly isn't without it's weaknesses though. Much like the previous regime, very little respect is given to Spider-Man's secret identity. The Peter Paker character receives plenty of face time, so when it's time to be "Spidey" that mask should stay on. I feel that it's damaging to the movie's dynamic if everyone knows who Spider-Man is. Another complaint that I have centers around, Dr. Connors/The Lizard. The writer's exploration of the character wasn't sufficient enough to carry the film, and he ended up being somewhat of an underwhelming antagonist. While the film does foreshadow future installments, the initial chapter ended up limping to a rather flat conclusion. In the end, if you watch "The Amazing Spider-Man", you'll see a good movie, but you won't walk out of the theater overcome with excitement based on what you've witnessed either.

I have the utmost admiration for Christopher Nolan's take on Batman. In 2005, Nolan released, "Batman Begins". "Batman Begins" was a terrific movie, which I considered at the time, the best version of Batman that was ever put on film. "The Dark Knight" not only exceeded the lofty expectations brought on by it's predecessor, it bestowed upon the world, the quintessential versions of characters that have been lifelong favorites. Never before has the mythology of Gotham City, been brought to life in such an intricate and compelling manner. The storytelling gives us outstanding versions of Batman, Harvey Dent, and countless other characters that all play significant roles in the proceedings. That said, the movie is nearly stolen, by Heath Ledger's provoking portrayal of the heinous, Joker. Much like the narrative, the action contains no wasted motion. The viewer never has a chance to catch their breath. "The Dark Knight" is a barrage of one unforgettable moment after another. In a true testament to the film's greatness, after countless viewings, it still provides the same adrenaline rush that it did 4 years ago. When all is said and done, "The Dark Knight" is a film that transcends the "comic book film" genre, to become one of the most superior crime sagas ever produced. Needless to say, I give this, one of the greatest sequels of all-time, my highest possible recommendation.

"Prometheus", marks the long awaited return of the Alien franchise. The horrific essence produced by the original Alien movies is legendary. To me, the films are the undisputed pinnacle of the science-fiction genre. So to say that I was greatly anticipating Ridley Scott's prequel, would be somewhat of an understatement. Prometheus didn't disappoint. The storytelling is excellent, and remains unpredictable throughout, which is a rare feat for a prequel. Instead of just feeding us cues from the previously released chapters, "Prometheus" offers fresh scenarios, and really, could have stood independent from the original movies entirely. The film is drenched in tension. One of my favorite angles is that, the talented cast is in danger of being mutilated by hostile extraterrestrial lifeforms, but they have just as much reason to fear the motives of their human counterparts. Much like past installments of Alien, there are scenes that are as graphically violent, as they are unforgettable. It's almost a guarantee that something will make you uncomfortable. Throw in the surreal creatures and landscapes inspired by H.R. Giger, and this becomes a can't miss. Here's hoping that this film will be accompanied by future installments. As this could easily serve as a relaunch to the series. Until then, you'd be a fool to miss "Prometheus".

In 1986, the Chernobyl disaster rendered a large portion of the Ukraine uninhabited. Although, the most contaminated areas won't be fit for everyday human life for 20, 000 years, certain areas are open to tourists who wish to derive education from the disaster. Any area that is presumably vacant, should end up being a great setting for Horror. Right? Add the fact that possible residents suffer from mental and physical deformity from years of radiation exposure, and you have a very promising premise. Throw in a van full of teenage idiots, and it should be pretty easy to produce a competent scary movie, right? Well, not so fast. Unfortunately, the undertaking was written by Oren Peli, the hack responsible for the "Paranormal Activity" franchise. I took a chance on "Chernobyl Diaries", with the slight comfort in assuming, that at least, it wasn't a found-footage movie. Although, it isn't predominately found-footage, the movie can't help but interject the useless style into the proceedings. Not that it matters, director Bradley Parker, utilizes an irritating practice, where he's always shaking the camera. I have no idea why he thinks the style is effective, but it isn't. So this might as well, have been found-footage, after all. The writing and directing went on to prove that they don't actually understand Horror... at all. There isn't even the slightest trace of suspense to distract you, from the unforgivable error of having the fatalities occur off camera. They also squander the setting, since they don't have the imagination to produce any abnormal creatures to hunt the victims. Only slight glimpses of the antagonists are revealed, and what's shown isn't threatening to say the least. "Chernobyl Diaries" is utter garbage, and a slap in the face to anyone who enjoys this genre of movies. If you want to watch a gruesome movie, with characters victimized by radiation-produced mutants, stick to "The Hills Have Eyes". Actually, the best advice I can give, is to avoid anything that Oren Peli smears his name on.

Sacha Baron Cohen struck comedic gold with 2006's mockumentary, "Borat". In the film, Baron Cohen unleashed a fictitious character to interact amongst unsuspecting Americans, resulting in unprecedented hilarity. "Borat" was truly brilliant, and presumably due to the actor's increased exposure, it will be one-of-a-kind. In "The Dictator", Baron Cohen once again portrays a misplaced foreigner. Only this time, he is surrounded by actors, in a more traditional slapstick comedy. The results were predominately mediocre. The film's biggest fault is it's insistence on deriving humor through shock-value. Which would be fine, but too often, what's produced is neither funny or shocking. This ends up filling, "The Dicatator" with plenty of awkward moments. Still, the movie wasn't a total miss. Baron Cohen is a talented comedian, so his inappropriate behavior is destined to provide it's fair share of laughs. In the end, Sacha Baron Cohen's recent film isn't horrible, it's not great, it just falls significantly short of his capabilities.

Being a big fan of Edgar Allen Poe's material, I actually thought that "The Raven" had the potential to deliver strong entertainment value. Unfortunately, I was wrong. The movie fails as an accurate biographical portrayal of the writer, as much as it squanders the opportunity to bring his macabre tales to life. The writers labored to force as many of Poe's masterpieces into their tired murder mystery as possible. References to "The Masque of the Red Death", "The Pit and the Pendulum" and others, lack any insight into the actual stories at all. The uninspired scenes come and go, which is unforgivable, considering they were the studio's main selling point. The writers didn't stop at reducing the man's work. Edgar Allen Poe is fictionalized as a bumbling sleuth, that would have been a perfect fit in a rotation of lame 1970's prime time detective features. Any lazy reference to Poe's actual life or puzzling death, could have been easily lifted from any article on the internet. The underrated John Cusack does what he can, but this effort was doomed from the opening credits, until it's ridiculous payoff. A competent filmmaker, could generate great cinema out of Poe's stories. Until that actually happens, "The Raven" will be there to defecate on a towering legacy.

I've always found "The Final Chapter" to be one of the better Friday the 13th sequels. Of course, that might not be saying a whole lot. This film, at least, executes the formula quite well. There's a pretty impressive body count made up of irritating morons, who find themselves executed with maximum brutality. It was a nice touch adding a protagonist, in the form of Tommy Jarvis. The showdown between the two, that results in Jason's "death", is especially tasty. Jason was far from a polished product at this point, but they were getting better. It's just stupid watching the old version of the character run, it looks ridiculous. All in all, if you want to watch Friday the 13th, this one's not bad.

I have the utmost respect for Alfred Hitchcock. He was a genius. A true testament to the man's brilliance, is that even after nearly 50 years, nothing is able to capture the towering suspense that Hitchcock directed with the semblance of ease. It's amazing, given the advancements in technology and the endless streams of source material directors currently have at their fingertips. "The Birds" is a horror masterpiece. The movie moves at a deliberate pace, never wasting a single motion, all the while creating a subtle anxiety. Hitchcock never shows his hand too early, and there are no cheap scares. The payoff is well executed, as events erupt into a crescendo of chaos. The most startling scenes occur when the unlikely antagonists swarm their prey, caging them, while their war cries completely drown out the soundtrack. The film closes with a very appropriate and ambiguous ending. The special effects were state-of-the-art in 1963, but viewers may find them a bit crude by today's standards. If that stops you from enjoying this film, you deserve to watch the found footage paranormal garbage that pollutes today's landscape. "The Birds", is, was, and always will be a perfect movie.

For the past four years, Marvel Studios has been priming us for "The Avengers". Beginning in 2008, with the excellent "Iron Man" film, one-by-one, Marvel has been bringing the ensemble to life. Although the Iron Man movies out-shined the others, each installment has been very entertaining. Still, bringing such a large cast of superheroes together, in one movie, also had great potential to bust. One needs to look no further than "Spider-Man 3" or certain installments of the X-Men franchise, as a reminder that a large group of characters can turn into a nondescript mess. Fortunately for us, with the bases loaded, Josh Whedon was sent to the plate, he took "The Avengers", and proceeded to hit a grand slam. This is an amazing effort. Whedon was able to take what made each of the hero's solo chapters great, and blend them together seamlessly. Every character plays a prominent role, and each has their own awe-inspiring moments. Each persona is brought to life brilliantly, but individual praise should be showered on Tom Hiddleston, for his despicable portrayal of Loki. Not only is the storytelling elite, but the action sequences set a new standard for this genre of film. With continued advancements to the Iron Man suit, the most incredible version of The Hulk" that's ever been put on film, and all of the other well choreographed advancements, it was very difficult to maintain composure. It would have been very easy to jump out of the theater seat obnoxiously bellowing approval. This was a very anticipated blockbuster, that not only exceeded, but shattered expectations beyond belief. Needless to say, this was perfect, so it receives my highest possible recommendation.

For the most part, it's hard to go wrong with animated feature films. Even the lesser offerings can generate enough entertainment value to make the movie passable. Then there's "The Lorax", which represents a rare, but resounding whiff for the genre. The animation is probably the film's only strength. The story is an adaptation of a Dr. Seuss tale, but everything is so uninspired and phoned in, that it quickly becomes apparent that Univeral was just cashing in on the source material. The characters are bland and forgettable, while the musical numbers regress from annoying to down right embarrassing. The part of "The Lorax" that I probably resent the most, is the environmental agenda that's forced down the viewer's throat throughout the whole mess. I guess the same message is evident in the Dr. Seuss story, so I should have known better. The true gauge for how good these movies are is the reaction of the little people, and all of kids in attendance, seemed as unamused as I was. So there you have it. Unless you're a hippie, you might want to avoid "The Lorax". Go chop down a tree instead.

It's hard to enjoy anything that the Horror genre spews forth nowadays. All of the indolent found-footage drivel, futile attempts of channeling horror through exorcism, and limp attempts to remake the classics, have really curbed expectations. Luckily the mounting cynicism, didn't prevent me from checking out, "The Cabin in the Woods". What a breath of fresh air. In many ways, what the movie accomplishes, is very similar to what the original "Scream" was able to achieve nearly 20 years ago. Like "Scream", "The Cabin in the Woods" is able to successfully parody the genre, and at the same time, deliver all of the goods that we love about Horror movies. Once the door is unhinged, "The Cabin in the Woods' comes out of the gate swinging. The viewer is then pummeled with dark humor from a surprisingly entertaining cast, and drenched in a crescendo of unadulterated violence. Everything moves at a break neck pace, and for the most part, the execution is on the money. The film isn't without it's faults. The most notable shortcoming, is the convoluted ending. Despite the disappointment of the climax, there's plenty here to enjoy. "The Cabin in the Woods" was a pleasant surprise, that I would certainly recommend .

When researching Horror films, you will undoubtedly come across, "Poltergeist". You'll also notice that the film is often showered with adulation. I have no idea why. The attraction to this movie has always been lost on me. I didn't think it was scary when I was a kid, and after a recent viewing, I still can't establish a connection to the film. If anything, the recent screening caused me to dislike "Poltergeist" even more. The film's biggest weakness, is that all of the scares are derived through special effects. For me, this style always comes up lame. Although state-of-the-art at the time, 30 years certainly hasn't done the effects any favors. There isn't any tension or atmosphere to make the viewer uncomfortable, so once the special effects are rendered useless, all you're left with is annoying characters and poor acting. Speaking of the acting, it may unintentionally, be the most horrific part of the whole spectacle. What also makes "Poltergeist" suffer, is the fact that the film seems very impressed with itself. That's actually common in Spielberg movies, so it's not a surprise here. It also carries a constant hint of optimism, that ends up detracting from the horror. "Poltergeist" is corny nonsense. It might beat today's paranormal efforts, but that doesn't say much.

"The Tourist" is a very poor movie. Of course, it represents Hollywood at it's worst. The movie was never intended to have any value. It's sole purpose was to cash in on the star power of Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie. There is no way that this script would have been brought to life without those names attached. "The Tourist" is as lazy as film-making gets. It's slow, uninspired, predictable, and downright annoying. Speaking of the attached star power, this is just a phoned in performance by Depp and Jolie. They play the same roles that they always do. Brace yourself for this one, Angelina Jolie is engaging in espionage! But isn't Jolie a spy in every one of her movies? Strangely enough, with as much practice as she gets in these roles, she never turns in a believable performance. When Johnny Depp isn't trying, he normally portrays a quirky character that ends up in-over-his-head, and that's exactly what you get here. It's astonishing that nobody figured out that thrusting Depp and Jolie into their comfort zones would result in zero chemistry. Then again, you have to remind yourself that nobody making the movie cared if it was entertaining. Then it all makes sense. "The Tourist" is generic garbage, that I strongly urge you to avoid. If you're a die-hard fan of Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie, you have to start watching better movies.

You'd have to try pretty hard to find a movie more tedious than "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy". The film reeks of how intelligent the director thinks he is, or at least how smart he thinks the material is. Even if it is, nothing happens during the entire film that triggers any sort of stimulation. There's nearly no action. The majority of the movie is spent listening to pretentious figures have vague, humorless conversations. This movie was a chore to sit through, and the payoff is virtually non-existent. If you insist on viewing this film based on the undeserving critical acclaim showered upon it, avoid wasting the money at the theater. I'll trust that if you watch it on DVD, you can find a much more suitable place to take a nap, in the comfort of you own home.

Rob Zombie's horror movie debut was a complete disaster. It's obvious that Zombie was a big fan of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". I'm not sure if he was paying homage to it, or if "House of 1000 Corpses" was an amateur's attempt at ripping it off. It doesn't really matter, because it fails miserably either way. You'd think with as much gore and deviant behavior that's shoved down the viewer's throat, scenes would be occasionally, or at least accidentally disturbing. The film never accomplished anything that even made me mildly uncomfortable. The direction has no attention span, the movie just bounces around incoherently. People with taste in music should avoid Rob Zombie, and fans of horror should avoid "House of 1000 Corpses".

Hmm. Sometimes you know a movie is going to be bad before you even watch it. This is especially true in the Horror genre. Even though the movie is crap, sometimes a few brutal kills and some good laughs will at least, make things entertaining. Then there's dog shit like "Shark Night". There is no redeemable quality to "Shark Night" at all. While watching the atrocity, I was constantly reminded that I was wasting my time. The movie was castrated from the get go. The asinine PG-13 rating extracted all of the adult content necessary to make a movie like this successful. The story is, of course. ludicrous and the effects are embarrassing. 3-D movies from the 80's would point and laugh relentlessly at what is offered here. Which is really insulting, considering they smear '3D' in the title. You might want to avoid "Shark Night".

This movie has truly earned it's legendary status. It's far from my favorite movie, but you can't deny, the genius and execution involved. This might have been one of the most influential movies of all time. How many movies have imitated or been influenced, by this, the original zombie movie? It's been 40 years, so it does show drastic age at times. It also delivers a primitive, yet claustrophobic and horrific atmosphere. I have a great deal of respect for this film.

I always get a claustrophobic feeling watching this movie. It's brought on by Travis Bickel's alienation. Imagine having to coexist, every moment of everyday, in a world that you believe you no longer belong in. Robert De Niro's distant performance is legendary. You can always feel the bending, and when things snap, it produces one of the most intense moments on film. This is De Niro and Scorsese at their very best, which if you're familiar with their bodies of work, is a very high compliment. I do take issue with the ending, but that's a small complaint. This is a great movie.

This is a brilliant piece of work, and one of the greatest horror movies ever produced. Tobe Hooper created an assault on the senses, as filthy as it is intense. The scenery and characters practically tug at your nostrils with the stench of death. The psychological torture that becomes the dinner scene, sticks with me everytime I watch it. I can't promise you'll enjoy this. In modern horror movies, what you see is what you get. So hopefully, you're not desensitized to the film's greatness. I love it, probably always will. It's spot in history is secure.

This is the sequel to the original Tales from the Crypt movie. What was wrong with the people who made this? I'm guessing they only had one or two of the comics laying around. With such a wide selection of great stories, the selections here are pretty uninspired. Even the good ideas are often poorly executed, and it's lacking in good plot twists. The exception is "Drawn and Quartered". The final tale almost makes up for the rest of the movie.

This wasn't very good. Maybe I'd have been more entertained if I actually cared about the people portrayed in the movie. Then again, if I did, I'd be disappointed because this movie doesn't delve very deep into anything. It's just there. Weak effort. Unless you're a fan of the band, avoid. And if you are a fan of the band, reevaluate your taste in music.

I love the demented storytelling of Tales from the Crypt. I think it's great how they normally end with a character suffering for eternity as a result of their soulless behavior. This film includes 5 solid tales from the comics. Be warned, this movie is nearly 40 years old. Some of the scenes, especially the gore and makeup, suffer greatly due to age. If you can't suspend disbelief, you might be disappointed with this, but the storytelling is absolutely top notch.

Here's the moment all comic book fans have been waiting for, a Jonah Hex movie. Well, maybe not. I'm not familiar with the comics, and I'm sure those who are would say that the books are much better. Then again, what the could be worse? This movie was as unmemorable as it was a complete mess. You know the storytelling is complete garbage when characters portrayed by Josh Brolin and John Malkovich are boring. The best part of the movie was that it was only slightly over 70 minutes long. I guess that wouldn't be a bonus if you paid $13 to watch it in the theater though. Avoid this if you're not a fan of the comic. Avoid this if you are a fan of the comic.

This is a perfect movie. The suspense and the dialogue are priceless. Jodie Foster proved why she was one of the best actors in the world, but Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Dr. Hannibal Lecter stole the show. To this day whenever I see that guy, I think of him as Lecter. My favorite scene is when he escapes from prison wearing that guard's face. Great movie, if you haven't seen it, watch it.

What kind of miserable human would dislike a Toy Story movie? It's genius to me that these movies can transcend age and be enjoyable to everyone watching. It's excellent animation, great storytelling, and characters that you can relate to. What's even more fun about this chapter, is that it's essentially a jailbreak movie. Nice. If you think you're too cool for Toy Story, I'm here to remind you that you're not. Watch this.

This franchise has made over $3 Billion worldwide. Seriously? Note to self: It's always best to disregard the masses. There's nothing extremely offensive here, there's nothing really good either. That includes Johnny Depp, I find his character irritating and forced. The other thing, why the did this have to be so long? The storytelling is spread way too thin by the length. Well, whatever. This was mediocre at best, and like most mainstream series, I'm sure it's all downhill from here.

Given the source material, I'm always surprised when these movies don't turn out good. This rendition of Daredevil is worthless. It feels less like a superhero movie, and more like a backdrop for the intolerable Nu-metal that was wiping it's rectum all over the music industry at the time. This was poorly written, executed, and stands as an embarrassing example of the characters involved. Avoid this garbage at all costs.

It must be hard to make a really good Superman movie. Superman Returns is another installment that falls short of greatness. There are plenty of problems. First off, the whole movie plays out like a sequel to a movie that doesn't exist. Next, mild complaint, but something honestly has to be done to upgrade the secret identity situation. And the biggest complaint, if you're gonna make a movie about Superman come close to 3 hours, it will require a lot more action than what's provided here. It's not all bad though. It's based on one of the greatest characters ever, and Kevin Spacey owns the role of Lex Luthor. I was just kind of indifferent to this.

This was a fun movie, but it's far from the best Pixar has to offer. It is clever how a personality can be derived from so many different vehicles. I also liked the sub-plot dealing with poorly made, and far from desirable, models plotting to take over the world. The problems with the franchise are the main characters. Lightning McQueen is one-dimensional and boring. Mater is irritating and very overexposed in this chapter. The most accurate rating of one of these films is what the kids think. Our nieces and nephews seemed to enjoy it, but they seemed to get restless due to the length. "Cars 2" is quite average, to say the least.

It's hard to tell what this movie was trying to achieve, but it flushed a talented cast and a promising plot directly down the toilet. I expected a film that would have me laughing hysterically, and "Cedar Rapids" failed to make that happen. In fact, outside of John C. Reilly's foul mouthed performance, it was nearly void of humor altogether. It's boring. Avoid.

It's really not hard to make a Hulk movie good. Sure the Bruce Banner conflict is needed, and Edward Norton does a good enough job there. The real entertainment lies in the Hulk deranged temper tantrums, and he's on a rampage here. Throw in a fight with the Abomination, and this turns into a can't miss. As far as the Avengers go, it's not as good as Iron Man. As far as Hulk movies go, it's destroys anything that's come before it. Watch this, it's a lot of fun.

I'm not really sure what this movie was suppose to accomplish, and I don't think the writer did either. It's not entertaining horror, it's not interesting sci-fi, and the suspense is poorly executed. The only thing the film achieves is making a contrived mess. Things start off promising, but it's all downhill from there. Halfway through, the stupidity is just overwhelming. This film ends up lower than dog excrement. Avoid.

I remember shortly after "The Sixth Sense" and "Signs", M. Night Shyamamlan was being labeled the next Alfred Hitchcock. Whoever came up with that comparison should be shot in the face and then spit on. "The Happening" is humiliating garbage. Shyamamlan managed to make cardboard cutouts of every actor involved. Not that it matters, because the dialogue is as contrived as it is ridiculous. As far as horror goes, the scariest thing that happens in this movie is an occasional, and sudden gust of wind. Yeah. Avoid, "The Happening" at all costs. In fact, just avoid M. Night Shyamamlan altogether.

I don't know if I've ever seen a Robert Rodriguez movie that I haven't liked. I know that anytime his name is on the marque, I'll be consistently entertained. So I'm not the least bit surprised that I love, "Machete". It has all the demented humor, gratuitous violence, entertaining characters, and great dialogue that Rodriguez films are known for. This is an outstanding movie. Highest possible recommendation.

A house haunted by deranged tooth fairies? Really? I guess this is a remake. Yeah, there's apparently at least two imbeciles who thought this was a good idea. Nonsense like this might have passed as horror in the early 70's, but I don't find anything that can be tamed with a mouse trap and some RAID all that threatening. In case you haven't already figured it out, this movie was stupid. Avoid.

It's a testament to the original's greatness, that this pile of feces didn't stop the entire franchise dead in it's tracks. I've seen a lot of inept sequels to horror movies, but the second installment of "...Elm Street" might be the worst. The whole story is an idiotic departure from the original, made worse by the effeminate little wimp cast in the lead role. The movie accomplishes an unforgivably low body count while we watch "Jesse" scream like a girl as Freddy tries to take over his body. We also get to see "Jesse" tortured by a gay gym teacher and struggle desperately to avoid intercourse with his girlfriend. Hmm? Unfortunately, that sums the whole movie up. It's garbage. If you're ambitious enough to attempt watching all of the Freddy films, you can avoid this movie completely without sacrificing any continuity. You'll be glad you did.

This film is, by far, my favorite entry in the entire series. In the film Jason is resurrected. The result is the best version of Jason that was ever created. This is the introduction of the super-human, methodical zombie version of the character. It's a pleasure watching Jason slaughter a cast of watchable victims, with purpose. The other welcome addition, was the warped, and intended, sense of humor. The comedy worked here, because even without it, the series was already becoming a parody of itself. Normally, I dock these movies for the lack of continuity, but this one gains points for disregarding the wretched "A New Beginning". This is the most fun you'll have watching Friday the 13th.

This movie has annoyed me off since I was a kid. Followers of this series and viewers of the film were victimized by the old, bait-and-switch. Aspiring storytellers should be advised against the bait-and-switch, it will only alienates the audience. That, and they're never as clever as the writer thinks they are. Anyway, everyone thought that Tommy Jarvis would take over as the slasher after Jason's demise. Instead, the killer was Roy, the paramedic. Roy, the paramedic? Who? Exactly. Aside from this asinine swerve in the plot, this is about as uninspired and poorly constructed as the series gets. It feels like a generic rip off of a Friday the 13th. Then again, it's not a Jason movie, it's a Roy the Paramedic movie. Avoid.

No surprises here. This movie sucked. It's just the same old drivel. You get to watch people sleep or sit around doing nothing. Sooner or later a door will slam really loudly, then it'll wake me up for a few minutes before the next loud noise. I guess the director's plans to spice things up this time, was a "spine-tingling" game of "Bloody Mary". Which last I checked, was only mildly creepy back when I was six. This film is the epitome of a brain-dead garbage, that represents everything that I hate about horror movies. If you like the first two, you suck. If you didn't, avoid this excrement too.

It's amazing to me that filmmakers can't summon up competent remakes of old horror films. Given the source material, and the advancements in special effects, a remake of "A Nightmare On Elm Street", should have been a slam dunk. Instead, it was a miserable, and often boring, disaster. The writing is awful, the characters are lifeless, and the use of C.G.I. in the dream sequences is underwhelming. Jackie Earle Haley's interpretation of Freddy was passable, but there's no way it could overcome the mundane storytelling. This movie is garbage.

This film was forgettable. Literally. It seemed decent enough while we were watching it, but the next day I could hardly remember anything I viewed. I'm not sure that anything that has any value merits such a response. Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy have been past their primes for awhile, but I don't remember if that's true in this film. I most certainly can't say I recommend this movie, since I'm not even sure if I actually even watched it. Well, whatever.

This movie could be considered the female equivalent of "The Hangover". That might not be a fair comparison, since it isn't nearly as good. "Bridesmaids", is however, a very worthwhile comedy. There are some borderline "chick-flick" scenes that I can do without. That said, when the movie focuses on it's raunchy and inappropriate sense of humor, it more than succeeds. There are moments that had me laughing very hard, and that's all that you should ask for from one of these movies.

I really wanted to like this movie. I'm not sure why I thought I would, I really despised the first sequel. The third chapter isn't much of an improvement. These movies spend way too much time following the lives of a bunch of stupid, phony, and annoying simpletons. I hate every human character in the film, they should all have their brains bashed in. The movie should focus on the machines, but the writers obviously aren't competent enough to pull that off. Outside of Megatron, Sentinel, Optimus, and Bumblebee, the rest of the machines are basically interchangeable. It makes for a jumbled mess. There are some scenes that are cool because they're big and loud. But I've seen "big and loud" done better too. This is effort was asinine. Avoid.

This is exactly the kind of comedy that I enjoy. Let's just get one thing straight. You can stick Danny McBride in any movie, have him act like an arrogant jerk, and immediately create entertainment value. McBride is a genius, and really, there wasn't a character in the entire film that wasn't enjoyable. 30 Minutes or Less is crude, politically incorrect, creative, and I laughed througout the whole movie. What else do you need?

Let me start off by saying, "Journey 2" is not something I would normally subject myself to. It is difficult to find a movie appropriate for little kids, in a town that is only showing 3 movies. If it had been a week later, we could have seen "The Lorax", instead we were forced to endure the brutally uninspired, "Journey 2". I went into the film with very low expectations, and I still left the theater offended. That's saying something. The story is entirely forgettable and the action sequences are so lame, that they could be compared to poor movies from 20 years ago like, "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids". The dialogue is ridiculously contrived and might as well been delivered by cardboard cutouts, since there wasn't any acting going on. This was me trying something different, and inevitably hating it. The most memorable thing I'll take from this movie, is that apparently, it is acceptable to bring your pets to movie theaters in North Dakota. Hmm. What the was Journey 1? Oh, who cares?

"Project X" was a fun movie. Of course, this isn't for everybody. It features the raunchy, inappropriate, mean-spirited, and sarcastic humor that normally has me laughing. The majority of the humor is derived from the dialogue, but the film does escalate the unoriginal teen party theme. "Project X" isn't without it's flaws. There is far too much filler. Too much time is spent watching people have a good time, while subjecting the viewer to irritating modern music. I guess it's like having annoying music videos constantly interrupting the movie. "Project X" is also another "found-footage" movie. The style of direction was unnecessary, and as usual, does nothing for me. In the end, "Project X" was good for some laughs. Nothing more, nothing less.

"The Rum Diary" marks the second time that Johnny Depp has starred in a movie that was derived from the writing of Hunter S. Thompson. The first go around was the drug-induced adventure, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". Viewers tuning into "The Rum Diary" to relive the bizarre entertainment of the first black comedy, are going to be very disappointed. In fact, people who are sitting down to watch a movie that has any entertainment value, are going to regret watching "The Rum Diary". I haven't read the original work by Thompson, but if this script holds true to the source material, it's possible the writing wasn't meant to be put on film. The story is severely disjointed and rambles on endlessly without any reasonable conclusion. There are a few uninspired attempts to relive the hysteria of "Fear & Loathing", but just like everything else presented, they're as flawed as they are bland. "The Rum Diary" was lame. Avoid this one.

"Chronicle" was a pleasant surprise. What I liked most about the movie, is it basically creates the origin of a super villain. The inevitable, and unforgiving outcome of the main character was pulled off very nicely. Since the film wasn't based on already established characters from a comic book, the story was fresh and unpredictable, while not having to follow Hollywood's diluted superhero formula. The movie's main flaw, is of course, the found-footage direction. I'm not a fan of this style, and like usual, it didn't enhance anything in "Chronicle". All in all, this is a movie worth seeing.

"Safe House" is the new action movie starring Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Safe, is actually an appropriate word to put in the title. This movie was about as paint-by-numbers as you get. Action movies are often predictable, but I consider it a step backwards, when I have the entire story solved within the first half hour. "Safe House" also lacked the balls to make up for the storytelling's short comings, with any compelling action whatsoever. Speaking of predictable, is it just me, or does Denzel Washington play the same character in every movie? To me, his performances are interchangeable. Maybe that's part of his appeal to the masses. It's probably why the makers of this film marketed his character as a "bad guy", hoping to ride the coattails of the superior, "Training Day" or "American Gangster". In the end, there's nothing offensive about "Safe House", but there's nothing worth throwing money at either. Wait for it to show up
on cable.

Recently, Liam Neeson has carved out quite the niche for himself as a reliable leading man in action movies. Granted, "Taken", "The A-Team", and "Unknown" are far from classics, each of the films have more than enough entertainment value. The best of Neeson's action movies, to this point, is "The Grey". "The Grey" is a tale of survival. There are no "bad guys", the antagonists are poor luck, cruel Alaskan elements, and of course, a menacing pack of wolves. There's a reason to care about each of the character's survival, even if it's the result of overly sentimental bonding. The main complaint I've come across about the film is the ending. Those who criticize the finale are wrong, it's perfect. Ultimately, "The Grey", is unconventional and a worthwhile experience.

This is Daniel Radcliffe's attempt to transition himself from the obnoxiously popular Harry Potter franchise. That's all that it will ultimately be remembered for, and Radcliffe will always be known as that Harry Potter kid. Anyway, "The Woman in Black" is a traditional ghost story, that tries very hard to be scary. Too bad, it never achieves anything that transcends the mundane. Critics will forgive this film because everyone speaks in an English accent, but if you don't find that charming, you're going to be really bored. I will rate this higher than the paranormal "found footage" tripe that's polluting the Horror genre, but that's not saying much. There's really no need to waste your time on this movie.

It's hard to believe that this tale of Mariel Boatlift refugee, Tony Montana, is nearly 30 years old. Aside from some very aged wardrobe and scenery, this movie is still very hip. Speaking of age, the violence Scarface introduced into the crime drama pushed the envelope 30 years ago, and would still hold it's own in this day and age. That may never change, since Brain DePalma decorated the screen with criminals being hung from helicopters and dismembered by chainsaws, among other things. The real value of this film is Al Pacino's portrayal of Tony Montana. Pacino's quotable performance of the Cuban sociopath, is what truly elevates this film above average. Ultimately I feel that the film is slightly overrated, nevertheless, it deserves it's iconic status. Really, a must see.

I'm unfamiliar with the source material that spawned "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". I'm glad that this was my introduction to the story. Since I didn't know what to expect what unfolds ,is at times, startling. That's rare, making this film quite unforgettable. The whole movie is highly stylized, but the bizarre performance of Rooney Mara, playing the role of Lisbeth, constantly steals the show from a very talented cast. This is by far, one of the 2011's best, and has left me highly anticipating the remainder of the trilogy.

It's nice that "Warrior" wasn't made solely to cash in on the current popularity of mixed martial arts. The movie actually delivers a solid story. The film achieves the jump-off-the-couch sports drama and heart of the Rocky series. However, it succeeds with a cold and brutal honesty, that's normally not offered from this style of storytelling. The acting and the fight scenes are great, the characters have depth, and that is enough to declare "Warrior" a winner.

I guess for the most part I've turned a blind eye to the Mission Impossible series. I'm not sure why I wanted to see "Ghost Protocol", but I'm glad I did. The fourth installment of the franchise is a slick presentation, that does "big and loud" very well. There are plenty of innovative action scenes, the movie never gets weighed down, and Tom Cruise doesn't even get annoying. I'll have to check out the rest of the franchise at some point. In the meantime, I'd recommend this film.

"The Sitter" just kind of exists. The premise of the movie has been done to death, so it ends up being fairly predictable. The writing does play up to Jonah Hill's strengths as a comedian, so it's not a total wash. I guess it fits the old version of Jonah Hill. The jury's still out on whether or not the new, creepy, slimmed, down version of Hill will still be funny. Ultimately, this movie is good for a few laughs. You could do a whole lot worse, but you could do a whole lot better too.

"The Town" is outstanding. In fact, I think that I enjoyed it more the second time that I watched it. It has everything that you could possibly ask for in an action movie. It offers suspense, good writing, unforgiving characters, and a healthy dose of violence. If this film is a glimpse into the future, and If he dedicated himself to the position, Ben Affleck might develop into one of the world's best directors. The fact that this didn't merit Oscar consideration is, well, a robbery. I guess you have to have someone in the film with an English accent to qualify for Best Picture. In any event, this deserves the highest possible recommendation.

As far as I'm concerned, this was not only the original "slasher" film, but it is, and always will be, the greatest. John Carpenter can never receive enough praise for bringing the "boogie-man" to life, in the form of Michael Myers. Halloween was also my introduction to horror movies. A testament to the film's greatness, is that after hundreds of viewings, and countless imitations, the film can still haunt me with the same creepy feeling that it did when I was 7. There is very little gore, the film relies on suspense. Jamie Lee-Curtis is the perfect damsel-in-distress, and her contribution to the film is priceless. Everything presented is iconic. I think the world of this movie. It will always be one of my favorites.

Darren Aronofsky has released another masterpiece. Like "The Wrestler", "Black Swan" chronicles another character destroying their being, both mentally and physically, to fulfill demanding passions. I'm convinced that no one is better suited to capture a character's collapse, than Aronofsky. Natalie Portman is more than deserving of all the praise she received in this role, balancing fragile innocence with mad intensity. This film is quite the experience, I was entirely impressed. Highest possible recommendation.

Contrary to the eventual saturation of the series, Saw's early chapters are quite entertaining. Saw came out of the gate swinging. The introduction to the series is a sadistic and vile innovation to the horror genre. The film is contrived at times with occasionally awkward dialogue. That said, the traps, gore, and ending make up for the weaknesses. If you can block out the most recent sequels, this movie is good enough to recommend.

Now this is a horror movie that you can sink your teeth into. Assuming of course you have an appetite for this level of depravity. "Hostel" has a perfectly acceptable build and a very original plot for a horror movie. When it hits it's stride, it goes straight for the jugular with relentless brutality. We're not talking about hokey little gore scenes either, this is filled with believable torture and violence. It is not for the weak of heart. Along with "Cabin Fever", which I also enjoy, Eli Roth has proven he can more than hold his own in the horror genre. Watch this, it's cool.

Here's a gigantic mess. This movie actually starts out promising. Then the storytelling shows it's hand too quickly. After the writers paint themselves into a corner, the remainder of the film unravels into a desperate, convoluted disaster. Despite the film's best efforts, it's far too predictable to create any suspense. When this is released on DVD, don't be fooled by entertaining trailers and a solid cast, this movie is garbage. Avoid.

This was a surprisingly competent throwback to the old slasher films. As far as entertainment value, it could more than hold it's own with any of the recent remakes. The film succeeds with a series of graphic and violent murders, that are actually quite comical. There are plenty of flaws including an all out lack of suspense. I'd actually like to see horror movies attempt to be scary, instead of humorous. I was also kind of put off by the physical appearance of Victor Crowley. In the end, I'd certainly recommend this to fans of the slasher genre. If you don't like that style of movie, you'll hate this too.

This is probably my favorite entry in the series. "Dream Warriors" thankfully rebounds from the ridiculous "Freddy's Revenge", and actually advances the concepts presented in the original. The most notable creative progressions are the dream sequences. The imagery involved is disturbing, and instead of just random slashing, Freddy tortures the innocent using the victim's hopes and fears. Freddy was still meant to be scary in this movie, so his warped sense of humor works nicely. This is the sequel that was most imitated in the watered down movies to follow. It's a movie from the 80's so it is corny in parts, but it is a very good horror movie. Highest possible recommendation.

This movie was made to cash in on the popularity of the franchise and the 3-D market. Needless to say, with those lofty aspirations, this film accomplishes very little creatively. Continuity is a massive flaw in this series, but it's absence is most insulting in this volume. The back story the writers attempt to interject for Jason, is as unnecessary as it is ridiculous. The most notable example is his implied moonlighting as a rapist. Really? Speaking of Jason, the model of an unstoppable, zombie, killing-machine was far from perfected at this point. His stalking is more comparable to the lumbering of a drunk, retarded hillbilly in "Part-3". The real reason to watch "Friday the 13th" is for the murders, but the makers of this film were too busy attempting to cram crude 3-D effects down the viewer's throat to worry about quality. You might want to avoid this one.

This was a very good movie. It managed to get some pretty good laughs out of a grim subject matter. Remember though it is a movie about cancer, and the characters are very likable, so it's not without some depressing moments. The comedic and dramatic parts of the movie are equally enjoyable. That's one of the benefits of being genuine, which this film is. Highly recommended.

This movie is a true classic. The concept is pure genius and ended up advancing the entire slasher genre. Even after nearly 30 years and countless sequels, the idea of a murderer hunting his victims through their dreams remains disturbing. As for Freddy, this is the character at his filthy, sadistic best. There are moments in the film that haven't aged well, and they really dropped the ball with the ending, but this will always be one of the greatest horror movies ever made.

Not only did "Moneyball" turn out to be a great sports film, it ended up being an excellent movie altogether. It provides a good underdog tale, genuine sports drama, both on and off the field, and some good laughs. Throw in potential award winning performances by Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill, and this was a worthwhile way to spend a few hours. I recommend this if you're a baseball fan, or even if you're not.

This movie was great. It wasn't like any other action movie that I've seen, at least that I can think of. It's unpredictable. The movie starts off so calmly that it's hard to imagine the crescendo of violence that's eventually released. The slow build enhances the brutality that's about to unfold, and when things get ugly, "Drive" pulls no punches. The story is great, and it's well acted. This was by far one of the year's best. I give Drive the highest possible recommendation.

Along with "Stand By Me", this was my favorite movie when I was a kid. In fact, if I remember correctly, it might have been the first movie my family owned on VHS. All sentimentality aside, this movie is still as charming today as it was in the 80's. The characters are great and the storytelling is very cohesive considering it's ambitious scope. I don't think I really have to recommend this movie, you've already seen it, and I'm sure you enjoyed it. If there's one flaw to point out, it would be the overexposure of Huey Lewis music. Of course, any Huey Lewis is too much Huey Lewis. Just saying.

Having never been the biggest fan of the original, I didn't go into this movie expecting much. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how entertaining this version turned out. The modern setting does the story huge favors, there's some good humor thrown in, and there are some slick special effects involved. I recommend this movie, but you'll be fine if you miss the 3-D version. Which is true for a lot of movies nowadays.

This is surprisingly tame for a Farrelly Brothers movie. If you're expecting something in the vein of "Dumb and Dumber" or "Kingpin", you'll probably find this underwhelming. That's true for me, but I was also distracted by the similarities the plot shares with season 4 of "Curb Your Enthusiasm". That said, there are some genuine laughs involved, Jason Sudeikis's performance steals the show, and it's a pretty fun movie. You could do a lot worse with recent comedies, that's for sure.

This was a surprisingly competent movie. At least based on some of the sequels introduced in both franchises, not to mention the failed opportunities the remakes represent. The movie features both Freddy and Jason at their sadistic best, and it feels more like "A Nightmare on Elm Street" movie, which is good due to the superior atmosphere. As usual I despise the human characters, at least they become a fairly impressive body count. It's probably enough just two see the two icons go toe-to-toe. I recommend watching it.

This is garbage. There's no reason to follow the lives of a single character involved, they're all one-dimensional losers. The writer doesn't convey anything more than an outsider's glimpse into the subject matter. This movie relies on nothing more than shock value, and it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer. All that's on display is a bunch of idiots abusing themselves, children, women, and the elderly. This is void of any artistic value, avoid.

There's really nothing that happens in this movie that you haven't seen before. Jeff Bridges rescues the entire film. Had anybody else played the lead role, this film wouldn't have amounted to much. Bridges turns in a performance that's as charming as it is genuine. I recommend that you see this movie at least once. You won't be disappointed.

I've always been intrigued with the concept of this movie, the dehumanizing of a sociopath. Through it all, I never felt Alex got all that he deserved. This movie was directed perfectly by Stanley Kubrick, and Malcolm McDowell's performance is top notch. That said, as classic as this movie is, it's never been one of my favorites. I've always found the dialogue and scenery to be too over-the-top, and at times, just irritating. Still, the positives outweigh the bad.

Here's an exercise in futility. This was a shot-by-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's classic film from the 60's. There were absolutely no chances taken here, and the film falls flat on it's face. Even though it traces Hitchcock's version, the talent is inferior, and the story feels out of place in a modern setting. I would have respected Van Sant a lot more if he would have at least attempted to make the material his own. If you want to see Psycho, watch Hitchcock's.

This movie wasn't very good. The story was just ridiculous, and in the end, it's completely pointless as well. The movie almost manages to become salvageable thanks to Matt Damon and Emily Blunt's performances. Damon's really on top of his game, and a case could be made for mentioning his name amongst the elite. Still, there are far better Matt Damon movies like "True Grit", and this movie was kind of stupid. So, avoid.

I've always liked this movie. It's actually a pretty effective horror movie. It interjects a very disturbing use of gore into very tense situation. I always liked that the there was no supernatural antagonist hunting the victims, but an unlikely source of terror. Sometimes the inappropriate sense of humor works for me, and sometimes it doesn't. I wonder how intense the film would have been without any humor? In any event, this is a demented and enjoyable way to spend an hour-and-a half.

As far as creating gore, this is a pretty slick movie. Overall, it's a pretty mediocre horror flick. The zombies are way faster and stronger than most you'll see, but they come across far less creepy than their meandering predecessors. The real flaw in this movie is it's ability to create suspense. The real charm of a zombie story is the tension amongst the living, a poor job was done establishing anything here. Of course, the characters were all pretty weak anyway. This was all style, and no substance. Still, you could do worse.

I was actually looking forward to this movie. I liked the idea. I figured at the very least I'd be treated with some ambitious and innovative action sequences. Unfortunately, this movie didn't deliver anything. The storytelling, the confrontations, and the special effects are uneven, cheap, and uninspired. The movie is big, bright, and loud. If that's all you're looking for in a movie, you probably won't mind this. I can find all the same things, executed much better, elsewhere.

This was probably my least favorite movie in The Avengers series, but it was still a very entertaining movie. They did right thing by placing things in the 1940's. If it had been in the present day it would have been hokey, but it ended up working out nicely. The action is good, and all the characters are likable. They really capture the essence of Captain America. It's impossible to not root for the guy. This was fun stuff.

This wasn't very good. In fact, it was a mess. There was no attention span at work. The storytelling is incoherent, the action sequences are slopped together, and the characters are uninspired. The only time Ryan Reynolds seems comfortable is when the movie goes out of it's way to resemble a chick flick. There was really no entertainment value at all. Unless you have some nostalgic commitment to the comics, avoid this crap.

This could be considered a disappointment, but it's probably not as bad as you may have heard it is. It's very uneven, and the number of mutants tossed in the mix makes it feel bloated. That said, the conflict between Wolverine and Sabretooth is very well done, with top notch performances turned in by both actors. Add Deadpool/Weapon XI, and you have a pretty decent movie.

Although not the funniest or most visually spectacular animated film I've seen, this movie has more than enough charm to make up for it's downfalls. It offers a clever twist to superheroes and their antagonists. I could probably make an argument for enjoying everything Will Ferrel has been involved with. This was a fun movie.

What a waste. I really enjoyed the first movie. In fact, I thought it was perfect. The makers of this movie didn't take any chances. Everything that happened in the original, happens in this movie too. The scenery and some of the names have changed, that's it. When they attempt to interject something new, it's short lived and forced. This was made to cash in on the brilliance of the first movie, nothing more. Avoid.

I can't blame anybody for enjoying this movie. There are some things that are very good. It's slick. It's not just stylish in a 90's way either. A decade later, you can argue that it's as cool today as it was back then. I always thought that another plus was that it was almost a new movie the second time around. There are some problems too. I always thought that the ending fell flat. I have a hard time suspending my disbelief once the secrets are revealed. My biggest problem with the movie, has always been, that it's overrated. It's a good movie, it's probably not as good as you heard it was though.

Johnny Depp's portrayal of Mort Rainey and his descent into madness is outstanding. It's almost enough to climb out of the plot holes. In fact, he so good in his role, you could almost get confused and think this was a good movie. It isn't. The story is paper thin and despite it's best efforts, it's actually quite predictable. Worth checking out for Depp's performance, otherwise avoid.

This film experienced a massive drop off in quality compared to it's predecessor, "The Silence of the Lambs". I'm not even sure why a sequel was necessary, especially one as poorly conceived as this. This films blows the subtleties that made the first film brilliant way out of proportion. In fact, most of this film was just far fetched. Despite all the gore, it still manages to be boring. Do yourself a favor, like Jodie Foster did, avoid this crap.

This wasn't very good at all. Maybe I'm just not a very big Angelina Jolie fan, but does anybody take her seriously in roles like this. In the end, it doesn't matter who played the role of Salt. This movie is as boring as it is stupid. If you don't mind flushing an hour and a half of your life down the toilet, watch this garbage, Otherwise, avoid.

This movie has a pretty talented cast so it's not completely void of laughs, but it's pretty bad. The writing is horrible, and there just isn't enough depth to the characters to squeeze a third movie out of the series. It's pointless and stupid. If you want to have a good taste in your mouth when you look back on this series, avoid this movie at all costs.

It's surprising that this movie hasn't got a bigger push. A testament to the movie's storytelling is that it takes complex writing and doesn't make it convoluted and impressed with itself. It remains enjoyable. Jake Gyllenhaal's performance is also top notch. I actually found myself rooting for him throughout. This actually kind of reminded me of a modern day "Quantum Leap", much better though. A third of the way through the year, this is the best movie I've seen in 2011. Good stuff.

This is Stephen King and George Romero's homage to 1950's EC comics. With the exception of "Father's Day", which is embarrassing, there's nothing really bad here. There's nothing exceptionally good either. The more of these horror anthologies I watch, the more I appreciate the brilliance of the HBO "Tales from the Crypt" series. It's all in the execution. Avoid this, go straight for the series.

I enjoyed this documentary a lot more the second time around. I still recognize what I didn't like the first time, the pace is very s-l-o-w. This chronicles my absolute favorite type of music. So I'll always mark out to first hand testimony from originators such as Varg Vikernes and Fenriz. If you're not a fan of the music, I don't know how entertaining you'd find this. I guess if you're a fan of true crime, the murder and church burning might be captivating. I wish it hadn't cast such a large shadow over the music myself.

I'd say that this didn't age well, but I can't imagine it was ever any good in the first place. I usually like stuff like this, this one is just painfully stupid. The few good ideas are poorly executed, there are no twists, and what's suppose to be scary is unintentionally funny. Embarrassing. Avoid this garbage.

This movie made me very uncomfortable. That alone has to be a positive review. Nothing I see normally gets to me. I'm a little disturbed by the whole buried alive thing, always have been. Ryan Reynolds puts in a great performace. Especially considering it's only him, a zippo, and a cell phone for the majority of the movie. The ending is crushing brutality, just cruel. Well done.

M. Night Shyamalan's career is in a severe state of atrophy. I guess that's what resting on past laurels does. This time around, an intriguing concept in a cool setting was made entirely too predictable. Poor casting, in particular the characters of Sarah and Vince, coupled with a limp ending sealed this movie's fate. This is weak. Avoid.

This movie is so slow and boring. Half way through, I didn't even try to stay awake anymore. Unless you're suffering from extreme insomnia, if you insist on seeing this in the theater, go to a matinee. You'll have to flush less money down the toilet that way. Just a pathetic offering.

This is an excellent movie. It's a crushing story, that's even sadder considering this is what happened to several of our favorite wrestlers from the 80's. Perfectly directed, as always, by Aronofsky. Rourke's performance is fantastic.

Some movies truly earn there legendary status. This is one of them. To this day, I can't find anything wrong with this movie. Great characters and excellent storytelling.