Freddy's Dead (and don't bother attending the funeral)
355454
Like most "Nightmare" fans out there, I grew up watching the original series. I knew this movie wouldn't be much like the originals, but I wasn't expecting to be quite this disappointed. I've always liked Jackie Haley's other movies, and I can see why they cast him as Freddy (he's played a nut case, he's played an alleged child molester...seems like a reasonable choice). His performance was okay, but the plot's focus on Krueger's human life (as a disturbed gardener working at the local preschool) made this movie feel a little more like a drama about childhood sexual abuse than a fun slasher film for a Friday night. To be honest, the horror elements that were included weren't even all that scary.

There's very little here for old-school fans to enjoy. The opening scene has a little of the classic cheesy green and red lighting, the "Freddy" keyboard riff is in there once or twice, and those pale 6 year-olds still skip rope from time to time, but that's about it. Haley's performance simply lacks the humor, personality, and overall presence of Englund's. There are none of the funny puns, and the writer's didn't bother to come up with any of the inventive methods for off-ing the poor children of Elm Street that the old Freddy was so known for.

The new Freddy speaks in moody monotone, makes a few uncomfortable references to acts of child molestation, and cuts people up. The end.
3128093
SPOILERS. I suppose this is based on a true story. The text at the end seems to indicate that. The filmmakers apparently do not understand that you can't wait until just a few minutes before the end to show what the "big bad" is if you want to keep your viewers' attention. Yes, they showed feet in sneakers, and at one point a person in a hoodie. That did not explain how these children - and according to the info at the end, they were children between the ages of 10 and 15 - managed to move so fast and and apparently disappear. I wasn't scared watching this movie, I was bored and constantly checking to see how much time was left before it was over. Don't waste your time.
2697706
This was a horrible sequel and didn't need to be made I only bought so I could have all the Halloweens. I thought Zombie did something really cool.with his remake by spending more time with Myers as a child. In this sequel however it makes no sense and seems to drag on. Micheal spends at least the first part of the movie no mask and just wandering around and seeing visions of his mother with a white horse. That was just so he could get his wife in the film again. Loomis is a total ass in this which sucks because Zombie just trashed his character. Id skip this not worth the time to watch it big disappointment.
4008047
This movie is not a George A. Romero project and is not officially a sequel to Romero's...Living Dead film series.
Made in the comedy vein, includes male nudity, female nudity, foul language, bloody violent effects.
  The main menu might remind you of the Haunted Mansion at Disenyland, hoever this is not a Diseny film and is not authorized by George A. Romero.  MGM released this film with Dan O' Bannon as director and writer of screenplay.
  Freddy (Thom Matthews) just started his first day at the UNEEDA Medical Supply warehouse. He is learning how to ship skeletons with perfect teeth from India. In the freezer are fresh cadavers. His boss, Frank (James Karen) is very serious about his job and he proceeds to tell Freddy the true storyt behind the movie, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968).  Frank shows freddy a zombie in a pressurized tank. When Frank bangs on the old tank to prove how sturdy it is, it suddenly releases pressurized gas all over the warehouse.  When they come to, they discover all carcasses and cadavers are alive.  It is the return of the living dead!
  Meanwhile, freddy's friends are waiting for him in resurrection cemetary.
  Cast also includes: Clu Gulager, Don Calfa, John Philbin, Miguel A. Nunez Jr, Linnea Quigley, Jonathan Terry, Drew Deighan, James Dalesandro, Terrance Houlihan,Allan Trautman, Rick Askew.  Brian Peck is "Scuz" and the "Ant farm" zombie.
  James Karen (Poltergeist [1982]) plays totally scared in this one.

  The film's story is set in Louisville, Kentucky, but was not filmed there. it was filmed in California in Burbank, Palos Verde Peninsula and Sylmar.
  DVD disc is fullscreen on one side, Wide-screen on the other side.
  Special Features: 13-minute documentary with Dan O'Bannon, Artwork featurette, tv spots, theatrical trailer (G-rated version, R-rated version).
  Followed by:
 Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988).
 Return of the Living Dead 3 (1993)
 Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis (2005)
 Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave (2005).
4385950
I personally don't like this movie as much as the original. They could of made this remake way better than they did. Even with better actors than they chose. They should have brought back Robert Englund from the original series, because I think no one can take his place as Freddy Kruger, no one can slay like he does, he's the best. This movie didn't scare me at all, but the original did. It would have been better if they didn't make a remake at all, because nothing will ever top the original A Nightmare on Elm St. I don't even see the point in making some remakes of movies. All I can hope for is that they don't remake the whole series, because it would be a shame. Overall I thought this movie was alright, but the remake is not my cup of tea, and not scary at all.
1840055
The fans asked for him, and now he's back. But is he back as he was all those years ago, still menacing and dark, still intent on his own evil designs? Read further to find out...

 Four begins well enough. At a pretty depressing institution, Michael learns of the existence of his niece in the ambulance. If those two hadn't spoken, imagine what trouble could have been saved! At any rate, he quickly dispenses of his escorts and ventures on to his hometown.

 Wrapped in bandages (creepy as hell), the scene between him and Loomis, and the gas station sequence rocked. I was all ready for another thrilling adventure with Myers as the guide.

 The acting from newbies Ellie Cornell and Danielle Lewis aren't poor but not superb either. Danielle as little Jamie Lloyd was well cast but movies centering too much on screaming children grate on my nerves. Loomis is the same, dramatic but very watchable. The rest are there as easy kills.

 By now the Halloween franchise has unfortunitely turned more mainstream in a way that slices to the bone. Plenty of teens running around but at least it's not as damp as the next addition. At least Myers stays somewhat on track by going after Jamie and simply slaying those that get in his way.

 One dislike I had about the film was Jamie seeing Myers when she really wasn't through hallucinations. First of all, we have seen the villain so many times before any real action begins that it's nearly tiresome when the real thing DOES show. For Jamie to have such a clear image in her head of Myers, she must have seen some sort of pictures of the man -- which doesn't make too much sense either. Her psychological status brushed aside, too much Mikey upfront makes me yawn.

 Another catch in the movie was the melodrama. I hate that! Namely when the new guardians run out of their room when little Jamie is experiencing a rather violent nightmare. Do we really need slow-motion for all of this??

 For Myers himself, he's just not as scary looking as the first two. They chose a shorter and stalkier actor to play the masked fiend, and this abrupt change wasn't welcomed by me. His face is rounder and is it just me, or are his nostrils HUGE??

 The kills were more modernized. A neck ripped open to the point of near decapitation was certainly violent, and the effects were well done. At least some gore decorated the halls this sequel.

 Carpenter's score is there at times but some of the music has been altered, and I'm not sure yet what to think on that. The movie was dark and mainly set at night but nothing too artsy.

 Overall, a movie for hardcore Halloween fans or those who don't mind a stalker movie that doesn't offers much more than some semi-creative killings.
825143
At this point in the Friday the 13th series we really have some bad movies, but Jason Goes to Hell manages to be the worst on in my eyes.  It was released four years after part 8 and was not distributed by Paramount Pictures.  The title is of course as dishonest as the third sequel, The Final Chapter.  Jason Goes to Hell was marketed as the final film and it wasn't.

Jason is back inexplicably and completely ignorant to his trials in that New York sewer, when he was evidently transformed back into a young boy.  He apparently decided instead to stick with the decayed zombie look indefinitely.  Jason chases a girl through the woods but he has been lured into a trap and is blown to smithereens by some FBI guys.  All of his parts are brought to a morgue.  The guy at the morgue decides it might be a good idea to begin eating Jason's heart.  This of course means he is possessed by Jason.  Jason's demon form is a fake looking snake with fangs and so forth and he goes from one host to the other, all the while killing folks.  Then we find out through some fancy pretentious poetry by this really cheesy bounty hunter guy that Jason can be killed by a fellow Voorhees.  Through this fortunate coincidence and for the benefit of a heavy handed death for Jason, our completely forgettable heroes managed to stumble upon a Voorhees.  Meanwhile, we don't care.  Jason dies and goes to hell, or just into the ground.  His hockey mask remains but Freddy Kreuger's clawed hand takes it into the dirt with them both.

For horror fans there are two references to other classics besides the obvious Nightmare on Elm Street tie-in.  One being "the Myers place" mentioned in some dialogue and the other being the unlikely appearance of the Necronomicon from the Evil Dead movies.  If you're a hardcore fan of these movies and need to see or even own part 9, then I wouldn't recommend anything other than the unedited version.  It includes a great murder scene that could not have been shown with an R-rating.  Other than that this movie is awful.
4444090
I am not quite sure what the point of this movie was.  I did not mind Halloween 4 at all but what is this?  You will rarely ever hear me say something negative about Halloween, but Halloween 5 was not a good movie.  First of all, they kill one of the main characters from Halloween 4 right  off the bat.  They continue by trying to add comedy into the movie by  having two very retarded cops on the scene.  The acting does not get any  better when we have to put up with young Danielle Harris trying to act like  she cannot even talk due to the trauma she has suffered from her Uncle  Michael.  Just wait for Halloween 6 Jamie Lloyd.  Donald Pleasence, once  again, seems to be the only one who truly knows what he is doing.  Thank  god Dr. Loomis can't die.  By the way, why do they feel that they have to  change Michael Myers' mask each time a new Halloween movie is released?
3295505
My wife and I are fans of all the previous Resident Evil films, even though they are admittedly bad. This maybe is part of the charm. They are just fun and silly and laughable. Nothing to be taken too seriously. This last installment wasn't even fun. It was pretty much just the bad, with none of the silly charm that the others manage to harness. I recommend saving your money, and more importantly your time.
4103743
Really, I'm kinda mad that they got back together and slapped Paul Rodgers in Freddy's place. I mean, it was a good, solid preformance, but overall, nothing special, and none of the magic of the shows they did when Freddy was still alive.
4814664
In "Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood," we get to hear a narrator tell us the backstory. I don't know who the narrator is; the credits don't mention him. It sounds like Donald Sutherland, but I bet it's not.

Mr. Narrator reminds us of what has happened to this point in the saga, ending with the fact that at the end of Part 6, Jason was weighted down and drowned in Crystal Lake. Mr. Narrator informs us that "people forget he's down there."

This is just stupid. A man responsible for nearly 100 murders in the space of 10 years does not just disappear from public memory. Furthermore, when Tommy Jarvis drowned the bastard in Part 6, surely the cops and scientists would have then retrieved him, picked him apart, and studied him. His hockey mask would be on eBay. There would be an A&E "Biography" episode about him. People don't just "forget he's down there."

But the forgetting is necessary for the story to move forward. It will be helpful if you, the viewer, have forgotten a few things, too. For example, remember how in Part 6, Crystal Lake changed its name to Forest Green in order to escape its bloody past? Yeah, go ahead and forget that, because it's Crystal Lake again now.

After Mr. Narrator spins his yarn, there's a prologue (which takes place on Friday the 13th -- CREEEE-PY!) in which a little girl who looks like the "Poltergeist" little girl accidentally uses her psychic powers to kill her dad. Surely we all have made errors like this at some point in our lives. It occurs outside the family's house on Crystal Lake, mere feet from where Jason is chained to the lake bottom, "forgotten" by the locals.

Next thing you know, it's several years later. The little girl is grown up and named Tina, and she and her Markie Post lookalike mother have returned to the cabin after apparently having been gone awhile. They've returned because Tina's weird psychic/telekinetic abilities have made her a bit freakish, and a psychiatrist named Dr. Crews wants to "help" her, which really means he wants to use her power for his own gain. (Dr. Crews, by the way, is played by Terry Kiser, who also played the corpse in "Weekend at Bernie's." This is an actor whose career consists only of

low points.)

So while he's trying to get Tina to harness her powers, Tina goes out on the dock and tries to use them to summon back her dead father. Instead, she accidentally summons Jason; whoops! He gets right to work and starts killing teen-agers, who are conveniently located in an adjacent cabin, having a surprise party for someone who doesn't show up because Jason has killed him. It makes you wonder what Jason would do if he were revived on a weekend when no one was anywhere near Crystal Lake. Would he bother hiking into town to kill some folks in a diner? Catch a Greyhound to the next major city? Or just hang out in the woods, waiting for someone to show up?

The interesting thing about this movie is that it was directed by John Carl Buechler, whose credits also include "Ghoulies 3: Ghoulies Go to College."

The second interesting thing about this movie is that it features the return of the unsettling Daisy Duke shorts that men in the 1980s apparently wore ALL THE TIME, if the "Friday the 13th" movies are to be believed.

The third interesting thing about this movie is that at last, there is something different to do about Jason. In the past, victims have battled him by running, stumbling, and screaming a lot. Usually they give up pretty easily and just let themselves be killed, often because they want out of the movie. But now we have Tina, whose telekinetic powers are far more effective than mere knives or screaming. Good to see someone putting a little effort into things.

Goodness knows the writer, director and actors didn't expend much effort. We won't bother mentioning that the acting and dialogue are atrocious, like they always are. If we don't mention it, maybe you'll forget.
4539563
Jerry - I'm not sure what your smoking but you really need to cut back.

I won't reveal too much of the story because I recognize that one man's garbage may be another's treasure.

Since CREEPERS won The Stoker Award from the HWA and the Love is Murder Award and the Shocklines Shocker of the Year award I can't see how you would call the book "garbage"

Morrell and girlfriend Amanda go to a lecture in Manhattan about time capsules.

The lead character is FRANK BALENGER

Morrell wakes up next to the wreckage of the Paragon Hotel. Amanda is gone, gone, gone.

The lead character is FRANK BALENGER

Morrell is on the hunt again.

The lead character is FRANK BALENGER

Amanda has actually been unwillingly recruited into a "scavenger hunt" far, far away, concocted by - would you believe? - a mad genius of a video game designer. Uh huh - remember "Tron"? Welcome to a pretty bad rip-off of part of the basic idea of that movie.

Did we read the same book?  TRON? - not even remotely close.

I'll not provide any more details, lest I ruin the book for someone who might actually find it enjoyable.

I actually found it quite enjoyable and your review uninformed.

I think it stinks. I was predicting what the next dramatic moment was several pages in advance because everything is so predictable. Frank Ballenger has no depth, no believability. Girlfriend Amanda is a perfect match: no depth, no believability. Everything is supposed to be propelled by the "action". But every action is predictable. There are no Rambo moments here.

Uh - Rambo was written over 30 years ago - writers evolve and grow.

Why did I read every page? Because I kept waiting, hoping that Morrell would redeem himself. He didn't. I suggest you evaluate this book carefully. Spend some time browsing it before you buy it, especially after page 50 or so. I suspect the odds are that you'll put it back on the shelf and leave it there - which is precisely what I should have done.

I read every page and was thoroughly engrossed from page 1.  I'm not sure we even read the same book
212412
Halloween: H20 was the perfect way to end the Halloween series. Too bad this stupid sequel had to ruin it. I'm suppose to believe that Michael Myers beat some guy up, took his clothes and put his mask and jumpsuit on him? Yeah right, that was just dumb. When H20 made money at the box office, they just thought of that dumb idea. Then, they killed Laurie Strode {Curtis}, that was dumb too.

Now, this is where it gets really dumb...the film's plot. A group of dumb teenagers decide to do this internet thing of going in the Myers house. while their in the house, they don't know that Michael Myers {Loree} is in there, and nothing does Freddie {Rhymes} who dresses up as Michael Myers to scare the dumb teenagers.

This film is the worst Halloween film in the entire series. I looked at my watch many times, saying how much loner does this film have left. The fight between Myers and Freddie was retarded, seeing Busta Rhymes acting like Bruce Lee.

Halloween: Resurrection is a piece of junk. They should've just ened the series with H20, because this film did a bad job resurrecting Michael Myers.
3475900
Horror fans, like me, have long supported the "Friday the 13th" franchise, it's escapist fun and clever use of dismemberments have made the films main character, Jason Vorhees, a pop icon.
His legacy and blood soaked cliches continue in this volume of the series, but unfortunately what was once a low-budget creepshow, has become a digital EFX showcase.
That's not necessarily a bad thing especially if any cash has come out of your wallet to watch it.
Your money, believe it or not, is on the screen. But great set designs, CGI effects and costumes can't save the novice cast, or us, from "Jason X".
3785605
"Scary Movie 2" satirizes "The Exorcist," "Unbreakable," "In Living Color," "What Lies Beneath" and at least 20 other movies. Nonetheless, it's a lifeless piece of Hollywood drivel that left moviegoers running for the exit doors when it landed with a THUMP in theaters during the July 4th holidays. Most videophiles will probably ask for a refund and rightly so.
WHAT WENT WRONG?
The first film was fun. Its gross expulsion of movie spoofs kept people howling from start to finish. Part "2" does nothing except make you think "God, did someone actually get paid to write this crap.?" Or "My God, what was going through the actor's minds while the cameras rolled?"
If you're looking for gross humor, rent "Dude, Where's My Car?" "Road Trip," "Freddy Got Fingered" or catch "Not Just Another Teen Movie" in theaters.
3866277
Can someone PLEASE tell Hollywood that the Internet is not scary? Except to Hollywood executives who are convinced that cat videos will kill their profits?

Sadly, at least one of those people greenlit a movie known as "Fear Dot Com" -- yet another movie that tries to take something from the Internet (a website) and make it scary. Not only is it not scary, but it slowly leeches the energy out of anyone who tries to watch it -- dull, slow, and constantly trying to scare its audience with something that isn't scary.

Dead bodies are popping up, all with an expression of horror and profuse bleeding from every orifice. Detective Reilly (Stephen Dorff) and Department of Health worker Terry Huston (Natascha McElhone) initially think that it's some kind of new ebola-like disease, but are forced to reconsider when it turns out to NOT be a disease. So what is it?

Well, it turns out to be a website called Feardotcom (actually, it's Feardotcom.com). A serial killer is luring the women to a remote warehouse so he can slowly torture them to death on a webcam -- and when someone looks at the site, they die 48 hours later. And yes, Terry and Reilly are stupid enough to visit the site, and must find the killer before the time runs out.

Technically "Fear Dot Com" came out before the Hollywood remake of "The Ring," so presumably it was busy ripping off the original Japanese version. It has pretty much everything you expect of a "Ring" clone -- creepy little girl, horrible deaths, time limit, cursed website instead of a videotape -- but without the internal logic.

And it commits the cardinal sin of any horror movie: IT IS NEITHER SCARY NOR HORRIFYING.

Instead William Malone (who specializes in awful horror) just trots out every single "cursed object" horror movie cliche in existence. The movie just lurches along at a leaden pace, livened up only by cliched jump scares (eek! A mouse!) and dialogue so wretched that it almost becomes funny ("How enticing the smell of cheap perfume can be... or is that fear?").

And while "The Ring"/"Ringu" succeeded in making a VHS tape spooky, a website is not spooky. Why? Because it can be dismissed, minimized or blocked... and if news of a cursed website got out, at least half the country would be dead within two days. They are simply replacing one medium of communication with another, and it makes no real sense.

It also has a pair of colossal morons as lead characters, who only seem to log onto FearDotCom.com because... well, that's what happened in "The Ring." Dorff manages to be both forgettable and irritating, and Natascha McElhone is clearly just operating on autopilot -- and Stephen Rea is just so embarrassing that you want to look away.

If you are one of the five people in the world with cyberphobia, "Fear Dot Com" will probably give you nightmares. The rest of the world will just wish they were watching "The Ring." So go watch "The Ring."
4691762
What the heck is wrong with the developer who wrote this? Once upon a time there were zombies and creepers everywhere who attacked "kids name". Sick. Just sick. Good thing I stopped it before my 3 year old heard any more. Shame on you.