The Burning (1981)

Rating: R

Country: Canada

Running Time: 91 minutes

Director: Tony Maylam

Starring: Brian Matthews, Jason Alexander, Leah Ayres, Brian Backers, Fisher Stevens, etc.

In the generation and popularization of the slasher genre, many similar films were simultaneously released to cinema to overwhelmingly astounding box-office returns for their often low-budgets. But beyond the legions of the pioneering slasher heavyweights, lied a batch of overlooked and hardly visited gems in the sub-genre. The Burning was one of these that consisted of and inhabited the long forgotten group. This rare little classic kickstarted the acclaimed producers the Weistein Brothers career. The gore FX and effects are superb, with the spetacular make-up artist himself Tom Savini dishing out his famous meal and appetizer of tricks. It also has a genuine and masculine old disfigured killer in the format of Jason Voorhees, although this guy is elderly and more serious. You start to chuckle after seeing him with just a pair of garden shears. But any trace of laughter escapes your body, stomach and brain with he starts hacking everybody up with it. He even kills a revolting and ugly hooker (Thank god he saved us out of ten minutes of even staring at her). Though the device and concept is obviously copied and slammed with the tired gimmick of "If you have sex you will die" approach, The Burning actually works. It carries all the thrills, chills and sheer campiness that I would expect in an 80s horror flick, but it offers even more. You could say it's a bit tactical and precise about its chosen path from beginning to end, and you have to admire that for once. But, beneath its hardened shell and core, The Burning is very weak and useless. As always, the pack of teens remain disregarded and despised. I wanted them all to get burned themselves after the opening. I also hated the electronic soundtrack, a portion of it compromised and recorded by Rick Wakeman, keyboardist and wizard of progressive rock band Yes (Whom I hate). The copy of the DVD I picked up (Manufactured by the company Vipco) is too dark, shady and difficult to view. I'm pretty sure others are having this problem as well. And to add on a fraction more of criticism, the killer's point of view is absurdly pulled off in such a manner I almost rated this a bad score just because of that. But, I restrained myself. Overall, The Burning is a gory, entertaining and superior video nasty slasher that will hold your attention and esteem until the end.

Pros: Nice gore FX, Scary and Cropsy is badass

Cons: Terrible disc I received, bad soundtrack, crazy, perplexing and nonsensical point of view and unlikeable teenagers

Recommended? Yup

6 out of 10

See No Evil (2006)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 85 minutes

Director: Gregory Dark

Starring: Kane, Christina Vidal, Michael J. Pagan, Samantha Noble, Steve Vidler, etc.

Let me get one thing straight: I like watching professional wrestling (Though most of it is fake and staged). But that didn't disintegrate any hate towards WWE's new film effort See No Evil, starring one of their biggest stars and brawlers: Glenn Jacobs (Kane). Too bad I despise his maneuvers, moves and most of all his finisher move: Chokeslam. Lucky me. Hehas been playing his corresponding tough, invincible tall man role ever since his lame attempt at a debut. I expected him to go on a talking rant for the entire duration of the time, but he only spoke a couple words at the end after a poorly done twist. Wouldn't be too hard to pull off an acting job with that kind of fluency and charisma (Which is 0). The rest of the amateur cast of deliquents were also equally as bad delivering all of their cardboard cut-out, roughly said lines with passionless energy. Plus, their vocabulary generally ranges to many curses and "What was that"
moments. It's embarassing and shameful even seeing them on-screen. I think the main reason people were puking and vomiting on the floor was because of aggressively incompetent and floundering filmmaking being shoved and crammed down their throat. The plotline is very predictable, cliche, unoriginal and maintains the "villian with superhuman strength" chunk of nonsense. He was also supposedly abused as a child as we're led to believe, reflecting off his madness and cruelty. It is only shown in flashy and chopped segments of his past. It annoys me that while in that time he was a normal human, he suddenly became a muscular monster of a person. The script is also improbable, contrived and unconvincing. Some of the situations aren't explained to there fullest, especially how our hero Michael survives Kane bloodthirsty rampage in the hotel. The only redeeming quality of this piece of malicious, ineffective, unproductive garbage is the introduction to the engrossing and enthralling new death mechanics. A woman is eaten by dogs, many men have their eyes gouged out unrelentlessly in huge groups and a young girl having a cell phone forced into her mouth. He also wields and carries with him a dangerous and lethal hook, setting up gruesome murders within the mess of the movie. See No Evil is overall, to describe in a simple sentence and statement: this is an example of Hollywood horror gone completely wrong. Terrible.

Pros: good deaths

Cons: Universally everything else, needs a lot more negative feedback like a 0% rotten on Rotten Tomatoes.

Recommended? Stuff like this should be left on the shelf all alone

3/10

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Rating: R (Originally branded with the rare X rating; heavily edited and cut to hold an R rating)

Country: Canada

Running Time: 90 minutes

Director: George Mihalka

Starring: Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, Keith Knight, Alf Humphreys, etc.

Originally branded with the rare X rating (then heavily edited and cut to undergo and assume an R rating), My Bloody Valentine was shown with approximately 3 minutes altered and emended from it's final decision among MPAA members. Now after 28 years of waiting and hoping for an Unrated DVD version, us slasher fans have finally been transported to our homes. And it's definitely worth the delay and linger. The deaths are more grisly compared to the original copy. Without this footage, you could never tell what was going down when our hacker of choice Harry Warden was slicing n' dicing our teenage delinquents. Now, you fortunately can all in its uncensored and murderous glory. This under appreciated gem from the 80s retains all of the goofy and cheesy cliches of the generation: School dances, usually drunk or stoned young adults and the toned down sex scenes. Everything you need and everything I was expecting. However, I love all of these sleazy, uncompetent conditions. See, without them the slasher genre is pretty much standing on one leg, only to eventually fall down flat on its face. What also propels My Bloody Valentine to the finish line (eliminating any competition in its path), is its undeniably inventive, imaginative, original, over-the-top and extremely macabre deaths (Head shoved into steaming pan, impaled on a running pipe, shot with a nail gun etc.). Although our killer's main weapon of choice is a pick-axe, it is barely used or beneficial during its course. But, one might not pay attention to this fact. Neither do I half the time. It's too diverting to ignore and walk away from. It also has a twisted climax that begs for a sequel. What must would probably hate about this is the killer's identity (Which makes sense, but will surely start up someone's fury and anger) and the disgraceful chase sequence in the mine. That totals up to 7 points (6 for the film, 1 for sheer entertainment). Worth a purchase. It is one of the most popular and best slashers of all time after all.

Pros: Entertaining, nice deaths, irresistible and lovable 80s cliches

Cons: When the killer is unmasked I through a fit, horrendous mine chase

Recommended? you will not enjoy My Bloody Valentine on the first couple watches. You will start to like it further on and out after fully understanding its purpose. Cleary made to entertain.

7/10

The Birds (1963)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 119 minutes

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Tippi Hedren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Veronica Cartwright, etc.

The Birds is one of the most surreal, unconventional and idiosyncratic horror thrillers ever. Never has there been such a weirder and more eccentric concept in film. Even with many doubts and skepticism clouding my thoughts, it managed and conducted to become a pleasant movie. Hitchcock pulls off the impossible with a majority of film elements being handled splendidly. The photography is decent enough, and the final scene with the crowded flock of birds stalking the moving car is astonishing and sensational. Quite epic. The acting is emotionally erudite and cerebral. Tippi Hedren is exemplary and offers possibly her best in this role. The others are okay, but they are outdone by Hedren in all of the departments. The first half hardly holds any scares, where Hitchcock spends much time crafting and developing his personalities and installing their every movement and situation into the viewer's mind. When terror does strike, it comes fast and doesn't let up. Hitchcock here, displays and indicates his signature montage effects and procedures. Layering this is a long, thick mantle of panic and despair truly fitting, blending and combining this in with a flurry of intelligent components and aspects. What holds back The Birds from a 9 or 10 is the absurdity of it's ludicrous and blemished plotline. How Hitchcock made this work is beyond me. It also has numerous occasions of glitches, continuity errors, and deficiencies that are obviously seen throughout its running time. However, it still remarkably holds up today, over the other legions of films released over the years.

Pros: A regular Hitchcockian half followed up with an amazing second half, has Alfred's many motives, decent photography and relatively good performances all around from the cast

Cons: Preposterous plotline, many onslaughts of deliberate errors that can be spotted easily

Recommended? Yes

8/10

Quarantine (2008)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 89 minutes

Director: John Erick Dowdle

Starring: Jennifer Carpenter, Steve Harris, Jay Hernandez, Jonathan Schaech, etc

.

After the overwhelmingly positive reception and responses worldwide for Spanish atmospheric, claustrophobic horror film REC (Which I have yet to see), It was a matter of time before us Americans grabbed our greasy hands on the project. Reinvented in the US with an identical, implied sentiment, Quarantine was born. Although obviously not approached and applauded in the same league as its father individual, it mostly hits all the right marks and jubilantly retains the Cinéma vérité format. Now that a sequel has been announced and confirmed, we can surely look forward to REC 2. But for now, we need to boost up our expectations and anticipation with this. To start off, the shaky-cam (And it looks like I'm the only one that adores it) presentation and layout is tremendous. It almost is simultaneously on the corresponding page as a documentary. This formula can also be found in The Blair Witch Project. Anyway, it's incredibly realistic. Also, the infected are vastly detailed and can be separated by their attributes and peculiarity. To add on to my admiration of them, they kill millions of innocent bystanders. Even animals are exposed to the contaminated condition they carry (A big dog assaults a man and resumes to bite into his organs). The violence (The rating is very way off) is pitiless and callously rough. This may be the most violent and bloody film of 2008 in my honest opinion. If you're weak and aren't vomit-resistant, you may want to skip out on this. Flesh is insensitively pulled and mangled apart from bodies, infected puncture into different humans in many places with gory results and guts and bones are literally ripped out of both men and women's physique. I haven't seen REC as stated before, but I'm sure it isn't as bad as this. The cringe-inducing terror built up in the film is thunderous and sends uneasy messages into your mind and stomach to turn it off. Then, it immediately explodes in your face in the last 30 minutes. Everybody (HUGE SPOILER) dies in the end, racking up even more apprehension. Trepidation makes up a big chunk of Quarantine you see, and it flourishes. This is all the good. Now it's time to move onto the ugly. First of all, we have to succumb to 20 minutes of nonsense in a fire station, where we are led to believe this will suck. I congratulate Dowdle from saving us from this disastrous 20 minutes. Next, it becomes so shady at moments you can't tell what's going on. Yes I said I loved this camera substance: the angles, shots etc. But, this counts only as the see able quantitys and components. Last but not least, I hate Steve Harris! I don't know what it is about him. His presence just makes me sick. Aargh! And no, I'm not racist because the cop in this movie was astounding in my view. Overall, Quarantine may very well be the best horror film of 2008, due to massive productions of crap being made by Hollywood and other posers who think they have talent that get noticed by the mainstream while the actually gifted filmmakers don't even get a mention or remark. Hardly superb, but still good.

Pros: Nice shaky-cam style, detailed infected, Grueling and unsettling deaths....Sure! Nice build-up of tension and racks up all the right scares without any sound other than talking and other noises.

Cons: Steve Harris sucks, implausible beginning, Yes the shaky-cam is amazing, but not when too dark.

Recommended? For the most part

6/10

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 118 minutes

Director: Jonathan Demme

Starring: Anthony Hopkins, Jodie Foster, Scott Glenn, Ted Levine, Brooke Smith, etc.

The Silence of the Lambs is one of the most adequate, valuable and prestigious psychological horror movies ever. It won five Academy Awards including best picture. It was one of the most critically and financially successful, victorious and triumph landmark films to hit the screen. Tactical, strategic, cunning and audacious to any other competition in the overall pathetic and depressing run of 1991, it was sincerely and undoubtedly the best there was. Even after its theatrical plight was over, people continued to rave and discuss the importance, relevance and advantage it possessed over other fine works of the decade. It was truly one of the most unforgettable, menacing, dreadful and delirium evoking schizophrenic nightmares and perspectives and journeys into madness and hysteria since Jacob's Ladder and The Shining. It is unquestionably a subconsciously driving heterogeneous of emotion, aggression, wonder and most frequently: fear. It doesn't hold up for a second. To describe this fully would be severely difficult. to start, it led up to the evergrowing popularity and cultural status of one of the most frightening, delusional, demented and deranged yet rational, acute and manipulative serial killers ever caught on camera. Hannibal Lecter. He is also followed up and disseminated by a groundbreaking and eerie exhibition by Anthony Hopkins, who handles his given role with calmness. From the opening minutes where you first see him in his confined cell in his reflection, you suddenly start to fringe in a frenzy. He is certainly groundbreaking, deserving of all of his recognition and fame. The renowned escape scene especially demonstrates his capabilities, where in its climax you are left with a series of shocks and chills rolling and jumping up your spine immediately after one episode. Jodie Foster is also great, although a step down from Hopkins. She manages to deliver through complications and problems. Where she truly rises is in her conversations and speeches with Lecter himself. The two together are electrifying, the ultimate combo on-screen. They say all of their lines professionally, as if they didn't need a script and spoke only from the deepest regions of their heart. The cinematography is glorious, mesmerizing, hypnotic and simply astounding, capturing the distinctness of each environment and place with much compassion and affection, each one with it's own share of attractiveness. With the soaken layers of enigma and conundrums conveyed into its plotline, it's essentially a mystery that quickly transfers into a full-fledged thriller in the second quarter, then a horror in the last section. It really is remarkable that this was even made. However, while this is heartbreaking too state and claim, it carries a cliche anti-ending and it carries many unstrung holes at times. I congratulate and thank Jonathan Demme for bringing us something this special and new into the world. It has the changed the face of cinematic evolution for us all, and even today scares us to the bone.

Pros: Too many to say

Cons: Holes and bad ending

Recommended? Yes

9 out of 10

Wolf Creek (2005)

Rating: R

Country: Australia

Running Time: 99 minutes

Director: Greg Mclean

Starring: John Jarrat, Cassandra Magrath, Kestie Morassi, Nathan Phillips

After reading many negative and positive reception from a variety and assortments of sources (Magazines, websites etc.), I walked to my local Movie Gallery and rented this expecting nothing less but to be entertaining. I was neutral, not choosing either sides on the "like it" or "hate it" sections. Marketed with the new "Based on true events" gimmick and claimed to be translated from the true story of the backpacker murders of the 90s at the hands of Ivan Milat, Wolf Creek is not good or bad (At least in the beginning). It comfortably sits in the distant middle. When the opening scene hits, A stage of unpredictability transpires among your eyes. You can't tell if it will suck or be great. To start off, the annoying and amateurishly done foreign accents are interpreted poorly. It's as if they're mocking every Aussie human on the planet, even the British sounds are offensively made. This is where points are immediately taken down. The cardboard cut-out characters are appalling and you want them to get hacked up miserably and painfully. Fortunately, two out of three of them are, saving the only decent, sufficient and tolerable man in the movie to escape from our antagonist's devious clutches. Speaking of that, the enemy of the film (Mick Taylor, a remorseless and ruthless mastermind committing his crimes in a remote Australian desert titled Wolf Creek) is one of the redeeming features that truly embraces the film's promising poster. He's like Norman Bates crossed over with Leatherface. Clever but also ferocious. And, the actual killings are ultimately satisfying after a long await. We even see a mostly severed wreck of a woman hanging from a wall (Supposedly a victim that lasted for many months before dying). Both are proudly displayed in a full-fledged gory format. And to throw in a bonus, A tourist is shot in the head. The terror factor and increase of tension is almost always high, especially in the last half. All of these people don't walk out without injury. Wolf Creek inevitably breaks all of the standard, generic rules and formulaic garbage of recycled, cheap garbage people call horror in this messed up economy. No rules apply to it. It makes its own. This is why I immensely enjoyed Wolf Creek. It very may well be the single most scary, gritty, and realistically traumatizing experiences you'll ever observe and witness that was commercially opened in 2005. However, what hurts and disinegrates any substance of pleasure in this is its lack of facts and common sense. This is a pure work of fiction, while it is citied as being completely true. It is a senseless, pretentious and contrived horror movie that desperately tries to lure in the captured audience but instead throws them back on their heads and decides to throw in another boring and dull element that ruins the fun. Overall, Wolf Creek is like previously mentioned, not good, but also not too bad. Not too bad.

Pros: Nice deaths, Scary, simple and downright amazing in little divisions. Not like other copied products labeled as slashers

Cons: Bad accents, hate the senseless path it takes towards the end and it isn't at all true

Recommended? Yes and no if that makes any sense to anybody

4 out of 10

Suspiria (1977)

Rating: R

Country: Italy

Running Time: 92 minutes

Director: Dario Argento

Starring: Jessica Harper, Udo Kier, Joan Bennett, Alida Valli, Eva Axen, Miguel Bose, etc.

Suspiria may be one of the most scariest, excellently crafted, visually incomprehensible, proficiently accomplished, conversantly competent, incontrovertibly intelligent and perspicacious and monumentally notorious Italian contributions to the unique and unparralled categorized genre of Giallo. It's a polished, elaborately structured and impeccable example of perfection incomparable. Everything is proficiently and ambitiously developed and produced in an eminent and grandiose high caliber peak, proving that Argento is one of the most committed and enthusiastic geniuses of the preceding decades. To start off, the cinematography is captivating and ravishing. Utterly enticing in appearance and illustriously lush, bright and lavish in its infinite and inexhaustible shots frame by frame. This is one of the stand-out aspects and characteristics that frequently raise this classic to the ranks of several other horror movies. Another would be its artistic, sophisticated, intricate and advanced narrative technique and custom, illustrating and prominently confirming the film's tone throughout its progressive running time. The murders are marvelously executed too, and particularly merciless. Most of them were cut from the film's theatrical release, while some remained slightly altered. This is the area where Argento receives constant controversy, censorship, bannage and most unnecessary, the lack of praise and high percentage of criticism. It was initially respected among its premiere, but it still didn't gain enough attention from the media for many reasons. I don't understand why, because this is my third favorite film of all time, also standing generally and popularly as one of the best horror movies of all time. The soundtrack by Prog rockers Goblin is also breathtaking while also surreal. It's a bizzare combination and conveyed trait with the other fragments of celluloid features. That being said, it is definetly awesome and musically diverse from other scores. It was the first entry in the "The Three Mothers" supernatural trilogy of movies (With the final film reluctantly being shown two years ago), and it still remains the best. It's flawless and it's best left at that.

Pros: Everything

Cons: It's basically the definition of flawless. Probably to be more accurate: Unbeatable.

Recommended? Certainly

10 out of 10

Psycho (1960)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 109 minutes

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Baslam, John McIntire

Psycho is the epitome of horror movies. From the master of suspense (And one of the greatest general film directors ever to walk on earth) Alfred Hitchcock, Psycho is his most well-known and widely considered best accomplishement ever released by him and that's saying a lot, especially for a man of this sophistication and intellectuality. Rational, elegant, keen, mysterious and perplexing, It contains no visible or coherent flaws. Not a single false note is hit through its developemental advancement. The score is eerie and fierce, demonstrating and overshadowing off the distinct intimidation the viewer feels constantly creeping up their spine. The cinematography is astoundingly and surprisingly awesome in its condition and merit due to its bleak, monotonous black-and-white format. The acting is top notch, with a rememberable, distinguished, dismaying and hair-raising performance from Anthony Perkins as the freakish and mother obsessed Norman Bates. Absolutely perfect depiction of a paranoid being. It also includes a massively underrated and disparaged while slightly overdone interpretation from Janet Leigh as the money hungry, greedy, desperate and primary lady Marion. And who can forget the shower scene: the single most important and famous scene ever planned out in cinema's evolution. Right when you see the knife come down, you instantly feel pain strike your heart. Although no actual penetration is noticeable, it still is to this decade a It may have scared audiences to the core back in its initial premiere back in the day, but it also managed to receive an unbelievable amount of praise and applause from attendants of the film. it was impossible to despise this in the 60s and even so today. It masterfully, strategically and emotionally pulls the strings together with no loose ends or knots involved. You can't argue with any cruel statements or fingers pointed at this classic. It's almost unbeatable, save for a few exceptions. Amazing.

Pros: Everything

Cons: A bit annoying at one moment, but I simply refuse to lower the rating.

Recommended? Yeah

10 out of 10

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 91 minutes

Director: Wes Craven

Starring: Heather Langenkamp, Robert Englund, Johnny Depp, John Saxon, Amanda Wyss, etc.

Let me start it off my review by saying this: This is my favorite horror film of all time. I have seen it countless, several times ever since my first initial full witnessing and it never gets old. It perfectly surrounds and questions the existence and fine line between reality and illusion from a point of perspective, along with this philosophy comes a nightmarish twist: The cruel, diabolical wise-cracking Freddy Krueger. None have cowered in panic so quickly with any other source of dread. To put it simple, A Nightmare on Elm Street is an imaginative, intelligent and outstanding masterpiece to remember until the end of days. Come on, it has everything you could wish for and more: Johnny Depp erupting into a enormous geyser of blood after being sucked into his own bed by Krueger, an implausible and vivid storyline, fascinating and excellent perceptibles, a devastating grade-A exhibition of our main antagonist himself and so much more to add. It just succeeds in every column of filmmaking: acting, script, writing, cinematography (especially the groundbreaking shots of Springwood itself and the immensely detailed, meticulous dream world in which Krueger resides) and it's full of thrills, gore and little jolts of excitement. It's superior and dominant compared to any other scary movie it sits next to. A Nightmare on Elm Street is to sum it up, the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be when it comes right down to it. Exceeds beyond expectations, and deserves every piece of praise it receives daily.

One, two freddy's coming for you

three, four lock your door

five, six grab your crucifix

seven, eight going to stay up late

nine, ten never sleep again.

Pros: Everything

Cons: Nothing at all. It's my favorite horror film ever after all.

Recommended? YES! YES! YES! *smashes keyboard repeatedly on desk* GET IT NOW!!!!!!

10 out of 10

Hellraiser (1987)

Rating: R

Country: United Kingdom

Running Time: 94 minutes

Director: Clive Barker

Starring: Doug Bradley, Andrew Robinson, Clare Higgins, Sean Chapman, Oliver Smith, etc.

UK's Hellraiser, based off of Clive Barker's critically acclaimed novella The Hellbound Heart, is a masterpiece. Enough said. A classic. One of the single influences brought upon the genre of horror. But saying all of these sentences will never do this review justice. All of the words I'm saying and the praise I'm giving out is all a big understatement. It would take an endless amount of wasted time to describe all of the wonderful factors and features that elevate Hellraiser from an ordinary chunk of a movie to an exemplar and symbol for pure adrenaline driving, spine-chilling 100% horror. But, in order to form a more understandable and complex walk-through review, I will. First of all, it introduces the fierce, depraved, corrupt, malicious and hellish Cenobite to the media: Pinhead. Although his role shifts in later films from a member of the demons to the main reckless rogue, he is still the prime concentration out of the four original menances. Another trait is that it stays true to the novella (for the most part) and that the movie deals with and tackles themes ranging from sadomasochism and mortality under duress. I will stop here. Hellraiser is pretty much my second favorite horror movie of all time. For my entire youth it scared the heck out of me, and it does even so today. A severly overlooked and underrated classic.

Pros: Everything

Cons: Nothing

Recommended? YEAH! GO OUT AND BUY IT RIGHT NOW!

10/10

The Evil Dead (1981)

Rating: NC-17

Country: US

Running Time: 85 minutes

Director: Sam Raimi

Starring: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Hal Delrich, Teresa Tilly

Banned in multiple countries and cities (Finland, Germany, Iceland etc.), heavily edited and cut to maintain a premiere and release to cinema and notorious for its tremendously soaring gore status and B-movie ambience (backed up by a superbly done cartoonish feel), The Evil Dead is one of the most controversial, violent, sleazy, preposterous and marvellous cult horror movies ever. With Sam Raimi (At the time being a low-budget making film student) behind the camera, what can you expect? What hasn't already been said about this? It's downright silly but at the same time suspenseful, thrilling and full of tension. Most directors today don't even come up with there own plotlines and ideals. Not Raimi. This was from the beginning his innovative plan for entertainment. Even on his shoestring budget, he manages to create true and pure darkness from start to finish. He pulls this off with his talented use of photograpy. Unlike his later achievements and most well-known pieces of celluloid (Spider-man being one), Raimi uses a variety of impressive and magnificent techniques, including the shots where the demons seemingly are hunting the people. Deserves more recognition on this skill. The Evil Dead also doesn't take itself seriously. It knows what it was meant to be, and from the first 15 minutes the faithful movie buff is informed of that certain lack of solemnity. Last but not least: Bruce Campbell as Ash. He literally is the king and master of zombie badassery, especially in the next two sequels (Which still don't match up to this). Equipped with a chainsaw and other weapons, he really set a new standard for B-movie acting. Remarkable. All in all The Evil Dead is not flawless, but it isn't bad either. In fact, it's awesome. How anyone cannot be entertained while experiencing this is beyond me.

Pros: Just about anything

Cons: Above comment = LIES! It's not perfect. It does have some minor difficulties and obstacles it can't get past through.

Recommended? Definetly (You might want to watch a few B-movies to flow with the vibe and path this film chooses)

9/10

30 Days of Night (2007)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 113 minutes

Director: David Slade

Starring: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston, Ben Foster, etc.

Most would say the vampire subgenre of horror has faded out. Attempting to revive the beaten down fad, 30 Days of Night (based off the comic book miniseries) successfully sets a new standard for the menacing and bloodsucking psychos and maniacs. It essentially sheds its skin and transforms into more than just an adaptation, but a full-fledged horror movie. Sinister, intense, evil, relentless and sadistic, it's one of the finest and most highly anticipated works to be unleashed upon audiences. It gives the vampire outfit a whole new leading path and character, giving them a new arsenal of abilites, and the concept is simply put it: fascinating. The photography and the extravaganza of shots are stunning and staggering, very in-depth while also captivating in a certain way. One can't ignore the impressive and progressive movement and flair of 30 Days of Night. But to every good movie, there are numerous flaws that can't be pushed aside. There is remotely no chemistry between any of the cast, and the acting itself is embarrasingly atrocious. Also the anti-climax will leave everybody in disappointment and exasperation (Come on, no one requested that final fight).

Pros: Nice reimagining of the demonic creatures we all know and love, Great-looking shots, admirable visual style

Cons: Bad acting and chemistry, worst ending since 2003's french horror film High Tension.

Recommended? Yes

7/10

Day of the Dead (1985)

Rating: Unrated

Country: US

Running Time: 102 minutes

Director: George A. Romero

Starring: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joe Pilato, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony Dileo Jr., etc.

When people call George A. Romero a genius and they don't appreciate the third entry in his immensely popular "dead" franchise, I only utter one word: underrated. Sure it's a little shabby and chopped up, but Day of the Dead is an astounding and somewhat competently made entry in the ever-growing series. Absolutely and fully unnoticed by potential theaters save for horror fans, it has now developed into a cult classic among moviegoers and has even boosted up its reputation in recent years. Standing today its regarded still as one of the worst, but for me in my mind, its definetly one of the best. It contains the most memorable and famous scenes in the long line of horror, including the untimely demise of Captain Rhodes, who is assaulted by hordes of zombies. Also it stays true to the usual strategy of its predecessors, adding on loads and literally gallons of gratuitous gore and mayhem. Seriously, the carnage in this installement tops the amount of record-breaking bloodshed previously held by Dawn of the Dead. To sum it up: It's too appealing and enjoyable to reject. Sure it has constant glitches and problems due to the camera and possibly by the crappy cinematography, but know this: Day of the Dead is a lot better than your average zombie movies. I'm positive if I ask one person right now on the street they'll think this is terrible. *sigh*, oh well. Everybody has different tastes right?

Pros: Extremely tolerable and fun to view (Come on, who doesn't enjoy watching various citizens getting graphically dismembered and torn apart by a group of the undead?) Very memorable

Cons: Pretty much overflown with malfunctions in a couple and minor parts

Recommended? Yes

7/10

Hatchet (2006)

Rating: R (Originally NC-17)

Country: US

Running Time: 83 minutes

Director: Adam Green

Starring: Joel Moore, Tamara Feldman, Deon Richmond, Mercedes McNab, Parry Shen, etc.

Full of recognizable minor stars and no names, Hatchet is exactly what the tagline informs the viewers: "Old-school american horror". It has everything of an 80s slasher, from boobs to insane kills. It even copies and borrows elements from its peers. In its 80 minute running time, it accomplishes and hits all the right spots for a successful horror film....well, almost all of them. You see, Hatchet tries to become more than it already will end up to be: A stupid, moronic yet entertaining popcorn weekend film to laugh at and make fun of. Near the last quarter of it, it submerges from good to plain bad (Mostly due to the lackluster transitions between its so-called black comedy and thrills). It's incredibly formulaic and unbearably cheesy at times, especially when the actual murders kick in. Sure it's nice to watch in its low-budget galore, but come on, that second death looked like one of the most poorly done and fake scenes I've ever witnessed. Plus, Victor Crowley is an exact replica and recycled, plagiaristic and badly done version of Jason Voorhees. He steals his deformities, his super strength...every single aspect of him is inside the mind of Crowley. Even with all of this criticism packed deep within the core of Hatchet, it still manages to pull the strings. For a B-movie, it has extraordinary screenplay and the entire background/make-up setup is magnificent. Kane Hodder once again is horrendous as the unnerving and quite alarming immortal mutant monster known as Victor Crowley and his whole appearance is one of the best and soon to be celebrated representatives of a killer figure ever. A good film in my honest opinion. And for all the haters, I understand why you might not love this and it looks like I'm one of the few standing up applauding this for being such a blast.

Pros: Sensational background/make-up setup, mindblowing tall man performance from Kane Hodder once again, fantastic screenplay, very amusing and pleasant

Cons: Not original or refreshing in any sort of way, cheesy and formulaic

Recommended? maybe - a film recommended only for an audience suitable to and used to the factors of an average B-movie.

6/10

The Last House on the Left (1972)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 91 minutes

Director: Wes Craven

Starring: Sandra Cassel, Lucy Grantham, David Hess, Fred J. Lincoln, Jeramie Rain, etc.

Mainly and primarily known as Wes Craven's first film, The Last House on the Left is a particularly grisly and brutal film that inflicts and depicts a handful of violence. Banned in several countries and censored almost in its entirely, it has become famous just for that trait. Disturbing and savage, it not only accomplishes its goal on the standard horror film level, but it mentally scars the viewer with the cornerpiece jewel and most widely known scene in the film: the rape. Never before have I witnessed something so generally agitating, distressing, unsettling, painful and harrowing before. A twisted experience it is watching all the acts commited to Marie and her unlucky pal Phyllis (*spoiler* who is viciously disembowled by all the members of the gang). An important and cringe-worthy section. Other than all this, The Last House on the Left is a virtually contrived and cliched attempt at recapturing the horror of other films at its time. everybody involved turn in pretentious and appalling performances and all of the deaths are ridiculous to watch considering its low-budget. the plotline is also full of tons of holes and its pretty much godawful in the content it tries to sustain and deliver. Still a decent movie and not overly bad. Would rent at your local movie gallery or store.

Pros: The complete first half of the review says it all

Cons: Full of holes, bad acting, cliched and fake looking

Recommended? Not really

5/10

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Rating: R

Country: US

Running Time: 84 minutes

Director: Tobe Hooper

Starring: Marilyn Burns, Gunnar Hansen, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger, Paul A. Partain, etc.

It's safe to say that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the best horror films ever made. Controversial, uncanny, eerie and astonishing, it forever will be one of the moves seethed into my memory. Released in 1974, it single-handely redefined the genre and shocked general audiences and critics straight to the bone. Even in it's extremely low-budget, it succeeds and sets off like none other. Instead of completely centering and focusing on gore and blood, it's coated in a frightening and creepy atomsphere marred with a equally terrifying and realistic outline. It's pure psychological horror at its finest. It evokes a unique sense of primal fear, desperation and an emotional output and feeling for the entire ensemble (three fourths of which get hacked to shreds by our notorious chainsaw-wielding icon). The film also stands the test of time despite its constant flaws and numerous poor quality additions. Marilyn Burns in my opinon gives out an underrated and incomprehensible performances as an ordinary women driven into panic. In fact, I would call it one of the greatest ever. However, not all is good in this. The plotline is a bit simplistic and like previously stated its a bit dry in delivering the goods. Overall the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a brilliant and outstanding landmark achievement from Tobe Hooper who lately can't seem to pull himself together. It landed a bigger effect and impact in pop culture than any other horror production screened in theaters, and it's the quintessential horror film of the 70s. Remarkable.

Pros: Gave horror a fresh whole new lead. Gave us one of the most memorable, dire and sadistic fictitious mass murderers ever: Leatherface. Well planned out and set up. Great performance from Marilyn Burns. Amazing final segment and downright terrifying. The most important film to come out in the 70s categorized in horror.

Cons: At times boring and the cinematography and soundtrack is of the worst ever heard and seen in a long time.

Recommended? Yes.

9 out of 10