Horror Movie Reviews

The Stand is packed with some pretty good stars and I think that this movie did so well because of the the actors. This movie begins with the beginning of the end of the world and the coming of the "bad man" or the anti-christ. A engineered virus is released and spread across the country, attempts to contain it had failed. Faced with the reality of the end of the world the movie focuses on a select few people who are somehow immune. The first part of the movie introduces us to the hardships that these people endure and the friendships they develop, the second part focuses on betrayl and death, and the third part focuses on war. All in all a good movie. The movie does last approx. 6 hours, but it starts up pretty quick and can usually hold your interest for that long.

THE STAND is still my favorite King book. It seems that the movies in which King collaborated turned out the worst. I was very fearful when I heard that he was involved in this one but the result was a blockbuster. The actors and actresses were just perfect for the part, in particular Gary Sinise (Stu), Bill Fagerbakke (Tom), Adam Storke (Larry), Molly Ringwald (Fran) and Jamey Sheridan (Flagg).

I guess you have preconceptions as to what people are like after reading a book and in this case it was Nadine, Harold and Nick that did not match my own. But the story and its presentation is brilliant - a long horror flick with just the right amount of edginess. I only wished it had been eight hours and included a lot more of the desert crossing with Tom and Stu or the pre- Boulder days.

This is a real treasure, one that will stand up to the tests of time.

It is great...but I suggest you read the novel before you watch The Stand. I think that if Stephen King made this on HBO, then it would of matched the book in a lot of ways, like the gore he puts into the novel, and how Trashcan Man met The Kid...but if he added this in, then it would of been 12 hours, but it would have been worth it, and it still is.
I suggest, read the novel, and watch the mini series, but if you dont like to read, then watch the movie...good nontheless.

The Stand is packed with some pretty good stars and I think that this movie did so well because of the the actors. This movie begins with the beginning of the end of the world and the coming of the "bad man" or the anti-christ. A engineered virus is released and spread across the country, attempts to contain it had failed. Faced with the reality of the end of the world the movie focuses on a select few people who are somehow immune. The first part of the movie introduces us to the hardships that these people endure and the friendships they develop, the second part focuses on betrayl and death, and the third part focuses on war. All in all a good movie. The movie does last approx. 6 hours, but it starts up pretty quick and can usually hold your interest for that long.

THE STAND is still my favorite King book. It seems that the movies in which King collaborated turned out the worst. I was very fearful when I heard that he was involved in this one but the result was a blockbuster. The actors and actresses were just perfect for the part, in particular Gary Sinise (Stu), Bill Fagerbakke (Tom), Adam Storke (Larry), Molly Ringwald (Fran) and Jamey Sheridan (Flagg).

I guess you have preconceptions as to what people are like after reading a book and in this case it was Nadine, Harold and Nick that did not match my own. But the story and its presentation is brilliant - a long horror flick with just the right amount of edginess. I only wished it had been eight hours and included a lot more of the desert crossing with Tom and Stu or the pre- Boulder days.

This is a real treasure, one that will stand up to the tests of time.

It is great...but I suggest you read the novel before you watch The Stand. I think that if Stephen King made this on HBO, then it would of matched the book in a lot of ways, like the gore he puts into the novel, and how Trashcan Man met The Kid...but if he added this in, then it would of been 12 hours, but it would have been worth it, and it still is.
I suggest, read the novel, and watch the mini series, but if you dont like to read, then watch the movie...good nontheless.

Since Stephen King's novels are extremely long, the mini series format is perfect for them. Even though SOME things have to be cut out (the author was never stingy with words or overly long descriptions), but this allows the script writer and director to leave enough stuff in to allow them to follow the original story without having to make big changes in the plot line to cover up for things that had been cut out.

This movie has stayed prettu much loyal to the original story - I'm taking 1 star off for the fact that the order in the book has been changed (in the movie, we first see the kids' story, then the adults', while in the book both are told stage by stage - for every stage the adults go through, we see the kids' equivalent). The cast (which included the amazing John Ritter, which passed away not that long ago) was great too.

A mastier peice
Thisw movie is the most entertaning high paced, ancipating ,
heart throbbing movie ever! Stephen king went right with the book and the movie is just as great . If you wach it once
you'll wind keching yourself waching "IT" over and over again.

Stephen King's mini-series "It" is truly the only movie that still scares the living daylights out of me with the chilling performance of Tim Curry as Pennywise the clown. I remember first watching this when I was a sophomore in high school and getting scared senselessly with the demented imagination of Stephen King. The mini-series (as condensed) as it had to be, pretty much stays faithful to the book. This is one of the few cases where I find myself enjoying the movie more than the book. After I saw "It", I never saw clowns in the same light again. In fact, I now have a slight aversion to clowns, even Ronald McDonald with that bright orange-reddish hair. All I can see is Pennywise growling "they all float down here". Obviously the standout performance in the movie has to go to Tim Curry with his spinetingling performance as the clown from hell Pennywise who really is this spider-like beast who feeds on children every 20-25 years. Annette O'Toole, the late and great John Ritter, Richard Thomas, Olivia Hussey (anyone who has seen "Romeo & Juliet" from the '50s/'60s will recognize an all grown up Olivia Hussey), Tim Reid, Harry Anderson, Jonathan Brandis, Seth Green, and the rest of the cast all give excellent performances in the movie. Some of my favorite moments in the film was when Pennywise was terrorizing the characters as children as well as adults. I loved it when Pennywise shows up in a black and white photo album. And then there was the time, the picture of Billy's deceased little brother started to ooze blood. I still can't believe that "It" is the result of dreams/nightmares Stephen King had over a period of nine years. Simply incredible. No matter how many times I watch this two part mini series, I still get creeped out by Pennywise. Thanks to Tim Curry and Stephen King, I will never see clowns in the same light again. Truly a disturbing movie.

Wow, this movie was so bad I don't know where to begin.

I have read many rave reviews for this movie from critics and movie makers, such as John Carpenter for example. After watching the movie all I can say is, what are they talking about!!!!!!!?

There is now way you can tell em this is a classic, it is not even a good movie.

Tha acting is laughable!, the story is absurd, nothing feels real. the movie is completely unscary. It is not possible to have a movie be scary when the acting is laughable and there is no real character development.

This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen, the only reason so many people on here gave this movie a good review is because they think they are supposed to like it because critics and filmakers call it a classic.

The only way you can think this is a good movie is if you are a complete and utter moron!

Please do not buy this, don't make the same mistake I did and buy this movie based on so many good reviews. Curse all you gave this movie a good review, YOU OWE ME $20.

tHE ONLY POSITIVE IN THIS MOVIE IS THAT IT DOES HAVE A GOOD SCORE

I am compelled to write this review because this movie gets an awful lot of flowery praise. To set the record straight, the movie does LOOK fantastic,, very vibrant colors, incredible lighting and sets that are perfect for a great horror film. Such an incredible production when put together with the great sound of the film.. the surround will blow you away on this movie especially hearing the footsteps around the academy. Now, the real nail in the coffin of this movie is the absolutely sophomoric plot that you are driven to stick with, given such a great looking movie. the story is slow, insipid and completley predictable, with one of the worst hurry-up endings since the original Hellraiser. So much time of this film is devoted to making you "feel" like you're watching a great horror movie, that the climax & deneumont seem as if the creators siad "oh crap, we have to wrap this up in about 5 minutes"..
so virtually NO scares, some decent gore for the time, but very few and far between, hackneyed story, awful ending that will make you feel like you really did waste about 2hrs of your life.
but, great looking movie, that hardly looks dated at all and great sound..

For months I had been hearing about how great Suspiria was on the Internet. When planning a horror movie fest this Halloween, I decided to pick it up and give it a watch with some friends. I had been hyping the movie, and they were believing it.

The movie does look and sound excellent, hats off to Anchor Bay for making another older movie look like it was released in theaters months ago.

The movie began with the effective and famous death scene, and from there it went downhill. Silly dialogue and scenes building towards suspense are cut, seemingly in the middle. People say Argento doesn't focus too much on plot, and here it shows. Had this movie been more streamlined, with the imagery and the camerawork, this could have been what people had been calling it - a true masterpiece. But until that happens, the original Halloween stands as my all time favorite horror movie.

Wow, this movie was so bad I don't know where to begin.

I have read many rave reviews for this movie from critics and movie makers, such as John Carpenter for example. After watching the movie all I can say is, what are they talking about!!!!!!!?

There is now way you can tell em this is a classic, it is not even a good movie.

Tha acting is laughable!, the story is absurd, nothing feels real. the movie is completely unscary. It is not possible to have a movie be scary when the acting is laughable and there is no real character development.

This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen, the only reason so many people on here gave this movie a good review is because they think they are supposed to like it because critics and filmakers call it a classic.

The only way you can think this is a good movie is if you are a complete and utter moron!

Please do not buy this, don't make the same mistake I did and buy this movie based on so many good reviews. Curse all you gave this movie a good review, YOU OWE ME $20.

tHE ONLY POSITIVE IN THIS MOVIE IS THAT IT DOES HAVE A GOOD SCORE

I am compelled to write this review because this movie gets an awful lot of flowery praise. To set the record straight, the movie does LOOK fantastic,, very vibrant colors, incredible lighting and sets that are perfect for a great horror film. Such an incredible production when put together with the great sound of the film.. the surround will blow you away on this movie especially hearing the footsteps around the academy. Now, the real nail in the coffin of this movie is the absolutely sophomoric plot that you are driven to stick with, given such a great looking movie. the story is slow, insipid and completley predictable, with one of the worst hurry-up endings since the original Hellraiser. So much time of this film is devoted to making you "feel" like you're watching a great horror movie, that the climax & deneumont seem as if the creators siad "oh crap, we have to wrap this up in about 5 minutes"..
so virtually NO scares, some decent gore for the time, but very few and far between, hackneyed story, awful ending that will make you feel like you really did waste about 2hrs of your life.
but, great looking movie, that hardly looks dated at all and great sound..

For months I had been hearing about how great Suspiria was on the Internet. When planning a horror movie fest this Halloween, I decided to pick it up and give it a watch with some friends. I had been hyping the movie, and they were believing it.

The movie does look and sound excellent, hats off to Anchor Bay for making another older movie look like it was released in theaters months ago.

The movie began with the effective and famous death scene, and from there it went downhill. Silly dialogue and scenes building towards suspense are cut, seemingly in the middle. People say Argento doesn't focus too much on plot, and here it shows. Had this movie been more streamlined, with the imagery and the camerawork, this could have been what people had been calling it - a true masterpiece. But until that happens, the original Halloween stands as my all time favorite horror movie.

More violent and character driven than the first film, Scream 2 manages to improve on most of the first film's short comings, but is still only an average horror/thriller. Picking up where the first film left off, a familiar ghost faced killer is stalking Sidney (Neve Campbell) once again, and the film also features returning cast members Courtney Cox, David Arquette, Jamie Kennedy, and Liev Schrieber. Scream 2 is full of tense moments and plot twists galore, but a majority of the film has a "I've seen this before and I've seen this done better" feel to it. Released only a year after the first film, Scream 2 was a smash hit like the original, and like the original, helped spawn a never ending wave of trendy teeniebopper horror films that just about all failed to impress. The rest of the cast includes Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jada Pinkett, Jerry o' Connell, Laurie Metcalf, and Timothy Olyphant; most of whom give memorable performances.

Wes Craven hits it big again with this amazing sequal! NO one was really expecting this to be better than the origional, ( most sequals SUCK ) but this was a much anticipated movie and hit hard hwen it came out. This very closely came to surpassing the origional.

Sydney still believes that there is a killer waiting to get her, and she's right, with a movie about her life coming out, more muders start to occur. And she soon again finds herself in the middle of vicious murders. And she finds out that it is again a tag team duo, Micky, the freaky film student, and Billy's mother, who also, like her son, seeks good old fashion revenge....

What made this movie so populare was that it took Scream to a new level, bringing in other stars, and having movies inside a movie, and it mixed comedy with horror. Tastefuly, in one of hte first secens, we meet a college class discussing how sequals suck. This all thrown into one makes for a fun movie that is packed with it's share of thrills.

When Scream was released back in 1996 it provided a much-needed stab of life into the horror genre. It became the most talked-about slasher flick in years, so a sequel was inevitable. It arrived in 1997, and was appropriately called Scream 2. It grossed $33 million in its opening weekend and received rave reviews from both critics and fans alike. My personal opinion is that Scream is probably the best in the series, but Scream 2 features a lot more memorable scenes of terror in terms of nail-biting and seat-gripping suspense.

In Scream we saw Sidney stalked by a serial killer, who slashed his way through her friends and relatives before tormenting her. The reasons go back to Sidney's mother who was murdered a year previously. The whole town was shocked by these events, and in the opening sequences of Scream 2, we see that Sidney's events (that us as the viewer saw in the original Scream) have been made into a Hollywood blockbuster called Stab. The opening scene of Scream 2 is particularly memorable. A foxy lady played by Jada Pinkett goes to see Stab at the cinemas with her boyfriend. The scene they see is of a young girl alone in her house. Anyone who has seen Scream will know that this sequence in Stab is taken from the original film where Drew Barrymore is murdered brutally. Easy to understand if you've seen the Scream trilogy, not so much if you haven't! Anyway, the outcome of this woman and her boyfriend is history as they are murdered simultaneously in the toilets and theatre.

As a sequel Scream 2 is based around the idea of recreating ideas from the original film. It works incredibly well. From the start of the film we are rather comfortable with our characters who reprise their roles from the first movie; Sidney, Dewey, Randy, Gale, and our killer - to put it sharply. New character members appear in the form of Heather Graham, Rebecca Gayheart and Portia de Rossi. However, the one that stands out the most is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Definitely not in her Buffy role for this movie, she appears as a kind of tribute to Drew Barrymore's ten minute opening sequence in the original film. Gellar has a short role, but it comes off as perhaps the most memorable scene of the entire film.

When I first saw Scream 2 a few years back, I was somewhat surprised to see that the first three quarters of the film are infact better than the original. The only thing that lets it down slightly is a bit of a crummy ending, but the classic scenes in the middle of the film hold it up. The cinema/toilet murder scenes, Sarah Michelle Gellar's awesome portrayal of the girl in her house on her own, the trapped-in-the-car scenes, the University studio. They're all fantastic and draw out the suspense incredibly. After facing her fears to a certain extent at the end of Scream, Sidney seems afraid to go back and be the brave heroine in most of Scream 2, but her change in character towards the end is rather uplifting and inspiring. The film score is incredibly suspenseful and works well by sticking in your mind many hours after you've watched the film. The final moments of Scream 2 are what lets the film down slightly. After the incredible events of Scream's ending, it was almost impossible for director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson to come up with something to top it.

OVERALL GRADE: 10/10

All in all Scream 2 is a very worthy sequel which surpasses many of the scenes from the original film. The humour that infused the first film and made it so witty with its popular culture references is maintained in Scream 2 wonderfully. With the original Scream it was unlike anything that anyone had seen before, so anything could happen. Scream 2 is disappointing in the fact that, even though you may not know what will happen precisely, you have an idea of the form that it will take. However, don't get me wrong, this is one of the best horror films you will ever see with so many classic scenes that will go down in motion picture history.

I was disapointed, I thought it could have ben alot better. Both actors were great but Robins charecter was just to nice.

Pacino is better in this film than usual. he is acting without yelling, which is nice. The plot is good. Robin Williams is great in this. Hillary Swank is terrific. But something is just missing throughout the picture; you find yourself waiting for it... and it never comes somehow. Not a bad picture, but not a terrific one either.

This was a good film... I liked it. Pacino (although older) was fantastically cool, and I liked him more and more as the film opened up. Now perhaps it was because I watched this film at a badly late hour (enabling me to relate to Pacino's character better, perhaps) but as time wore on, I couldn't help but see some similarities between the Hilary Swank character and Clarice Starling.... Good film. The Vancouver area passing for Alaska given away on the ferry scene. I'd definitely recommend this film.

I was disapointed, I thought it could have ben alot better. Both actors were great but Robins charecter was just to nice.

Pacino is better in this film than usual. he is acting without yelling, which is nice. The plot is good. Robin Williams is great in this. Hillary Swank is terrific. But something is just missing throughout the picture; you find yourself waiting for it... and it never comes somehow. Not a bad picture, but not a terrific one either.

This was a good film... I liked it. Pacino (although older) was fantastically cool, and I liked him more and more as the film opened up. Now perhaps it was because I watched this film at a badly late hour (enabling me to relate to Pacino's character better, perhaps) but as time wore on, I couldn't help but see some similarities between the Hilary Swank character and Clarice Starling.... Good film. The Vancouver area passing for Alaska given away on the ferry scene. I'd definitely recommend this film.

Not bad, but not as good as the original. I think there is a scene in a high school bathroom that is pretty scary.

What's interesting about this sequel is that it picks up directly where the first ended. It's a seamless transition and a worthy addition to the Halloween series.

Recommended.

A Great Movie The Closest To The 1st One As You can Get Great Movie Very scary One Of The Best In The Series No Doubt Cant Go Wrong With This one

Not bad, but not as good as the original. I think there is a scene in a high school bathroom that is pretty scary.

What's interesting about this sequel is that it picks up directly where the first ended. It's a seamless transition and a worthy addition to the Halloween series.

Recommended.

A Great Movie The Closest To The 1st One As You can Get Great Movie Very scary One Of The Best In The Series No Doubt Cant Go Wrong With This one