reallifestory Reviews

Salem's Lot (1979)

This film should just not have been attempted.

[1/10 · 16 January 2002]

(in reference to the full 184 minute original television version)

This was just much too ambitious a project to undertake, ESPECIALLY for TV, ESPECIALLY in 1979. There are no redeeming qualities for this film whatsoever. It does not succeed on any level. Standing alone, it is not scary or remotely believable. Compared to the source material, King's novel, it is very unfaithful and weak and watered-down. Can anyone take David Soul seriously?

I imagine the producers of this project merely envisioned dollar signs and weren't concerned with making a quality film. I'm not certain that a truly faithful adaptation CAN be created from King's novel. It just could not be condensed into what most audiences would accept as a normal and acceptable length.

However improbable, it may not be impossible. If a dedicated and talented genre filmmaker could receive worthy funding in order to demand high production values, perhaps it could be remade successfully, not as a 100% faithful and complete retelling of King's engrossing story, but at the very least it would have to be better than this 1979 schlock.

The Convent (2000)

False Advertising

[4/10 · 15 January 2002]

The first 20-30 minutes of this movie gave me hope that I might be watching a classically fun horror flick. The humor was subtle and intelligent and there is what seems to be foreshadowing of potential scares. However, out of nowhere, this film takes a complete U-turn and abandons any worthwhile properties it may have had and becomes a ludicrous, pointless romp, hoping for cheap laughs. It could have been a Saturday Night Live skit.

Perhaps if you going into the viewing of this film knowing that it's going to be an over-the-top, unabashedly crude comedy, then maybe it would be enjoyable. If you were instead misled like myself and expecting something resembling quality, low-budget horror, then you are going to be disappointed.

Planet of the Vampires (1965)

Even geniuses make mistakes...

[2/10 · 30 November 2001]

I can't imagine what Mario Bava must have been thinking with this film. Perhaps this film would have been if it was SUPPOSED to be bad, but I'm pretty sure this was intended as serious genre entertainment. I am an adoring fan of Bava, his work as an early horror pioneer, his brilliant photography and lighting...but the only thing that went through my mind while viewing this film was, "Oh boy, is it going to be over soon?".

Being a genre fan, I've learned long ago to be able to overlook occasional silliness and nonsensical plot threads, but I just couldn't handle this mess...I'm sorry Mario, I still love you!

Lisa and the Devil (1973)

See ONLY the cut titled LISA AND THE DEVIL and you will be in for a treat!

[8/10 · 23 October 2001]

My rating and praise for this film applies to the cut never theatrically released in the US, "Lisa and the Devil". This film was recut and re-edited into a nonsensical mess for two reasons: to capitalize on the success of "The Exorcist" and because it didn't perform well during initial screenings, probably because the plot is one that requires the viewer to think and form his own opinions, rather than having everything spelled out in front of you.

As would be expected from Bava, much of the photography is beautiful. The music is excellent and the film is simply intriguing overall, if you are patient with it.

Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988)

Oh no! What a letdown!

[2/10 · 14 October 2001]

I'm a fan of the original Sleepaway Camp and this sequel is utterly lousy. Parts of the movie occasionally qualify for that "so-bad-it's-funny" entertaining quality, but that's the only slightly redeeming aspect. Other than that, this film is so sleazy that I felt the need to shower afterwards!

Angela kills for no reason whatsoever, just murder for murder's sake. At least she uses a bit of creative variety, I'll give her that. The effects are laughable and the 25-30 year old actors trying to portray young teens really make you shake your head. The immaturity and idiocy of the characters wouldn't even have been believable if it were a camp of Kindergarten kids.

Invest your time more wisely than this!

Phantom of the Opera (1943)

Cannot compare to 1925's Lon Chaney masterpiece.

[4/10 · 24 September 2001]

This version is simply weak compared to the excellence of the earlier, silent 1925 film. This 1943 treatment does not have any elements of horror, which is a necessary part of a "Phantom..." story. Chaney's self-applied make-up was ghastly and ahead of it's time. The make-up of Claude Rains in the unveiling scene in 1943 is the most feeble attempt to shock that I've witnessed.

The actual story struggles to find screen time, being usurped by lengthy opera sequences. This is not to say that they are not well done and beautifully crafted, but they should not be the main focus of the film.

The addition of the "humorous" scenario between the rival suitors is entirely bland and actually gets annoying, as it too sees too much screen time.

I Zombie: The Chronicles of Pain (1998)

Great concept, poor execution.

[5/10 · 20 September 2001]

I think that the premise for this experimental sort of film was great and very original. Instead of treating "zombieism" as purely supernatural, as a bunch of brainless monsters, this film presents it more like a "disease". It details the trials of a man afflicted by the disease, after having been bitten by a zombie, trying to carry on his old life as normally as possible. However, there is no way that he can completely hide his condition and it eventually gets the best of him.

Unfortunately, the quality of the film is poor. The technical aspects of filmmaking are suffering in this movie. Very harsh, unattractive lighting, blown out whites, drab color, low quality sound...things like this and other complaints concerning detail really detract from what could have been a great film. Regardless, this is definitely worth seeing for genre fans, especially ones who can appreciate a more intelligent approach to horror. Casual fans or total action/gore fans should not bother.

Carrie (1976)

Could NOT be more disappointing.

[3/10 · 20 September 2001]

TERRIBLE! If I were Stephen King, I would be infuriated that filmmakers performed such BUTCHERY on my work. According to supplemental material on the Special Edition DVD, however, King apparently admires De Palma's and Cohen's version very much.

In my opinion, King's "Carrie" novel was brilliant and powerful. It actually WAS horrific and the level of emotion invoked by King was intense. The film adaptation does not come anywhere close to portraying the extremes to which the character's personalities and situations have gone. Granted, perhaps the novel's characters are not particularly dynamic or complex. But they are effective, fun, and enjoyable.

Some of the camerawork, sound and visual effects intended to be "suspenseful" are just plain hokey. Well...actually, most of the film is. John Travolta??? Give me a break.

How can this film have possibly earned Academy Awards? Especially considering the usual pretensions of the Academy. This film is entirely weak, in many regards.