One Movie A Day Review Thread

→ in

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I don't know... I think Fright Night is probably the equal of The Lost Boys, and it did come first. I like them both. One benefit I think it had in the theatre was that during Fright Night, there are a few scenes where the audience sees something scary which the "good guys" don't see (usually in a corner of the screen), so at the theatre, audience members would scream out "Look out!!" or "Get TF outta there!!". I don't know if it could have the same effect watching it alone and/or on the "small screen". Nice review though.
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Hmmm, you saw this in the theater eh? I wasn't even alive when this came out.
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Oh yeah. I saw it more than once at the theatre and the same thing with The Lost Boys. I mainly liked them because I thought they were funny, but Fright Night, especially, had the audience screaming at times. I can remember a scene where the vampire shows up in one of the upper corners of the screen that freaked out most everybody.

I don't know... I think Fright Night is probably the equal of The Lost Boys,
Sorry mark, but it's not. The Lost Boys is much cooler (and, therefore, better) than Fright Night. I like Fright Night and I've seen it a few times, but I've seen The Lost Boys dozens of times and that's just because it's one of those films you can't get enough of.

F*** it!!!! I'm not here often enough to change it
Sorry mark, but it's not. The Lost Boys is much cooler (and, therefore, better) than Fright Night. I like Fright Night and I've seen it a few times, but I've seen The Lost Boys dozens of times and that's just because it's one of those films you can't get enough of.
That would be opinion, though.

I also like the both of them the same, although I watch Fright Night more often than I do The Lost Boys. I do own both, however. Again, it's an opinion.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
DAY 60: October 30th, 2008.

The Changeling

Hey, wanna have a snowball fight? Yeah, YAY!!! BAM!!!!!

I must say, other then the fact that George C. Scott cannot operate a phone booth door, I have nothing bad to really say about this film. I must give thanks to Destiny for recommending this one. I grabbed a copy from a friend of mine who told me that it's kind of like The Sixth Sense, so I'm going into this movie thinking that the guy is dead the whole time. It plays out, for me at least, more like Stir Of Echoes. It's nice to see where those films grabbed their influences from.

While the film plays out slowly and may turn some people off, I was surprisingly hooked from start to finish and was honestly nervous during certain scenes that were spooky as hell.

Even after watching the recent Changeling from Eastwood, I still did not know what it meant, thank you George C Scott for clearing things up. Speaking of Scott, he does a great job here. for some strange reason, even though there is no real indication of this, I got the sense that this guy is a bad ass. Which could be the complete opposite of what they were going for, since he was suppose to be a tormented soul that connected with the dead.

The camera movements in this film were probably the scariest thing about it. Certain scenes that play out as if they were P.O.V shots that seemed to float around the house, simply terrifying. Also, the house itself is scary. Great atmosphere and tone help bring this film to another level.

As I said earlier, you can see this film's influences everywhere, like with The Ring. I'm surprised it took me this long to see this film, and it's Canadian too, shame on me.

F*** it!!!! I'm not here often enough to change it

Well it's about time.

Glad you enjoyed it. George C. Scott is a favorite of mine. That one thing you mentioned about him being a bad ass. I'd say that maybe because he was the first to be able to stay there in the house, where others had left shortly after moving in, and the fact that he did this, and solved the problem, just a few months after losing his family, qualifies him as tough. I sure couldn't do it.

I see you also watched Fright Night, which is another favorite of mine. That movie is a lot of fun, and I love the cast. I can't recall if I listed that one for you, or not, but I'm glad you added it.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
DAY 61: October 31st, 2008.


Obviously I'm watching this film on Halloween, what else would I do?

So here is a film that defined and ignited a genre. It wasn't the first, but it was one of the first and one to start so many imitators that never really got the formula down right. Carpenter is a master at his craft and he doesn't always score, but I applaud him for what he does and I can say that I enjoy most of his work. Halloween is one of his finest.

So what is scarier then William Shatner? How about William Shatner spray painted white. Honestly, I find this mask scarier and more menacing then any hockey mask or fencing mask (ha, I hate Urban Legends 2). They ruined it in the sequels, then got it right again with Zombie's vision, but here it was the first and best. I was surprised that his mask came off in the film and we saw his face underneath. I grew up in the 90's, so I always saw the masked killer, then have the reveal at the end. Never did I see the victim tear the mask off during a scuffle, I was taken back....and I liked it. That scene makes it seem more real. Well done.

I guess since I grew up with the horror films being more in your face and graphic with the killings, I wasn't too impressed with the deaths in this film. Everything felt kind of slow to me, like the actors were taking it easy with each other in those scenes. Small nitpicks I have.

With other killers, they all have their reasons. Krueger is getting revenge on the kids of the parents who killed him, Jason is getting revenge on the kids who let him drown and killed his mother, the killers in scream are all about revenge. Then we have Michael Myers, who is described as PURE EVIL, from the one man who probably knows him best, Loomis. Not Loomis from Scream, that was a homage for you young kids out there.

Donald Pleasence's most notable role? Some would say so and I would agree. Also Jamie Lee Curtis pops up here and she is quite good. I never really cared for much of her stuff, but I took notice here, even if it was one of her first gigs. Although, yes, her screaming at the end in the closet can get on the nerves.

Halloween is the horror film to watch on Halloween. It's almost a rule, ritual, given. I can't say much for the sequels, but the first is always the best.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, the cover? Simple, yet badass.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
That's what I was thinking. I for one would never have stepped a foot in the door that was locked up. Nor would I go back to the well at night.

Some really good reviews with the horror films TUS, well done. Did you go back more random selections in November? I guess I'll have to wait and see.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Yes I did, and you'll see some pop up that people suggested on this site.

Now that I'm school for the holidays, I can catch up on the postings.

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
DAY 62: November 1st, 2008.


This is the first time seeing Hitchcock's Rope and the first Hitchcock film in which I have seen in it's entirety. Yes, it's a shame, but I have only seen snippets of his others films, like Rear Window and Psycho to name a few.

Here is Rope a film about two men who murder someone and hide the body within the house. To make things interesting they hold a dinner party, the guests being friends and family of the victim, just to see if they can get away with murder. When I first heard this set-up, I was immediately interested and hearing praise for Hitchcock but never really seeing a full film from him I did not really know what to expect.


Just kidding, I really enjoyed Rope. What initially stuck out to me was the long takes Hitchcock used. The film plays out in real time and uses very little cuts, which both work well and kind of hurt the film. For those of you who grew up in the 90's and are use to the Michael Bay/MTV style of cutting every 3 seconds, you may find yourself bored to death here. Also the entire film takes place in one room, some may be confined and not comfortable. I found myself more interested in the story and how it was being told. Dollying into the backs of the characters and back out again to 'cover' the edits was interesting, yet a tad overused.

I really enjoyed Stewart's performance as the curious professor who questions the intentions of the party. Every little bit of tension in the film word well, the rope tying the books together, the maid putting the books where the body is hidden. All are suspenseful and work well for the film. All these scenes play well into Stewart's inquisitive notions throughout the film.

I found myself liking Brandon more then Phillip. Brandon was more confident and sly, whereas Phillip, in his nervous and child-like ways got on my nerves. I kind of wanted them to get away with it at some points, but then Phillip would speak and I would want them to get caught again.

I don't really hear much about this film when people talk about Hitchcock. It's more about his more 'popular' films, like Psycho, Rear Window and the Birds. I don't know why, but I think Rope is indeed an extremely well made film.

"A film is a putrified fountain of thought"
Oh, I totally forgot this movie existed! I watched it a couple years ago and was like "why don't more people talk about this Hitchcock movie" cause I really liked it. Ha, then I forgot about it...

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Rope certainly fits into the Hitchcock canon, not only as its own original self, but as a precursor to how Hitch would try to sophisticate it up in 1954 with both Dial M For Murder and Rear Window. The main reason that Rope isn't mentioned so much is because it was one of the five films which the Hitchcock Estate refused to be made available to the public until the 1980s. Besides Rope, the 1980s revealed to us film buffs The Trouble With Harry, Vertigo, Rear Window and the 1956 remake of The Man Who Knew Too Much. We ate them up and digested them, but some had more rep that others. Rope was the oldest, and perhaps may well be the most primitive, but I'd probably vote it as Hitch's best film from the '40s. I realize the standard answer is Notorious, but I'm really weird, you know?

Oh wait a sec, Rebecca's in the '40s. Oh well, I think that's more of a Selznick flick, but you got me, if you really want me...

Rope also is only cut when absolutely necessary, I believe every 12 minutes as that is or was the length of a film reel. Sokurov's Russian Ark is done in one long uncut sequence, it took them three attempts before they got it. Interesting how Rope is the first Hitchcock film you have seen. It's good, but in my opinion not his best. If you liked it than you should like others of his. Shadow of a Doubt, Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy are his best, at least I think so.
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
DAY 63: November 2nd, 2008.

Dazed and Confused

When I entered grade 9, I never really got an initiation. Sure the older kids asked me if I was a minor niner, but I said I was in grade 10. They never paddled my ass, drew a penis on my face or made me push a penny on the bus floor with my nose. I got through grade 9 with ease. I also never grew up in the 70's so I thought I might miss the whole generation thing with Dazed and Confused. Even though it was made in the 90's.

Who would think that a film about high school kids beating up younger ones, getting drunk and high and partying all night would make a good film? Well, I did for one.

Dazed and Confused is not the first teen party film I've seen, but it is one of the best, so good that it transcends that genre. Can't Hardly Wait is suppose to be my generation party film, I think, but I feel more connected to Dazed and Confused then any other. Probably because Linklater is dedicated to his craft and isn't looking to cash in on a certain craze. I can honestly say this is his best film.

It boasts an young cast of early talent, like Ben Affleck, Matthew McConaughey, Adam Goldberg, Rory Cochrane, Milla Jovovich, and so on. I think it's great to see all of today's actors in a film like this, just having a good time.

The film has a great soundtrack that embodies that time era, as it should. Dazed and Confused is a film that I can enjoy no matter what mood I'm in. So many teen high school films these days are moronic and try way too hard to be funny to immature kids. This is a true high school film that has heart and doesn't need to stoop to that low level, even with it's content being so childish.

Sit back, relax and enjoy Dazed and Confused.

Compared to the other classic 80's vampire flick The Lost Boys, Fright Night doesn't stand a chance, it simply doesn't have as strong characters, scenes or entertainment. BUT, Fright Night is still an entertaining cheesy film that should be watched by people who love the genre.

Yeah, I disagree with you & Honeykid and agree with Mark on this one: I happen to think Fright Night is better than The Lost Boys. Much better, I'd say. Though both of them are bested by Bigelow's Near Dark (1987). I'd even rate Vamp (1986) more highly in the mini-category of mid-'80s vampire flicks than Joel Schumacher's entry. I find The Lost Boys to be terribly overrated, all style with little substance or wit. It's not a bad movie at all, but it has been elevated by too many to a status it simply doesn't deserve, especially when compared directly to the superior Fright Night and Near Dark.

But, you each their own.

But I'm glad you gave The Changelng a spin and a high rating. It's definitely been underseen and underrated over the years; a very good ghost story.
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
DAY 64: November 3rd, 2008.


Before he was wearing tights and swinging from high rise buildings he was black and white and trapped in a town that was deemed perfect. Before she won an Oscar and dated an American psycho, she was a slutty sister who was trapped in a town that was deemed perfect. Oh yeah, the town was a fictional TV show called Pleasantville.

This is the first film from Gary Ross, and I was surprised to learn it was his first directorial effort. The film feels like it was crafted by someone with year in experience in filmmaking. Sure he's written stuff before, like the Tom Hank comedy Big, but Pleasantville is something completely different. It's a film that works on so many different layers. It's a beautiful story and craft that work together to give us one of the best film to come out of the 90's.

First, the cast is wonderful. The supporting cast is perfect and I thought William H. Macy delivers the hardest performance as the husband who doesn't want his wife to stray from her routine. Joan Allen plays the wife who discovers so many different things, one of them is self pleasure. Jeff Daniels works at a diner, but his true passion is painting.

The most notable part of the film is the brilliant use of colour and black & white. If people have never seen this film, but loved the way Sin City was done, check out Pleasantville. It is one hundred times better and actually means something to the story, not just used for artistic flash. Not saying that that is a bad thing. I just think that the use of something as artistic as that that can drive a story is much more interesting that having it in there because it looks 'cool'.

Even though it is billed as a comedy, I found it to be much more dramatic and more important that what people give it credit for. I think it has found it's audience now and is being remembered for what it should be instead of that film where they mix colour into black and white bits. This film is much more then that.

Yes, this is one of the best films of the 90's and I recommend it with two big thumbs up.

Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I also like Pleasantville, but it does seem to be two different films. The first half is humorous and whimsical, and the second half almost turns into a Stanley Kramer social drama. I still like it, especially for the creativeness, but I sometimes wonder if the transition from first to second half couldn't have been handled smoother. Of course, with the exquisite Joan Allen as the centerpiece of the second half, maybe I should just shut up now.