The Hills Have Eyes Part II is a terrible 1985 film where nothing happens and everybody has flashbacks all the time, including a dog. The Hills Have Eyes 2 is an equally terrible sequel to the 2006 remake of The Hills Have Eyes (but, it’s important to note, is not itself a remake of The Hills Have Eyes Part II). The point is, both movies are awful.
Rating: 
Carrie could have been the most well acted film of all time. Sissy Spacek as Carrie and Piper Laurie as her mother have been praised extensively ever since the movie came out, and none of it has been undeserved. They’re wonderful. The supporting cast, too, is phenomenal. Amy Irving as Sue Snell, P.J. Soles as that girl who always has a red hat on, some blond guy who looks a lot like Roger Daltrey from Tommy as the boyfriend, everyone is just great. This film is 100% full of excellence in actors, you’re tempted to say. And then along comes John Travolta stinking his way across the screen as idiot/hoodlum Billy Nolan. However, if we can ignore Travolta’s stupid voice and irritating face and awful everything, what we’re left with is a movie full to bursting with dynamite performances.
The movie tells the story of Carrie White, a weird, ugly girl that nobody likes. When she’s left completely bewildered by getting her extremely delayed first period one day in gym class, all the other girls torment and laugh at her. Her belated entry into puberty and and her strong emotional reactions to the taunts of her classmates lead her down a road of discovery, a road that ends with the realization of her awesome telekinetic powers. Having an effect on the physical world using only the power of her mind, that’s Carrie’s game.
Rating:
Every once in a while, a movie comes along and re-defines its genre. Its visuals are unique and fresh, its storyline is original, it tears down longstanding stereotypes about its own mythos.
Unfortunately, 28 Days Later, the latest “ground breaking” zombie movie from Alex Garland and Danny Boyle, isn’t one of these movies. Or, more accurately, it doesn’t know if it wants to be one of these movies or not.
It certainly does have some elements of originality. The “zombies” are much more aggressive than we usually see them, and the scenes in which they are featured are just sparse enough, and intense enough, that they are worth quality scares.
Rating:
My compatriot here at Melted Reel reminded me recently that, as a writer, you must learn to “kill your darlings.”
Meaning, there are aspects of a creation which you love the most, and which you have undoubtedly spent the most time and effort on — and you must sacrifice some of their individual luster in order to benefit the whole. The time you’ve spent on them likely means that they’re overwrought and distracting.
The very same advice could have (and should have) been given to Rob Zombie, the writer/director of this year’s remake of “Halloween.”
The first act of this updated classic is clearly where Zombie saw the opportunity to leave his unique imprint on a classic story. And imprint it, he certainly does. The problem is, the rest of the film is such a well done and dedicated homage to the original, the unique flavor of the inserted back story is nothing more than a distraction, detracting from the film as a whole.
