1. “Magnificent Warriors (1987)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    Amusingly, ripping off Indiana Jones probably made "Magnificent Warriors" into the most original kung fu flick since...ever...I expect characters to introduce their fists to the faces of their enemies, but I don't expect aerial combat, fedoras and explosive car chases.
  2. “23:59 (2011)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    "23:59" has a strong first act, shrouding itself in mystery, a chillingly foreboding atmosphere and creepy scares. Unfortunately, its initial success only makes the rest of the movie suck that much harder. Even though I adore military themed horror flicks, this ghost-thriller is a casualty of war.
  3. “Outpost (2007)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    Allegedly, we were supposed to see more of the Nazi-Ghosts, but the lack of money meant substandard make-up. So they wisely kept the villains in the shadows, which is always a better idea. Then when we do get a good, hard look at these monsters, the make-up can be a little more frightening. I suspect that if "Outpost" had more money to work with, it wouldn't have been as effective.
  4. “Dead Birds (2004)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    “Dead Birds” is a sloppy mess that thinks it's scary, but the sense of unease dissipates before the first half of the movie is even completed. It also wastes its concept, which perhaps is the most damning complaint coming from a fan of Military-Horror features. Grrrr.
  5. “R-Point (2004)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    I've said it once and I'll probably say it at least four more times, but I want to see more horror movies take place during wartime. Perhaps I should feel guilty for these feelings, as war is horrific enough without ghosts troubling the poor soldiers. Or maybe I should just feel stupid because War movies tend to be epic, big budgeted affairs while the horror genre is on the opposite side of the spectrum. But I love them and "R-Point" stood out even more because it was set during the Vietnam conflict.
  6. “Deathwatch (2002)” movie review.

    Posted by
    /
    “Deathwatch” dared to explore territory within the horror genre that most filmmakers tend to shy away from. What happens if you take some sort of War story, but then turn it into a horror film? That has to be one of the most underused concepts with either genre. Why? It's possibly because of tastes. Isn't war horrific enough without zombies or ghosts attacking people? I personally suspect that budget restrictions are the real reason, however. War movies cost a lot and horror movies don't. yet here comes "Deathwatch", a war/horror film that I can swoon over.