IN: Review: Deliverance is John Boorman's 1972 horror/thriller movie about a group of four Atlanta businessmen (Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and Ronnie Cox), that undertake a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River before the river is dammed. Along the way, a raft (no pun intended) of unpleasant things happen to the men. Despite the nasty happenings in this picture, Boorman captures the natural beauty of the river nicely. The location was really chosen well. Indeed, this would still be a very nice film to watch, had the canoe trip gone smoothly. The lush forests and gentle landscape only make the horror more horrible. Not only is the location scenic, but also beautifully shot thanks to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond. It has been said that Burt Reynolds' performance as the outdoorsman, Lewis, is the star acting role in this film. I reckon however, that Jon Voight steals the show with his role as the suburban family man, Ed, who is rapidly forced to change his demeanour in order to survive. In fact, the scene in which climbs the cliff was not a stuntman. It was Voight himself. To cut costs the filming wasn't insured and the actors did their own stunts. The soundtrack is particularly noteworthy. Eric Weissberg's and Steve Mendel's performance on guitar and banjo as part of the Duelling Banjos sequence remains one of the most awesome pieces of soundtrack in the history of cinema for the sheer intensity of its performance. At a couple of other points in the movie, we are treated to more, softer, banjo music which provides a very pleasant accompaniment to the trip down the river For all the good points of this film, I did find it a little lacking in purpose. It doesn't build suspense very well and it isn't really as gruesome as we have been led to believe. The plot itself is somewhat poor and it doesn't really go anywhere. Nevertheless, this movie has enough good points to get my recommendation. I did like it but for fans of gore, there isn't really much of it. None really, in fact. It isn't so much a horror film as an adventure film that turns a little bit sour. Think of it like Rambo: First Blood meets Three Men In A Boat. Look out for a very young Charley Boorman as Ed's son. I did like this movie, the soundtrack, cinematography and acting earns it a well deserved 7 out of 10.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Ulli Lommel's 1980 film 'The Boogey Man' is no classic, but it's an above average low budget chiller that's worth a look. The sequel, 1983s 'Boogey Man II' is ultimately a waste of time, but at the very least it's an entertaining one if not taken the least bit seriously. Now II left the door open for another sequel, and I for one wouldn't have minded seeing at least one more. One day while I was browsing though the videos at a store in the mall I came across a film entitled 'Return of the Boogey Man.' When I found out it was a sequel to the earlier films I was happy to shell out a few bucks for it...I should have known better. Though the opening title is 'Boogey Man 3,' this is no sequel to those two far superior films I named above. Well, not totally anyway.

Pros: Ha! That's a laugh. Is there anything good about this hunk of cow dung? Let's see...it has footage from 'The Boogey Man' and, um...it's mercifully short. Yeah, that's about it.

Cons: Where to start? Decisions, decisions. First of all, this movie is a total bore. It goes from one scene to the next without anything remotely interesting or scary happening. The acting is stiff at best. The "actors" are most likely friends of the director who had no acting experience whatsoever before, and probably none since. The plot is nonexistent and script shoddily written. The direction is just plain awful. The director tries to make the film look all artsy fartsy by making the camera move around, lights flicker, and with filters, but it adds nothing. The music is dull and hard to hear in parts. Ties to the original are botched. Suzanna Love's character was named Lacey, not Natalie! And the events depicted in the beginning of the original did not take place in 1978. Also, if this has a 3 in the title, why is there no mention of what happened in II? Finally, this adds nothing new or interesting to either the series or the genre.

Final thoughts: The people behind this waste of time and money should be ashamed of themselves. It's one thing if that had been an original film that was the director's first and sucked. But instead it's supposed to be a sequel to film that is no masterpiece, but is damn sure far more interesting and entertaining than this. If there ever is another sequel, which I doubt it, then it needs to forget this one ever happened and be handled either by Lommel himself or someone who has at least some idea of how to make a decent horror film.

My rating: 1/5
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Tight script, good direction, excellent performances, strong cast, effective use of locations....

Paul McGann gives a detailed, subtle performance as the man in the centre of a new murder investigation who may just have committed a similar murder previously.

There is an interesting moral & emotional journey happening with his character (Ben Turner) and it intersects with the journey undertaken by Amanda Burton. Inevitably they cross over... Who has done what?

The examination of WHY, both in the past and in the present, rather than WHO might have yielded a more interesting, Dostoyevskian story, but hey, who's complaining?

What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive