Q: Charlotte's deadly beauty and lethal kicks make the movie cooler than it'd be otherwise.The story is so poor and Charlotte's character dies in such a foolish way, that you wonder if this's the ending they had thought of for this movie. I wish somebody could tell that an alternative ending exists, but I fear it doesn't. As for the rest of the cst, well I'd say they simply didn't act very well; although the blame should be put on the poor script.This movie reminds me of Rush Hour 2 where Zhang Ziyi dies in absurd way, since she had been the only one who had stolen the show during the whole movie. I could give this movie 2/5
A: negative
Q: Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.

Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .

Obligatory Horror Elements:

- Subgenre: Slasher

- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.

- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.

- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.

- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.

- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.

- - -

Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug!

-AP3-
A: negative
Q: Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.
A: negative
Q: Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.
A: negative