GregJayC

I can't help feeling that people are being too hard on this film. OK, I'll admit it: it so wants to be trendy, it screams low production values (about six film studios had to inject cash into it just to get a release), and it's basically a mess. But at least it's different...

Most reviewers have compared it to Scream. Scream was a fine movie, even spawning some decent sequels and half-decent copies. But you just can't put Long Time Dead into the same subgenre. It isn't an ironic, trendy, sometimes-funny kind of film. Instead it's dark, menacing and - although silly in places - still manages to produce a few good moments. A comparison to Jeepers Creepers is much more fitting. Personally, I loved Jeepers: it signalled an end to the moribund Scream-type, which has been done to death, and instead returned to the roots of pure horror: trying to scare.

Long Time Dead, while not as good as Jeepers Creepers, has a good stab at this too. Yes, sometimes the Djinn idea seems silly, and the ending definitely lets the rest of the film down - but on the whole it's rather good. I disagree with pathetically picky reviewers who comment on the acting and the production crew's abilities - at the end of the day, it's a Friday night movie intended to give a few jolts. Why do you expect every film you see to be up to the standard of the best?

I also happen to disagree with people who comment on the lack of gore or explicit death scenes. I was surprised to realize, after I'd watched the film, that not one single death was shown on screen - when I was watching, I didn't notice this at all. Surely this is a sign of success. Besides, there was plenty of after-death gore, for those that look for that kind of thing. It's one of the bloodier movies of recent times. Perhaps this is down to differences between the theatrical and the DVD versions. I saw the latter.

One point I will concede: like many others, I hated the characters. Personally I don't sympathize with people who take drugs, hang around all the time and seemingly don't have jobs. This made it a lot harder to feel for those who died (and there were a lot of deaths to sit through). There were a few exceptions to this: the characters of Liam, Annie and Webster, I quite liked. (Lukas Haas alone in the house with "it" was one of the best scenes in the film).

To summarize: it's slightly clichéd but original in places; the acting is perfectly acceptable for a film of this type; and in my opinion it succeeds in producing some truly scary moments - and I have seen a lot of horror films.

So don't listen to people who: (a) hype the movie so much that they think it's "the best horror in years" or: (b) dismiss it as extremely predictable and boring.

Because they're all wrong. It's not brilliant, but it certainly isn't bad. And it's at least worth a rental fee.

Reading most of the user comments of this film, I can't help but notice that many say it is a "rip-off" and complain that there is a lack of originality and character development. Even more groan-inducing were some peoples' superficial comments regarding Katherine Heigl's weight or the number of females in the film. Are those really valid reasons to dismiss a movie?

Firstly: what do you expect? Directors and studios cannot be blamed for adhering to well-established formulae when people like you (and me, for that matter) go and see them in droves. Instead of dismissing the film as a mere clone *after* you have seen it, perhaps you should expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised when a spark of originality does come up.

Because this film in particular has more of it than most. OK - so there is a killer in a mask who stalks and kills in a variety of ways. But seriously: there has to be a number of deaths in a horror film, and how else is it going to be achieved? OK, so perhaps the mask is a cliché that could have been abandoned. Or certainly improved - that supposed "cherub" face did nothing for me.

As far as characterisation goes, there is a fair amount considering the ninety minute length. The character of Dorothy, although slightly stereotyped, is somewhat intriguing and portrayed admirably by Jessica Capshaw. Denise Richards, despite the claims of many, did the best with what she was given.

One of the most original aspects of this film is the lack of a singularly defined protagonist. There is no Sidney Prescott/Laurie Strode heroine who is targeted but virtually invincible. The screen time is devoted equally to a few of the characters. One effect of this is that you never quite know who will be next or what certain character's motives are. This adds to the overall strength of the denouement - which is one of the best endings that I have seen for a long time in a film of this genre .

The fact that Valentine contains references to Carrie, as well as many slasher films from the eighties, is neither annoying nor outstanding. Such touches can be effective, and as long as it is a step away from the ironic, in-jokey, post-modern Scream-type slasher (which was fine while it lasted, but has become overdone), then there is nothing wrong with it.

Overall, a very entertaining and stylish movie. It is much better than Blanks' "Urban Legend", which was itself a fine film in some places. The only thing that could spoil this film now is a sequel. And I love sequels.

Firstly, it may be something of a cliché, but it has to be said: the book is vastly superior to the film, and should ideally be read beforehand. There is the constant danger that the violence and imagery of the movie enthralls to such an extent that the original meaning becomes lost - thus, we end up with psychopaths hailing the film and ignoring its message simply because it is violent and "against the 'norm'", and at the opposite end of the spectrum, people becoming so disgusted by the scenes that they do not care if the film has a message or not.

Incidentally, too much fuss is made over the 21st chapter being omitted in the film as in the US version of the book. Included or not, the film still contains the fundamental message (only to a different extent) that choice is a basic right of all human beings - whatever Alex chooses in the end reinforces this.

But I will try not to dwell on the philosophical aspects of the film too much. Entertainment-wise, "A Clockwork Orange" is a total gross-out. It's recommended for those who are impassive towards, (or, God forbid, in favour of), "ultraviolence". Personally, I think that the violence is exaggerated - the notorious and unnecessary drowning scene leaves you both speechless and wondering, "How did they do that?"

As far as symbolism goes, there is a lot. It will go straight over the heads of some people - it went over mine, and I am studying this book in English Literature class. Nonetheless, it's enjoyable, but should ONLY be taken seriously if you want to fully consider its moral messages, of which there are plenty. Otherwise, just enjoy it and then forget about it.