Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "My Bloody Valentine". They represent actual movie quality.

• Very Disappointing. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Having watched a small number of 3D titles prior to this in the Waterloo Imax (and having been impressed by those films), i expected this film to be something to 'shout about'. The 3d aspect in this film (compared to the other films i watched (i don't know perhaps i was expecting to much)was very poor. The trailer made it out to be as if objects look as if they truly are flying towards you, but this was not the case. However it is the storyline (and i use that word very loosely) of this film which is the main thing to complain about, it has more holes in it then a fishnet and is incredibly predictable, the fact that they can even call this a film astounds me and if i am alone in my view the fact that any fan of this 'film' can call themselves a film fan astounds me further. If 3D is to be the future of cinema (even though its been out since the 80's) then it needs to be greatly improved upon ( all i found it to do in this title was lower the films definition slightly ). Anyway, back to the point this film is honestly not worth seeing to stare at a wall for 2 hours would be much better entertainment.

• My Bloody Valentine posted on 30 Aug 2009

  When i saw the trailer on TV i couldn't wait to watch it. This being the first new 3D movie. I enjoyed the 3D effects that was coming out of the screen. I thought that it was very good what they came from, to what they have now.If i had to pick and problems with the movie, it would be the way that the victims were running away from the killer. They wasn't really running. They was walking fast and they always trip them selves up. That made me angry. The woulds that i shouted out was "For F*ck Sake". I couldn't believe that they still do that. I remember in the Freddy films all the girls ran at about 6mph. That was in the 80's. They should of thought of something else.Also from my own opinion, i didn't think that the movie was scary. I didn't jump at all. But the girl that was sat next to me, every loud sound that came from the screen she was always jumping. My girlfriend thought that it was scary. She said that it was the way that they told the story.The reason why i have given it a 5 was because because of the slow running and the falling over.The movie is worth seeing once. But once is enough.

• High Expectations that were Granted! posted on 30 Aug 2009

  This movie, hands down, was great.Leading into it I had high expectations, I was really excited to see it. The last time I saw a 3d movie before this one was probably 10 years + ago, and I'm glad that I saw another one. I had high expectations because it was 3D, and from the previews looked pretty good.When I first started watching the movie I was like "wow, look at the those wheel screw things for Lionsgate's entrance into the movie." It looked so cool, they literally were coming out at you. The last time I saw a 3d movie was Life on Mars, or something like that. I didn't have much to brag about it being in 3D, it wasn't good. But the way this movie used the 3d format was awesome. I remember watching several parts where things were popping completely out at you, and you had to jump a little bit. I recommend getting as close to the screen as possible for maximum experience.Now, even though there was awesome 3d parts, there were still other parts that I was thinking "what was the point of that part." Some parts were kind of dumb and didn't need the 3d effect they tried to pull off. This is probably the only complaint I have with the 3D use.Yes, the 3d parts, 95% of them were awesome, however, the most important part of any movie, 3D or not, is the acting. Also, since this was a horror film it's gotta be scary. Both lived up to the hype. Instead of using terrible teenage actors(except slightly at the beginning, but they were good young actors), the actors were mature, and knew exactly what to do in order to make the film scary. I couldn't even tell you how many times I jumped, it had to be at least 8. That's more than any other movie, and I don't get scared easily. The acting was good, and it made me jump several times. The suspense too, was intense and powerful! Lastly, the plot was great. I really liked how later in the movie they had you thinking about what was really going on, and who the bad guy was. Was it really Harry? Or was it someone else trying to discover the mysteries of him? I'm not gonna wreck it for you, but the outcome is great, although it was drawn out a bit.In conclusion, the movie was awesome, and in so many aspects. Most of the 3d was mastered to perfection, they didn't use stupid, horrible acting younglings or teenagers, the plot was spectacular, and the movie scared me. I actually got scared. That doesn't happen too often to me w/ scary movies and is rare to come across a good one.Well, go see the movie, and stop reading reviews, -jbujwit

• 3-D is okay, film not great posted on 30 Aug 2009

  This is a remake of the 1981 slasher, having to do with a maniac in a coal miner's costume killing everyone.I liked the original better, but this one is more fun simply because of the 3-D entertainment value.Having axes and fire come off the screen at the audience is what made it worthwhile for the ticket price, although you could have just as much fun going to an amusement park. It would be great if they could somehow make a 3D function on the DVD release somehow.There's plenty of gore for hard-core fans, some female nudity, killings and all that. Everything what you'd typically expect for this kind of horror.What the movie really lacks is some sort of originality. Actors are okay, good enough for this type of movie. Jaime King is particularly riveting.Other than that, if you're not expecting anything amazing story-wise, and just want some distraction it's an OK fun way to spend 2 hours.

• I would say that Lionsgate stopped trying, but they never tried in the first place. posted on 30 Aug 2009

  (rubs temple) oh dear. My bloody valentine 3-D (sighs) OK, here we go. One of the very first horror movies me and my friend saw together was the original My bloody valentine. So we thought it would be appropriate to see the new one in theaters. However that's like saying on the day you met your friend you got kicked in the nuts, so a year later you want to recreate the same scenario. The old one was crappy, but this brings crap to a whole new level. what level would that be you ask? why 3-D of course!! Well as they say, let's take a bite right in. Firstly, it starts off with a miner who survived a cave in and then preceded to kill his four miner friends that were stuck in there with him to save the oxygen. He's rescued, put in a hospital where he proceeds to kill people in the hospital in pretty damn disgusting ways. He then dons his miner suit and as there's a party in the mine he REALLY RANDOMLY pops out of nowhere and kills a whole bunch of kids. yep, the awesome part is pretty much in the beginning of the movie. It gets pretty gruesome, but it's not too gross yet. It looks like he's going to kill the main character but OH! here comes the sheriff (why is it never the police in these movies?) and they shoot at him...but they miss because they suck. fast forward to ten years later.Most people have gotten on with their lives except for.....well the girls. 1 girl got knocked up and is working at a supermarket while the other is a hooker. awesome career choices. the one guy who left his friend became the new sheriff and the kid who lived is now a drifter. now to clarify, when i say kid i mean the exact same actor as supposedly ten years ago but wearing a different shirt. great makeup guys. then out of nowhere the miner is back! oh noez! and he kills the slut and a trucker. and a midget. yes. he kills a midget. following this there's a whole "Who's the killer" thing going back and forth that i honestly didn't care too much about because the characters were so full of whine and angst that i just couldn't give a crap. after a whole bunch of old people get killed, oh, i forgot to mention. The drifter kid is back because he's going to sell the mine. but everyone's against it! "how dare you sell this mine that was the site to a collapse, death of 4 miners and then the site of a mass murder! how DARE you!" anyway the old people start getting killed pretty nastily (including the guy from halloween 3. i have to admit that was rather amusing) and at some points i must say, i looked away going "ewwww". But that doesn't say anything. gore does not make a good movie. anywho, we learn the killer is the drifter kid. despite the fact that there's a part in the movie where if he was really the killer there's no way he could have locked himself inside a cage, sealing it with the murder weapon and all of a sudden it vanishing into thin air. if we ignore that LITTLE oversight, maybe. and by little, i mean gaping plot hole that i could shove horatio from CSI Miami into. and of course, the murderer gets away after the sheriff and his shoprite wife beat him. leaving room for a sequel which lord knows shouldn't happen, but will. Overall, the movie was stupider than the original. it was gorier, the characters were not interesting at all, and i'd rather watch the original, and that's saying something considering i didn't even LIKE the original. the only thing that made this movie not a 1 was the novelty of the 3-D. in 2-D, this movie would have been a horrible passed over movie no one would ever watch. but because of its gimmick, it got my 13.50. And i want at least half of it back. I don't like my horror movies to be super ultra gory. it doesn't make them good. it just makes them gross. There's an art to doing gore correctly and this movie didn't do it correctly. This movie's not a valentine, it's not even an arbor day present. I could go on dissertating how awful this movie is, but sadly, there's a word limit, So my bloody valentine 3-D will have to suffice with 2 bloody hearts in candy boxes, out of 10.

• Not a kids movie, though you wouldn't have known that from all the children at my theater posted on 28 Aug 2009

  "My Bloody Valentine 3D" is a decent slasher movie with decent visual effects. The 3D images are used successfully, but most of the time you can figure what weapon, object or body part is going to suddenly fly off the screen and into your face. The story is pretty standard for horror movie fair. It has a "who-dunnit" kind of plot, and decent acting at best. Better than most of the dreck that is in the slasher category, but that isn't saying much.But what I found most interesting about this film isn't the movie itself, but the audience that attended the showing this afternoon at my local theater. I was amazed at how many young children, and I'm not talking about teenagers, but around 10 or younger were brought to this obviously violent and bloody movie. I haven't seen that many horror movies in theaters, I went to this one mainly to check out the 3D effects, but I don't understand why any parent or guardian would bring their children to a movie where, for example, one of the female victim runs around completely nude (ahem...full frontal) as a pick-ax wielding killer stalks her. Or another girl getting her head bisected by a shovel. Or a man getting a pick-ax through his chin and then having his jaw ripped off. I can go on. Not that one would be able to tell that these graphic scenes exist from the trailers and commercials playing on TV, but still it's pretty obvious that this is not intended for children.I wonder if these parents thought it would be OK with the whole 3D thing, making it more of a novel experience than a horror movie, or they just didn't want to get a babysitter for their little runts. Either way, I don't get it. Certainly parents should raise their own kids how they see fit, but it just shows that despite the rating system, movie studios and movie theaters don't care if kids see these films. I don't have kids myself, but I certainly would think twice about bringing my young child to a movie called "My Bloody Valentine."Oh well, whatever. At least I don't have to deal with any kids waking me up in the middle of the night screaming about nightmares with gas-mask wearing, pick-ax throwing psychos.

• Not your Grandma's 3-D posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I must admit: I went into this, being a huge fan of the original, with low expectations. But I was pleasantly surprised. The picture quality was amazing--especially the whole 3D aspect, which was not just used to show cheesy special effects, but to add depth and a realistic you-are-there look to the whole movie. Overall, I thought that the film was very fun and highly entertaining. I am not going to give out any spoilers here so you will have to GO SEE IT for yourself. I would definitely recommend it for date night! I am looking forward to next month's Friday the 13th to see if that movie does as much justice to the original as this one did to My Bloody Valentine.

• How the original should have been done! posted on 28 Aug 2009

  MY BLOODY VALENTINE is a remake of the 1981 movie of the same name.I have seen dozens upon dozens of slasher movies from the 1980s, which started with the truly terrific, Friday THE 13TH in 1980. I am a fan of such movies and am proud to be so. The original MY BLOODY VALENTINE was one of the countless examples produced to cash-in on the unexpected box-office success of Friday THE 13TH. Some fans of the original movie believe it is one of the best examples of the "cash-ins" but I feel that it was in reality a sub-par effort and not nearly as good as, say, THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW, SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE or SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT.The 2000s has been a truly terrible decade for horror movie productions, with various ghastly remakes forming a large portion of the output. The only decent examples of great horror movies from this period include SAW and WRONG TURN.The 2009 version of MY BLOODY VALENTINE is hardly Oscar-worthy material and probably won't win any awards but it does represent a rare example of a remake that surpasses the original.The set-up remains almost identical to the original - a miner named Harry Warden goes crazy and on Valentine's day murders several people with a pick-axe. The set-up scenes in this version are far superior to the original. They last much longer and generate much more suspense rather than the single shock killing in the original.The movie continues as it means to go on and the killer continues as mean as he intends to go on.The original movie descended into long periods of tedious scenes featuring various boring forgettable characters after the solid opening scenes. Only a few graphic killing scenes breathed life into it. In contrast, the remake is much better paced. There are plenty of graphic killings, gratuitous sex and nudity, incredibly funny moments and action-packed cat-and-mouse chases. It is also packed with clichés and throwbacks to the 1980s movies that prove to be a nice homage. If the original movie had contained these things, it would have been a genuine classic.I can demonstrate how this remake avoids the pitfalls of remakes of other movies made in the 2000s. There are no speeded-up action scenes killing intensity. There are no characters who conveniently forget about their fallen comrades two minutes after they are killed. There are no bright landscapes that make suspense impossible to build. There are very few "jump" scare clichés. And it pleases me to confirm that there are no, repeat no annoying moronic teenagers one usually finds in this type of movie. As such, the producers made decisions that allowed for the opportunity of a successful remake during a decade when most horror movies have been truly awful.Opinion is heavily divided over the quality of the acting and dialogue. Some claim the poor acting and idiotic dialogue are deliberate intentions on the part of the producers as part of a tongue-in-cheek approach. Others claim these factors degrade the quality of the movie to the level of straight-to-DVD movies. Regardless of which group is correct, I thought these factors added to the entertainment and provided a nod to the "so bad it's good" sub-genre I love so much.The identity of the killer is limited to a small number of characters but the script is carefully crafted to keep the viewer guessing until the final conclusion.Another good point of this movie is the score. Unlike most movies of this kind where a completely unrelated random pop or rap song is tagged on to the end credits, this one actually uses proper music that suits the tone of the movie. The ending credits also don't continue for about 10 minutes unlike most modern movies.The only real downside to the movie is the direction, which focuses far too heavily on showcasing the 3D effects, and not enough on the suspense and atmosphere. However, the effects are good enough to make the killings and attacks have a substantial impact. As such, the movie works as an updated version of the 1980s slashers in this respect.A second downside is the continuous overuse of strong language, which seems to make the script look amateurish and moronic rather than providing moments of humour and realism as was clearly the intention.My only other minor complaint is the waste of Tom Atkins - I believe this veteran of 1980s movies should have had a more prominent role. But in any scenario, it was a wise decision to include him in the cast.Overall, MY BLOODY VALENTINE is not a masterpiece by any means but is a remake that far surpasses the blandness of the original movie and worth seeing for fans of 1980s slasher movies.

• No plot; but hey, its in 3D. posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I am a fan of the original My Bloody valentine, come on killing someone and putting them in the dryer...classic. But the idea of a remake seemed dumb, but the idea of a remake in 3D...AWESOME! So I gave it a try. Holy crap, i'm glad I just borrowed this movie from a friend. There was no plot what so ever, it goes right into the killing and leaves you in the dark from the start. The sad thing is that I thought that the addition of Supernaturals Jensen Ackles would help, but it did not. And as usual, I found the following to be a bit bothersome, so please allow me to vent.....#1-What the hell is the deal with teens and partying at sites where huge mass murders occurred? GO TO THE MALL! Leave the sacred Indian burial grounds alone kiddies.#2-The killer comes into the store and the two chicks hide in the managers office, OK, thats to be expected, then they barricade the door, expected too. Then after the attack on the main chick she decides to push the fire alarm....WHY THE HELL DIDN'T YOU DO THAT FROM THE START? What were you thinking? You had enough time to make a phone call but not push a button? #3-Boobies....I love em, you love em. But when you decide to shoot a guy in a truck stop parking lot....Put clothes on, please. Its cold out.#4-The sheriff is having an affair, sure why not, and they decide to meet in a ratty old falling apart house? Ewwww. Classy.#5-How many explosions can one guy live through? Tom had been in two different explosions and not even a burn on him. Wow, he must have the same tailor as Freddy Kreuger.#6-Wow, the first time that the black guy wasn't killed/or the killer. Good going! #7-Jensen Ackles, did he even change clothes from his job on Supernatural? Half the time I thought I was watching him on TV. There was no difference from that character and Tom.#8-The camera....sometimes the movie had the feeling that it was a ABC movie of the week. The feel was just off.#9-When Bens body is found it is in the middle of the nowhere woods where they 'burried' the original killer. Who found his body? Who was out in the middle of nowhere in the morning going, 'Hey, is that Ben over there?" #10-When you're sitting all alone in your house drinking ourself silly, there is no better companion than a shot gun.Sadly, all in all this movie is just a crappy remake for teens who want to to scare themselves with a big group. And as much as I like Jensen Ackles, he should not give up his day job. If you're looking for a 3D flick with the usual cheap special effects that 'jump' out at you, then give it a try, but that is all you will get for your money.

• My Super-Bloody-De-Luxe Slasher Remake posted on 28 Aug 2009

  Boy, did this movie ever have to stand up against a whole lot of prejudices before it even properly got released into theaters! First of all it's a remake of an 80's slasher movie and, generally speaking these don't receive a very warm welcome from the horror-loving community. With good reason, by the way, if you remember crappy remakes like "Prom Night", "When a Stranger Calls" and "Black Christmas". Secondly it's a remake of an original that was never highly regarded at in the first place. The original "My Bloody Valentine", released in 1981 and directed by George Mihalka, was a rather mundane and unspectacular follower of John Carpenter's "Halloween" in the Holiday-Horror cycle that almost never receives a mentioning when people list their favorite flicks of the 80's decade. And then finally this new movie is directed by Patrick Lussier, who up until now only has his name linked to inferior horror junk like "Dracula 2000" and "White Noise 2". Many people, including yours truly, where therefore pleasantly surprised to see that "My Bloody Valentine 3D" turned out a hugely entertaining and gore-soaked slasher highlight of its generation. This is a totally unpretentious and incredibly fast-paced "Hack 'em Up" movie with stupendous 3D effects and a dazzling body count. The plot is intentionally kept simple and straightforward, though a few ambitious twists and effective red herring occur when approaching the climax, in order to treat the bloodhounds among us to even more engrossing massacres, gratuitous bits of sleaze and delightful throwbacks to typically 80's genre clichés. Set in the cozy and picturesque little mining town of Harmony, the story opens with the bloody – and I do mean BLOODY – rampage of a miner named Harry Warden. He got hospitalized after a dreadful mining accident caused by the boss' young and inexperienced son Tom Hanniger, but exactly one year later he escapes and kills half of the hospital staff before returning home and literally crash into a Valentine's party. Tom Hanniger and a few of his friends his friends are the only ones left alive when Sheriff Burke (Tom Atkins – Woo Hoo!) finally puts an end to Harry Warden's bloodbath. Ten years later Tom Hanniger returns to Harmony with the sole intent to sell his father's mine, but he learns that many things have changed since the tragedy he more or less caused a decade earlier. His high school sweetheart is married to the new sheriff and cheats on her and the elderly population hates Tom for his plans to sell the mine. When the vicious killer dressed in mining outfit and swinging around a pickaxe returns as well, Tom is the prime suspect as well. Is he really guilty or did Harry Warden return from the dead? "My Bloody Valentine" is a guaranteed horror crowd-pleaser with enough ingredients to satisfy the more experienced and skeptical "older" genre fans as well as young and over-enthusiast gore geeks. The special effects are stupendous, with pickaxes and severed human heads flying directly towards the audience, and marvelously over-the-top sanguinary! There isn't too much atmosphere or suspense, as the emphasis mainly lies on excitement, but the few sequences inside the mines nevertheless evoke some feeling of claustrophobia and fright. The attempt to insert an unexpected twist at the end is admirable. Adequate acting performances from all the young cast members and it was really fantastic to finally see Tom Atkins ("Maniac Cop", "Night of the Creeps", "The Fog"…) star is a worthwhile horror movie role again! Great, mindless splatter amusement.

• If you don't like this 3D, wait for another 5 years to get one better posted on 26 Aug 2009

  I think that this movie was great.And not just because I liked it and I don't know why.I have reasons.And good ones.It's hard to realize who the real killer is.I thought it was who it wasn't.The 3D movie effects were great.Even if they weren't a lot, they made me scary and frightened.There were some not so good movie parts,but you totally forget it if you don't think about it so much, and concentrate on the movie and on the plot.Anyway,I think that this movie doesn't deserve a 6.5/10, it deserves much more.And if you aren't a horror fan, you might become one.

• It's 'glasses on' for gory fun! posted on 26 Aug 2009

  Like so many people these days, I'd rather spend my hard earned cash on a DVD and watch a film in the comfort of my own home than pay a visit to the local multiplex: snacks are cheaper, you can pause the film when nature calls, and if someone starts to rabbit all the way through, you can tell them to be shut up without ending up in a fight (although the wife has been known to get punchy occasionally).But now it seems that the studios have decided to fight back, and they're playing dirty: I mean, who can resist the lure of a horror film on the big screen in 3D? Not me, that's for sure! Which is how I came to find myself coughing up way too much for a 'luxury' seat at the brand new local 9-screener—I guess I'm just a sucker for a silly gimmick (and it seems like I'm not alone, judging by the film's success at the box office)!A remake of an 80s slasher, this gory shocker stars Jensen Ackles as Tom Hanniger, survivor of a Valentine's Day massacre by masked killer Harry Warden. Returning home to the scene of the terrible incident exactly ten years later, Tom—now owner of the town's primary source of revenue, the local mine—intends to put his past behind him by selling the business and leaving town forever. Unfortunately, his plans do not run smoothly: the local mining community is not happy with his decision to sell the mine; Tom's love for old flame Sarah (Jaime King)—now the sheriff's wife— is rekindled; and worst of all, it looks like Harry Warden has returned, pick-axe in hand, to continue his gruesome work.After an introductory montage of news reports that set up a basic back-story for the killer, My Bloody Valentine starts proper with its gory prologue—the wholesale slaughter of a group of teens partying in the Hanniger mine. A tense and extremely bloody scene which showcases the newly developed 3D process to impressive effect, it's a promising start to a film that looks set to be an absolute stonker.The film then moves to the present day, and wastes no time in drenching the screen in even more of the red stuff as a masked maniac—dressed in attire identical to the now-presumed-dead Warden— attacks a couple at a sleazy motel, planting his pick in the bloke's head and chasing the buck naked babe for longer than is really necessary (but who's complaining?), pausing only to pin a dwarf to the ceiling with his pick. Completely bonkers with loads of gratuitous full frontal nudity (hooray for 3D tits and ass!!), this showstopper of a scene is my fave part of the whole film.Unfortunately, as if realising that he wouldn't be able to top that scene if he tried, director Patrick Lussier then opts to calm things down a little to develop the story, and much of the crazy exploitational vibe is ditched in favour of a more suspenseful approach. It's a bad move, and although the film continues to deliver the gore, proceedings become rather dreary and predictable thereon in (a shame... it was all going so well).Lots of extremely repetitive chases and pick-axe killings follow, and by the time the killer's identity is revealed (in a dumb moment that totally 'cheats' the audience, and rivals the end of High Tension for stupidity), there's a good chance that you'll have lost interest.Bereft of its 3D gimmick, I doubt I would rate My Bloody Valentine much higher than a 6, but with the added power of the third dimension, this score rises to an 8. Therefore, I'll average my score out to 7/10 for IMDb.

• Jason, cut your heart out posted on 26 Aug 2009

  A "bloody" mess of an opening slaughterhouse (or slaughterhospital) that makes the following month's 'Friday the 13th' reboot say "Jason, eat (or cut) your heart out and top this," comes an actual remake that's worthy of being seen. Although no clear answer is given to why the miner goes on a killing rampage in the first act, 'My Bloody Valentine' in 3-D is still an actually good and sometime scary film, at least the 3-D version I saw it in. Not to compare a completely different genre, but similarly, both 'Bloody' and Disney's 'Chicken Little' have one thing in common: neither probably would have been a very good film without the 3-D effect. I found myself jumping at more than maybe 3-4 scenes that, without the 3-D, I might have just yawned at the unoriginality. I know female nudity (or just a few shots of males) is predominate in slasher flicks, but believe it: I found it entertaining and sometimes funny to see a full-fledged naked female running to or from utter-death. The film's main flaws involve some incredibly slow scenes involving what I suspect they refer to as shallow-character development and a somewhat odd/overused twist in the closing. I recently saw the original for the first time and I love how this took the basic premise (okay, all it took was a dressed-in-black killer miner, a former townie returning and the film's title) and shaped it into today's time and tastes. Overall, it's predictable, clichéd, gory and relies heavily on 3-D effects. And yet, I still recommend it for open-and-loose minds just looking for a fun and gruesome time. Just make sure you see it in 3-D. Otherwise, it's like you're standing in line at an amusement park while watching others have fun already on the ride.

• What I expected, and that's a good thing posted on 24 Aug 2009

  My Bloody Valentine is a rare case in that it was a movie that I actually think it was a GOOD idea to remake. The original has a cult following, and it was a great movie, but definitely not up in the ranks of slasher fame with Halloween or Friday the 13th. This is the kind of movie to remake, one that falls just short of it's potential. Granted much of the reason that the original never hit with the impact it should have had to do with the MPAA butchering it, but that is besides the point.My Bloody Valentine 3D was pretty much exactly what I wanted it to be. It looked, played out, and felt like a balls to the wall 80's slasher flick, and in a time that is FLOODED with remakes that don't quite hit the right notes, that is a great feat in and of itself. This means that the movie didn't pull it's punches, and really had some great gore to write home about. There are hearts ripped out, jaws ripped off, and eyes gouged out (from behind!), and all of this goes on without it ever crossing into the "torture porn" genre. This is one of the movie's strong points and was definitely the thing that the original lacked. There are also a few tips of the hat to the original in the dryer scene and a scene where hanging pieces of clothing drop down one by one as the killer stalks Sarah.The storyline itself was so-so. It felt overcomplicated and there were a lot of things that I'm not sure needed to be there, as I don't think that they really added anything to the movie. The whole thing kind of plays out like a murder mystery, with a love triangle in the middle. I like that they played up that triangle, but the murder mystery isn't as well executed as it could have been. There are a number of suspects, as the original killer is supposedly dead, having been shot and wandering into the mine ten years prior, but like I said they over complicate things. Harry Warden was the original killer, and is a suspect, because his body was never found. That is fine, I accept that, but then they bring in this side-plot about how he was tracked down and shot by the sheriff, and then buried in the woods. They go to the spot he is buried, and his body is missing. Now tell me, what was the point of that? We are right back where we started. Harry Warden is STILL a suspect. The other big thing that I thought wasn't necessary was the affair that Axel is having and the cabin out in the woods. It only shows up a few times and really isn't important to the story. I also felt that more time should have been spent in the mines, and the ending lacked a bit of "oomph" to me, based on one simple fact. They reveal the killer before he is beaten. Now that's not necessarily bad, but he plays out the climax not in the miner costume, but in his street clothes, and his street clothes just are not as scary as the mining outfit.My biggest gripe with the movie is something at the end, after the killer is revealed. Part of the explanation feels like a cop out to me, but I won't say anything else as I don't want to do any spoilers.The Real D 3D in this movie really is the most impressive part, though. I was in awe at HOW 3D it was, and there is no way to really convey that effectively in words. It's not as simply as a pick-axe flying at you every once in a while. Think of it like this, any shot that has a foreground, middle ground, and background looks fully 3D. It really immerses you in the movie and is an experience like no other. It needs to be seen.All in all, while the plot was a little janky, the characters were interesting enough to keep me entertained, and the gore and real D 3D effects were amazing. This is definitely one to see in theaters if you can find one that has it in 3D. I recommend it.

• Deserves a solid 7/10 posted on 24 Aug 2009

  Lets start with the good things about this film. It was 3d and I think it made the film rather enjoyable to watch. When I first saw the trailer for this film, I was skeptical that the movie would suck and they would have the grand excuse "Well its 3d" as if that would make it awesome. With that said the acting was really good, the storyline was decent, towards the end you were sorta on the edge of your seat. This movie also did a decent job of creating an atmosphere.I do have a few issues with this move. I think they could have done much more with the 3d aspect. If you are thinking the pop out at you scenes are going to be right in your face then you are wrong. There is about 1 part when they do that. It actually made me angry because I said to myself "wow they really are capable of doing that,yet they chose not to"... While the dialog is pretty good, I found myself bored in the middle. There just wasn't as much mystery as they wanted to portray. Most of the victims that were murdered weren't developed well as characters, so I didn't really care. For example 1 victim was sleeping with a man who was married...With everything said this movie is a good experience. I say bring a date, get some popcorn, enjoy the nerdy glasses and have fun. Do not expect a "movie of the year", just a good time!

• Would not even scare a baby posted on 24 Aug 2009

  I was not expecting a lot from this movie and yet I was still disappointed. The directing is so god awful it's actually painful to watch and the reason for me saying this is that every single shot is a missed opportunity. It's like they intentionally looked at the scene and said wow it would be really scary if we filmed from these angles, with this lighting and these sound effects and background music....and the went in the complete opposite direction. This might all be on purpose because the movie studio thought it would make more money on a cheesy movie that even the biggest wuss would dare to see.Besides all this it lacks several of the other key elements:1. Bad character development - you don't care about the characters at all or relate to them.2. Lame killer - No reason for him killing the people (Yes a killer with no motives can be scary, but it's very hard to pull off and this movie doesn't come close...at all) And also no reason for the way a does it and no back story.3. Just generally a poor story that seems half baked and with lots plot holes and stupid ideas.So to sum up...NO ! this is not a good movie. I really love horror movies and I hope someone will come along and bring the genre back on track (Basically it's needs the Begins/Dark Knight treatment...In which I mean it has to be a serious project for all the parties involved)

• One-dimensional mess. posted on 22 Aug 2009

  The 3D horror movie; let's be honest, it's hard to think of a genre of film that ostensibly cries out for critics to get out their list of reasons why both mostly always fall flat on their face. By now, the very idea of such a film is sure to evoke predisposed contempt or a sardonic quip from those subjected to reel after reel of mundane horror year after year. Sometimes, and it's a very rare occurrence, but sometimes such movies surprise. My Bloody Valentine 3D, a remake of a bad slasher flick from the eighties blown up in three dimensions, is no exception to this general rule of thumb. Yet it's not necessarily the extra dimension that is to blame this time; no, the 3D isn't as distracting as it usually renders itself, instead offering brief glimpses of entertainment inside a shallow and mostly flat story. Coming from a director associated with such cinematic landmarks as The Eye and White Noise 2, My Bloody Valentine 3D isn't likely to get many people's hopes up beforehand and it unfortunately does very little to remove the stigma of the cliché-driven horror movie during its painfully slow run.The story of My Bloody Valentine proceeds just like countless other slasher flicks from the eighties and beyond; teenagers stumble upon a serial killer madman, some die, some survive to live with the scars. Set around ten years after this opening sequence, the movie then moves on to deliver another mystery story with no real mystery centred around a second coming of murders. So what does all this have to do with Valentines Day? Not much. A good majority of the script is spent detailing suspects getting slowly wacked off the list through a pick-axe to some part of the body, resulting in 3D chunks –of course- flying at your face. It can be fun to watch at first, sure, but there's no tension, suspense or horror to keep things moving; it's just a circus act with substance substituted with cheap "jump" moments. The inclusion of the Valentines theme seems like an arbitrary marketing scheme at best.Characters, despite their rendering are flat and relegated to playing out tired cliché motives and roles with mundane dialogue straight from the pits of horror movie hell. This, in tow with an abundant heap of contrived action sequences, ho-hum domestic drama and a cheap and predictable conclusion form what is essentially the backbone to an irredeemably flawed film that only briefly offers moments to enjoy; the rest is just tiresome formula.Aesthetically the movie is somewhat impressive. In direct contrast to a similar feature I seen only a few months prior, My Bloody Valentine looks quite good; that is, it uses the extra dimension of photography for some interesting effects. Sure enough there are moments when the use of such becomes overly kitschy, but it's hard not to be impressed by all this lifelike rendering when everything else is so flat. Goreheads should also be satisfied with the film's commitment to delivering extremely graphic images; My Bloody Valentine doesn't deceive with its title. The performances remain a testament as to why photography should always be considered after casting however. With the exception of leading man Kerr Smith, My Bloody Valentine is a cesspool of laughably bad acting; I suppose you could applaud them for recapturing the essence of eighties horror, but then you'd have to start giving out directorial awards to Roger Corman. Smith isn't Oscar-nominee material, sure, but his performance remains a ray of light within such a murky production.In the end however, there really is no way to recommend a viewing of My Bloody Valentine, especially if your cinema isn't offering the 3D experience. If anything the movie serves as a reminder that the extra dimension is a mostly superfluous addition to bad movies more often than not sent straight to DVD shelves. In turn the only reactions such fare is likely to garner are tiresome groans of audiences around the world as they are treated to the same old stupidity, only this time blown up with an already lauded gimmick. Those looking for anything remotely compelling or thrilling best look else where; no amount of extra-dimensional padding can save My Bloody Valentine from the shallow, one-dimensional mess that calls itself a screenplay.- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

• I Love This Movie, 3D or Not posted on 22 Aug 2009

  Everything about it was what i wanted an more.yes this film has a few flaws, but they really didn't change the experience for me. I took my fraternity brothers because I have been talking about this movie since i rushed last semester. they were all really skeptical. but once the movie started i kinda think they enjoyed it a little more than i did. but we were cheering, screaming, laughing, dodging gun barrels and bloody pick axes in our seats.this movie is a great roller-coaster thrill ride despite its minor pacing issues in the beginning of the film.great homages to the original and slasher films in general.i didn't see the end coming and was very content with its conclusion.yes some parts of the film would not be as entertaining in 2D but the film its self is a great slasher, good kills, lots of blood, chilling at moments, creepy, eerie, good plot. ild say its one of the best remakes because its so true to the genre and its rules. Betsy Rue has one of the more amusing and thrilling scenes and the grocery store scene has people yelling at the screen.plus we have a cast of smart self conflicted adults which made the character relationships better than in the original.plus...Jaime King has earned her place as a horror scream queen. im proud of her.it was a fun night and i will be seeing it a few more times this weekend and watching the hell out of it on DVD.overall the films an 8/10...not perfect but its a whole lot of something...dam good something.

• Predictable Let Down... posted on 22 Aug 2009

  I don't really like horror movies anymore because they are so predictable and lack scare. All the good ideas are already taken. But I am a huge fan of Jensen Ackles so I decided to watch it. It was a lot like most movies I have already seen nothing really new. I was really hoping for a huge plot twist in the end, like a really interesting reason. But it was a total let down. Everybody in the town knew who the killer was, and they were right. Total let down. Predictable from start to finish. There are a lot of gory scenes and grouse scenes worth seeing in 3D but that's all.Jensen Ackles is a great actor... just not in this...

• a new manner to make a film.ARISE THE VOTE posted on 22 Aug 2009

  If this movie was Spielberg would have had more. Since these strontium on the assumption that a film must be beautiful to be directed by big names like Spielberg, Lucas, Jackson, Cameron. .. All these assessments are wrong you understand the level of bad opinion of this site. Only films for intellectuals can be saved. This film was produced with many dollars and the optimal use of special effects make the place as among the best science fiction film Americans. Finitela of using double standards when judged as a movie, try to be objective because they give 3.8 a film of its kind and reward a crap how terrible sin city with 8.2 is really a 'offense. Vote 10 ARISE THE VOTE!!!