^^ I really really liked that one as well. Definitely creeped me out and made me jump a few times... I also thought that it did incredibly well with the feeling of isolation and complete and utter hopelessness. I was really impressed with this, especially since I wasn't a huge fan of the ads.

And HA ROSHIQ! I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO LIKED IT! IN YOUR FACE!! :p

Certainly gets my Seal of Approval.

A small bit of note - a hard-hitting sequence in the climactic turn of events involved the lead character and a rat inside the tunnels (not disclosing any more due to spoilers). The filmmakers could have easily left that bit out and proceeded with the entire climax and the film would have lost none of it's effectiveness. But that one scene alone shows the quality of the film, and the state of the lead character - confused, tired, scared witless, claustrophobic, alone, and completely resigned to the situation. And of course, extremely hungry. What a shocker that was.

Source Code: Decent big budget sci-fi thriller. Thought Jake Gyllenhaal did a good job in what is a pretty entertaining story. Good pacing, keeps you interested and encourages you to think about the plot dynamics.... Although probably best not to analysis the whole parallel reality angle too far as its a little sketchy at best.

"Duel At Diablo" (1966)
-James Garner, Sidney Poitier

Plot: IMDB

Lieutenant McAllister is ordered to transport several ammunition wagons to another fort through Apache territory with only a small troop of rookie soldiers to guard them. Along for the ride is ex-scout Jess Remsberg who is trying to track down Ellen Grange, who, having recently been freed from Apache captivity, has mysteriously run off again to rejoin them. Remsberg frees Ellen again and leaves her with the embattled soldiers as he rides off to the fort, not only for help, but to find the man who killed and scalped his Indian wife.

Phantom's Review: Terrific, action packed western adventure. The film has a tough, realistic feel to it's action scenes, but also has some excellent dialogue and some very dramatic moments. Garner and Poitier are both excellent. If your in the mood for a solid well made western film, this is a good choice.

May be I need to see it again but I really found it pretty cheesy overall. The ghosts weren't scary & most of the characters were as usually annoying. I'm not saying it's a bad film but average. It just didn't live up to my expectations.

Oh, yeah...the CG Plague has started! V is already infected! The end is near! ALERT EVERYONE!

:D:D:D

>> Kalevet aka Rabies (2010) : B

First horror film from Israel! I wonder with so much history & bloodshed, why they never made any before?! Anyway, it was nicely filmed & quite entertaining. The film revolves around a series of bloody mishaps between a psychopath running after Ofer and his sister Tali as well as a group of 4 friends, a hunter-couple and 2 crooked cops; resulting from a series of serious misunderstanding & mistreatment! Worth a watch, better than Grave Encounters!

>> Playback (2012) : C-

Oh, worse than Grave Encounters! (hihihi!)

>> Puss in Boots (2011) : B-

Quite average. Expected it to be lot better.

>> Hugo (2011) : A-

The best of 2011 so far, along with The Artist!

>> The Woman in Black (2012) : B+

Definitely the 1989 TV adaptation is superior than this film, particularly plotting the story, characterization & even in terms of spook-elements. But this is a decent effort though. I haven't seen any Harry Potter film yet, so this is my first Daniel Radcliffe film and as a regular movie viewer I'm slight disappointed from his performance. There was sophistication for the role but throughout the film there's only 1 or 2 kind of expression (& sometimes even wooden!) I saw in his face which I think could be done with more varied approach.

the woman in black, i actualy prefered this more than the old one, i found it had more jumpy moments and more creepy than the original, i will say i prfered the original story more. Def thumbs up from me. 8/10

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...500_AA300_.jpg

Heard so many good things about this one, but I am not impressed.

When the core of a film is good and solid, often the smaller flaws are overlooked, specially in the case of low-budget (indie) efforts. This one from Down Under Land had potential, but blew it because of two main reasons - lack of sustenance of atmosphere, and a complete disconnection of (implied) opening and (real) ending.

The first main reason is quite obvious - nearly half the film is over and nothing happens. The makers try to pass this off as a real documentary-styled film complete with intercepts of interviews with the survivors, who are NOT supposed to survive in the first place. (if anyone does survive the events of this film, he/she would be mentally scarred for life and not continuing to lead a normal life thereafter)

And the interviews themselves become pretty annoying, and instead of explaining things a bit, they start to get on your nerves. The climax certainly didn't need extended interview footage; instead they could have shown a bit more about the "creature" itself - mutant, possessed human, deformed human, male witch, failed government experiment...what was it? Even a slight clue would have been nice.

The filming bit is quite good - capturing the silent, dank and eerie silence of the underground tunnels with the occasional break through water drops, faraway creaks and trains on rails somewhere in the distance.


***SPOILERS START***



And I actually loved the fact that they didn't explain everything in detail and left a lot of things for the imagination (specially about the "thing"). But the contradictions which pour in when you sit back after the film is over to ponder over plausible explanations are so many, and the credibility of the "thing" goes out of the window.

If it's a demon, how could anyone survive it, let alone 3 very frightened and frail humans?
If it's a human, how can it hang on ceilings and have any possible use of human eyes?
(Jeepers Creepers?)
Then again, if Jeepers Creepers is the answer, then why did it shrink away from light?
Why the heck would "it" want to use the camera and record?
If it's a deformed human, how could it chant Satanic verses when it was trying to drown the female lead?
And lastly, if it is a human, how could it move so fast when "it" took out the guard and the soundman? And if it was really so fast, why couldn't it finish off the female lead and the other guy who bled to death on the platform?



***SPOILERS END***


And I have a big problem with the total lack of synchronisation of the very beginning with the climactic ending. The implication of the start of the film was one and one thing only, and that was not what the ending really showed. Add to all this the really annoying female lead, and the actress who performed her wasn't as good as the one in Grave Encounters. The only good ones were the soundman and camera man, and sadly they didn't have enough screen time.

Direction left a lot to be desired. Cinematography and effects (especially sound) are commendable.

Promising, had potential, but execution wasn't upto the mark. It still had it's moments though.


* *

"Godzilla 2000"

Plot: IMDB

Godzilla saves Tokyo from a flying saucer that transforms into the beast Orga.

Phantom's Review: First "Godzilla" film after that wretched American film was made, brings the Big G back home where he belongs. Plenty of monster action, a very cool looking "Godzilla" costume and a basic plot make this an entertaining film. Not the greatest "Godzilla" movie, but certainly not the worst.

lizard in a woman's skin
tucker & dale vs evil
rolling thunder
deadheads
hostel pt 3
the social network
whiteout