A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) Review:

When franchises begin going past the trilogy mark, there are only a few reasons why. Some of this is either because the series has a loyal fanbase, the series itself has likable characters or a well written narrative or it just makes a ton of money. There are also times where the reason consists of all three of these combined. A few years back, Wes Craven had created a new kind of horror that people would literally see in their dreams and his name was Freddy Krueger. The series itself up to this point had gone through a rollercoaster in quality and approval by viewers. The first is considered to be the best (which is usually the case), the second had most people scratching their head and the third had more people satisfied than before by bringing the story back to its original roots. For this entry, there are definitely parts of the script that worked as well as other components but it isn't as great a comeback as A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987). Most people would probably say this is between the second and third film.

Joey & Kincaid return!

For this sequel, Renny Harlin who was a relative newbie at the time, sits in the director’s chair. Writing the screenplay however was by a whole new set of people. One of which, Brian Helgeland, was their first time penning a theatrical script. Helgeland would later write for L.A. Confidential (1997), Payback (1999), Man on Fire (2004) and Legend (2015). The other two writers were Jim Wheat and Ken Wheat, who are now best known for creating Vin Diesel's Riddick role from Pitch Black (2000). The story picks up some time after the third where it seems even though the last of the Elm Street kids finished off Freddy, he's still around. Kristen Parker (now played by Tuesday Knight instead of Patricia Arquette) keeps having bad dreams and dragging Joey (Rodney Eastman) and Kincaid (Ken Sagoes) back into them. Soon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) is resurrected and the fight for survival begins all over again and this time, the dream warriors bring in more characters.

Joining the group is Kristen's boyfriend Rick (Andras Jones), her sister Alice (Lisa Wilcox), smarty Sheila (Toy Newkirk), muscle punk girl Debbie (Brooke Theiss) and not so cocky jock Dan (Danny Hassel). Of these group of characters (old or new), they all carry something about them that make them likable and that's appreciated. Most horror films just give teen roles the "no crap given" attitude but here, they aren't the typical bunch of high school teenagers. They are certainly not as magnetic as the original dream warriors but the audience can still get attached to them. Aside from characters though, not all of the script does its job. For one thing, Krueger's explanation for coming back to life feels weak and brushed over. It undoes all the effort that went into the third film but oh well. Also the continuity lacks a bit. Sure what’s left of the original dream warriors are still around, but why don't they teach the new group how to fight in their dreams? Instead it all goes to Alice (aka the Dream Master).

For that, it just feels extra lazy because what good is it to learn something important only to not show anyone else when needed? What's the sense in that? It’s not only this but it straight up insults the intelligence of the characters from the prior entry. Surely they were smarter than this. However, that's about it for errors within this film. Even the method here of killing off Freddy is still mostly acceptable. The gore and scares to this horror film are effective most of the time too. If you’ve seen enough horror movies, this won't be scary but there are definitely some gross scenes that can be hard to look at. Some limbs just shouldn't bend certain ways...yuk. The special effects incorporated to make these scenes and the dream sequences work are sufficient in their purpose. There was probably only one scene an effect look blatantly pasted over an actor but that's it. The rest looks like practical effects in its glorious 1980s appeal.

"Welcome to wonderland...Alice!"

Steven Fierberg was the director of photography to this picture. For the shots on screen, Fierberg doesn't have a look that he gives all his own, but he does keep the scenes clear and visible to a point. He also tries to recreate the visual style of the prior movies with keeping Krueger in the shadows for a bit. Finally is the musical score composed by Craig Safan. It feels as if the Elm Street series can't seem to find a permanent composer. Thankfully, they have managed to keep the main theme concrete. Just like Angelo Badalamenti’s score, Safan sticks to Charles Bernstein's memorable Nightmare cue with music box and electronic synths. Here however, the score doesn't sound AS cheap as Badalamenti's. There are times where the sound of the music feels more wholesome than the previous film. Then again, it still has that 80s quality to it as well. Safan could have also expanded the score to focus on the characters and important scenes but for now it at least keeps it simple.

Most entries at this point get pretty bad, but this passage maintains some of the better quality that made A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) an entertaining sequel. The music is still creepy and the characters remain unorthodox to the usual high school teen tropes. Just don't expect any good reasoning behind Freddy's return or some decent common sense at times.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Bandidas (2006) Review:

Through the 90s and early 2000s, several foreign celebrities made it big in Hollywood. These people weren't just actors; some were also directors, writers and producers. Those three particular attributes can be given to Frenchman Luc Besson. Known for his surprise hits like directing Léon: The Professional (1994), The Fifth Element (1997) and writing The Transporter (2002) series and Taken (2008), Besson has rewarded many of his viewers with enjoyable movie viewings. This goes for either American or French made films. The same could be said for actresses Penélope Cruz and Salma Hayek. Both have worked on numerous projects that received positive acclaim like Blow (2001) and Desperado (1995) respectively, for the material covered. This also goes for American or Spanish cinema. Now if you take those three people and put them together, you get this movie, which is quite average. It's rather baffling when considered because these people have made better, but this production is no low mark either.

Dwight Yoakam as Tyler Jackson

Here, Salma Hayek and Penélope Cruz play two strangers from two opposite worlds that happen to cross paths and have circumstances that force them to become closer. Penélope Cruz plays Maria, a struggling farm girl who lives with her father in New Mexico. Salma Hayek plays Sara, a wealthy daughter of the don who controls the land Maria lives on. As Sara's father works with the western migrating Americans, both ladies' become forced under the rule of Tyler Jackson (Dwight Yoakam). It is at this point, they decide to fight and take back what is rightfully theirs. Their method of attack - robbing all the banks within the city limits. The training is done by Bill Buck (Sam Shepard) a professional bank robber. Taking a side step over, audiences are also introduced to Quentin (Steve Zahn), a newly appointed scientist who has developed the ways of solving crimes via CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. His role is to find out who is behind the bank robbing.

The script was penned by Luc Besson and his reoccurring writing buddy Robert Mark Kamen (The Fifth Element (1997), The Transporter (2002) & Taken (2008)). I guess not every writing duo has the greatest idea and it's not to say this couldn't have worked. The concept might've, but so much of this just feels unoriginal. Aside from having two female leads pair up, every other element was seen before this and not that long ago either. The story of having some "evil American" wanting to take over Mexico has been seen in both The Mask of Zorro (1998) and The Legend of Zorro (2005). Even the finale feels like a mix of both. Oh and they both have comedy relief horses. Although Zorro was a fictional character, he did symbolize something. Here the idea itself sounds good, because it empowers females, but it serves no real purpose at times. Sometimes it feels like it was just a bunch of fanboys writing their personal fantasies. It just feels that immature. I'm not saying it shouldn't have comedy, but its tone is unfocused.

This brings us to our next problem; direction. Credited to this movie as their first theatrical film was Norwegian filmmakers Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. As their first outing, it seems as though this duo can't figure out what genre this film needs to be. Originally it starts out like a western adventure, then moves to comedy and then to spy genre. It's all over the place to the point where some viewers may not be able to relate. The last issue here is Dwight Yoakam as the main antagonist. Yoakam underplays his role by sounding and looking like he sleepwalked through almost every scene. Not a great choice. That's as frustrating as it gets though because there are still some positives to enjoy. Thankfully, Hayek and Cruz are able to salvage some of the script with their banter. There are occasional funny moments specifically where they both challenge each other to who can give the better kiss to Quentin. Words probably cannot describe how envious some actors may be over Steve Zahn.

Yeah,.....I'm sure Zahn did not mind

The action is another energetic spectacle to the movie. More specifically, because this takes place during the old west, viewers get a chance to see some gun slinging and other types of western situations. Lastly, the post production crew is also just another set of the Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen group. The cinematography was managed by Thierry Arbogast who has worked on Léon: The Professional (1994), The Fifth Element (1997) and even the dreaded Catwoman (2004) movie. The shots used throughout the movie are clear and bright enough for viewers to watch and enjoy. The music composed by Eric Serra was decent too. Serra's ability to adjust the tone of his music to the proper scene is noteworthy even with its unfocused direction. For this, the score has a combination of Spanish themes, hillbilly-like instruments, strong guitar, percussion and even tracks that sound like Christopher Lennertz stepped in for a brief cue. It's that versatile.

The film score, cinematography, action set pieces and main leads all have the right appeal but the script heavily borrows ideas and plot devices from both Zorro films before it. There are also moments where it just feels like it was written because it would appeal to guys more. Lastly, the villain is underplayed to the degree of uninteresting.

Points Earned --> 5:10

'71 (2014) Review:

Through recorded history, humans have fought each other since the beginning of time. Whether this was over something legitimate or something completely worthless, humans start making ruckuses when they don't get what they want. So much so that these uproars turn into huge confrontations that go on for lengthy periods of time. Look at the civil rights movement in the United States. African Americans fought for ages just to get their own rights and have the same level of equality as everyone else within the same borders. It's ridiculous how long it took for people to accept this way of thinking. Mind you this is only one place during a certain period in the history of the world. Before this there occurred civilian riots and revolutions before then and it also happened simultaneously during that time. Even now there are places with civil unrest. With that said, several stories of these struggles have been made into films. This movie belongs in that category to a certain degree. Is it effective? Eh...kind of.

Jack O'Connell

This England based movie was headed by first time French theatrical director Yann Demange and written by Gregory Burke as his first theatrical screenplay. Before this Demange had only directed TV episodes and Burke had only written for TV movies. In this story audiences follow Gary Hook (Jack O'Connell), a soldier in training who is relocated to Belfast in order to help keep order among the civil unrest. During his first day on duty, chaos erupts and is accidentally left behind as his fellow comrades retreat. Stuck in enemy territory, Hook must try to escape before being executed by the rebellion that don’t hold English prisoners. The rebellion is led by Quinn (Killian Scott), Paul Haggerty (Martin McCann), Sean (Barry Keoghan) and a few others. This happens while his head officer Lt. Armitage (Sam Reid) tries to recover him along with some unexpected help from a man named Boyle (David Wilmot) on the other side as well.

When it comes to well made movies, most have great writers paired up with great directors. That's not to say Burke was not a good match with Demange because he definitely had the right ideas. However when it came to writing in backstories on certain elements, they go unexplained. At the start of the film, viewers are shown that Hook has a son and they have all of a brief two scenes together. We later on see the kind of impact having a child has on Hook but we don't get to know much about his relationship with his son and why a mom doesn't exist. The other component that could use some elaboration on was the setting at which this civil uproar takes place. The title itself says the year but as to why there was unrest, nothing is said. All viewers will know is that the residents of Belfast hate the Brits and want them out. Why? Is it just territorial control or does Belfast have a significant resource that England wants to hold onto? What? Unfortunately, there are more flaws within the script.

Another troublesome aspect to Burke's penmanship is that he barely has anything for Hook to say. Sure, as the audience watch they could assume why - possibly because he's out of breath and tired...but even then, when talking with people, he doesn't say much. There's nothing wrong with having simplicity and having the actions speak louder than the words, but that can't be majority of your execution all the time. For the most part, this is what it feels like. There are scenes of dialog involving other characters but it does get tiresome to watch the main protagonist say practically nothing the whole time. The acting on the other hand is praiseworthy. All the actors portray their characters in a way that feels human and relatable in at least one way. Plus with the overall situation, the tension is high in several places throughout the running time. Any time the hero ends up behind enemy lines, the steaks run very high. This takes us to another unique attribute; the direction.

"Wait for the signal....."

For his first time directing a theatrical film, Demange takes some significant risks with how he treats certain characters. Close to the start of the movie, there are sudden events that will have most viewers shocked of how unexpected a situation escalates. This happens more than once; so at that point the story telling becomes very unpredictable and that's great. The special effects are well mixed into the execution as well. No part of it look excessively fake or out of place. There are some moments of gore but nothing on the extreme grindhouse level either. The cinematography shot by Tat Radcliffe was somewhat off-putting though. The events take place over one night (like a horror movie), so the majority of it is in the dark but so much of it has a sepia tone and it gives the movie a very dull energy and presence. The musical score composed by David Holmes was adequate. It did engage the emotions and was the most effective during the more tense scenes. Softer scenes not so much.

Directionally, the movie is unpredictable which makes the tension quite good. The music and actors all perform well but the writing is where the film suffers. The main lead barely says a thing, his backstory is barely touched on, the situation of the setting isn't explained and the camerawork is uneventful.

Points Earned --> 6:10

Flatliners (1990) Review:

Sadly in Hollywood, when you end up making one of the "worst movies ever" according to some viewers, your reputation is forever soiled. For director Joel Schumacher, people always remember him as the man who ruined Batman by making Batman & Robin (1997). Yes, undoubtedly it was a poor film but Schumacher's career cannot be represented entirely by that project alone. Before and after this particular golden royal blunder of his, Schumacher had been and continued to make a number of attention grabbing movies. Critics enjoyed Tigerland (2000) and Phone Booth (2002), which came after and also The Lost Boys (1987), which came before. However, it seems as if there are some other products that don't receive as much credit. This is one of them. One particular thing that Schumacher loved to use in his films were controversial topics. Of his movies, one of his touchier topics was that of 8MM (1999), and it’s not a large group of people that are comfortable with it. This plot here isn't as taboo but it still raises a lot of curiosity.

"Stay with me now...."

The story revolves around a group of graduate students who end up taking a huge gamble with their lives. That gamble is scientifically stopping their heart, experiencing death and then defibrillating themselves back to life. The idea is to experience death and to determine whether there is something beyond death. As they "play" around, they soon discover that this kind of scientific practice may not be in their best interest. This is a sadistic mentality; who thinks that's even a remotely good idea? Credit is due though because there isn't much of any other way to experience it unless you die. The screenplay was penned by Peter Filardi, a writer who would only write a little more and then fade out by the mid-2000s. The idea itself though is unique; very few scientific films bother with contemplation of life after death. Especially with death, the action is taken for granted more times than not and no viewer or screenwriter probably every bothered to consider it.

Filardi's script isn't perfect unfortunately, but then again, not many are. What Filardi forgets to work out are some subplot elements. Each graduate character has their own particular issues and over time they have to confront it. That is except for one character that confronts it but is never directly stated whether it was fixed, it just disappears. The only problem with the writing is that after the midway point, the genre to this movie jumps from the sci-fi thriller, to the fantasy horror genre. It's not that this change is abrupt or drastically different but some viewers may expect to see a certain kind of consistency through and through. This isn't something to truly get frustrated over though because who's to say what would really happen if one were to experience death like they did. The dialog itself isn't anything that sounds extraordinarily special but the actors are what keeps the story interesting.

The cast of actors who play these graduate students are Nelson (Kiefer Sutherland), Rachel (Julia Roberts), David (Kevin Bacon), Joe (William Baldwin) and Randy (Oliver Platt). Together, this small cast can play off each other nicely. Sutherland plays his role more chaotic than the rest and rightfully so since he's the one coming up with the idea of testing temporary suicide. Bacon as David is the skeptic, the one who will not believe what happens unless he knows himself and is the grounder to anyone who needs the help. Joe is the playboy (how appropriate for a Baldwin), who enjoys videotaping his late night escapades. Platt as Randy is the sensible one, the guy who knows the level of danger they enter but is smart enough when not to follow. Lastly Julia Roberts is decent too with a fascination with the idea of death. The thriller and horror elements are effective most of the time. The horror components aren't so much gore but more on a psychological level. This although not graphic, can be scary.

That set design though

Behind the camera for this project was Jan de Bont. Yeah, we all know he's not the greatest in his directing skills with Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997) and The Haunting (1999), but he has been the cinematographer for movies like Die Hard (1988) and The Hunt for Red October (1990). Here, de Bont's work is nice and fluid. There is no shaky camerawork and the lighting helps highlight what de Bont wants to get across for each scene. Especially for the near-death experiences, the visions somewhat resemble that of the ending to Disney's The Black Hole (1979). Finally, the musical score was composed by James Newton Howard. Up to this point in his career, Howard was only known for a part of one popular movie and that was Major League (1989). This is really Howard's big screen entrance and it’s gloriously beautiful. Howard creates such an odd yet effective religious horror score hybrid that is hard not to admire. The horror cues are noteworthy as well as the wonderful church like themes.

The script does have some genre changes at the midway point and not every subplot is concluded the way it should be. However, the main cast is likable, the plot itself is originally different and the musical score is harmoniously compatible with the playout of the story.

Points Earned --> 7:10

Pearl Harbor (2001) Review:

For the mid-1990s, it was a big time for director Michael Bay. After successfully making three action blockbusters with Bad Boys (1995), The Rock (1996) and Armageddon (1998), producers thought that Bay would be the next best director to handle another blockbuster made film. However, this movie came in the form of a more delicate topic and that was the tragedy of Pearl Harbor. On December 7, 1941, Japanese forces landed a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. An event that took several by surprise and shock, the infamous day would forever be remembered as the day the US would enter World War II. This particular event isn't per-say something anyone would want to revisit. After all, this movie would be released 60 years after the actual tragedy. Yet the film was made anyway. As for those who know what Michael Bay is capable of, some may be a bit leery of how he handles such a touchy issue. Well, he actually does both. He doesn't make it insultingly terrible but he also misses the point on some degree too.

Ben Affleck & Kate Beckinsale

Randall Wallace wrote the script to this war drama. Wallace was also known for The Man in the Iron Mask (1998) and more notably Braveheart (1995). Here, Wallace flubs a bit on what exactly what is more important. Pearl Harbor actually takes a backseat and yet this is what the title clearly states what it should be about. Instead, viewers are introduced to Capt. Rafe McCawley (Ben Affleck) and Capt. Danny Walker (Josh Hartnett), two young men who enjoy nothing but flying planes and looking to go fight for their country. Of the two, Rafe is the older one and acts like an older brother to Danny. As they grow up, they enlist into the air force. Rafe ends up meeting Nurse Lt. Evelyn Johnson (Kate Beckinsale) during physical exams. As to what happens between these three, it is fairly obvious as to what becomes of them. If you have two male and one female lead, there's not much else to be said. The love subplot just feels too cliché to have for this movie.

What war film fans usually enjoy is the struggle of living through the bad times. Look at Steven Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan (1998), Ronald F. Maxwell in Gettysburg (1993) or even Edward Zwick in Glory (1989). All these films focused on characters that had their own separate lives given through carefully written backstories. This gave a better picture of the people involved in the overall time period where the event took place. Here, Pearl Harbor feels like more of pawn in this love story than vice versa. This is the area where Michael Bay doesn't quite get it. It has been clearly stated by him that he liked the love story but giving it all the attention was not the right direction. Apparently, Bay also included some historical inaccuracies that angered both US and Japanese veterans. If a filmmaker is going to make a war film, there has to be some decency to keep the facts right. It's also understood everything may not come out right but at least try not to make it controversial.

This is about it though. The acting itself is fairly acceptable from both sides of the war. The cast is also packed with a lot of familiar faces. Ewen Bremner from Guy Ritchie's Snatch. (2000), plays one of Danny and Rafe's fellow pilots. There are also appearances from Alec Baldwin, Jaime King, Jennifer Garner, Jon Voight (as FDR), Cuba Gooding Jr., Michael Shannon, Dan Aykroyd, Makoto Iwamatsu and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa. For the most part these actors are far less involved but still have a significant amount of time. The chemistry between Affleck and Hartnett feel real; they certainly act and behave like brothers a number of times. It is bit weird seeing Affleck talking with a southern accent though. Beckinsale's chemistry with the two works as well but the blatant overuse of her role as the main storyline may make her annoying to some. It's not say that love stories didn't exist during the events of Pearl Harbor but making it the star of a tragedy seemed in poor taste.

This is what it should've been more about

The special effects and action are nicely executed though. This is a Michael Bay film so that should be at least natural for him. Even more appreciated is that Bay doesn’t go overboard on his pyrotechnics either. Really the only big set piece is the attack on Pearl Harbor and although it isn't as graphically realistic, it is still difficult to watch. War is ugly and that's exactly what Bay gets right. Everything dealing the impending danger is accurately displayed with none of Bay's comedic shtick people loathe him for. The camerawork handled by John Schwartzman (Armageddon (1998) & Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)) is decent too. Occasionally Schwartzman will use shaky camera to emulate first person but that's it. The rest is smooth with wide panning shots. Lastly the music by Hans Zimmer is memorable too. Again although the love story should not have been of main focus, Zimmer has a great theme for that and the Japanese Empire. Well done.

Pearl Harbor is an event nobody should forget and for much of the long running time, it's not focused on a lot. The writing and direction focuses more on the love story than the event itself. If that's the case, then just change the title. However, Michael Bay thankfully omits his usual humor and abundant explosions in exchange for more control. The music, camerawork and depiction of war are nicely done too. Just don't expect Pearl Harbor to be around a lot.

Points Earned --> 5:10

Deep Rising (1998) Review:

When Ridely Scott’s Alien (1979) was first released, it was one of the first films to depict realistic horror in the setting of space. During the beginning of the last half of the 20th century, space exploration had a big influence on culture and society. Making the leap forward in science and technology made people very curious about what was beyond our planet. One of the most imaginative movies to be released during the 1970s was the ever popular Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977). It was an ambitious movie and was a large stepping stone for future filmmakers. For Alien (1979), what made it memorable was that it explored the darker side of space and how dangerous it could be. Ever since Ridley Scott’s original film, many directors and writers attempted to recreate that formula. This formula ended up molding into the form of people aboard trapped vessels with a monster on the loose inside. During the late 1980s, the setting took place underwater. During the late 1990s, the setting then moved to ship derelicts.

"You know I'm the best actor here"

Written and directed by upcoming filmmaker Stephen Sommers, this action horror flick is fun but on a very average level. There a number of good components but there's also an equal amount of the bad too. The plot is about a boat transport crew finding out the people who hired them brought explosives with them. Simultaneously they come across an abandoned cruise liner that has a lack of life in it. However, they are not aware of what lurks on the ship. This is just the skimmed version. The writing tends to be a hodge podge of ideas that sometimes feels random and convoluted. The characters don't receive enough development and most of their fates are predictable and cliché. There are even subplots about character backgrounds that are brought up only to be forgotten. What's the point then? There's also forced exposition by certain characters that only serve the purpose of the plot and nothing else. Topping that off is a slew of characters that aren't very likable.

Leading this group of individuals is John Finnegan (Treat Williams), a headstrong navigator who thinks saying "now what" will be the next big catchphrase. Following Finnegan is Joey Pantucci (Kevin J. O'Connor), the sidekick complainer. The people Finnegan is transporting is led by Hanover (Wes Studi), a leader who barely changes facial expressions. Under his command is Mulligan (Jason Flemyng), Mamooli (Cliff Curtis), Mason (Clifton Powell), T. Ray (Trevor Goddard) and Vivo (Djimon Hounsou). Aboard the empty ship they come across Simon Canton (Anthony Heald) as the ship's owner and Trillian St. James (Famke Janssen). Of these actors, the only highlight to this cast is Treat Williams because of his B-movie presence. Even with him repeating his non-worthy catchphrase, Williams is able to make his presence known and enjoyable. No other actor matches his skill and that's rather shocking considering Janssen would later be more known for role in X-Men (2000).

The action in this movie is mostly present here. There's probably more of that than gore but they both are there. There's several shootings, explosions and even a couple nasty blunt trauma attacks. For gore, this is actually director Stephen Sommers first rated R film. Before this, all of his works were PG and Sommers definitely shows he wasn't going to be scarce with the carnage. The blood isn't flowing all over the place but there is a hefty amount. This ranges from severed limbs, to skeletons and bloody floors. This particularly belongs to the set design, props and special effects.  If there's one more thing to say that doesn't work, it's the special effects. Not every shot looks really fake but there are moments where the CGI and live-action background do not mix well enough to look authentic. There's also a scene where the distinction is jarringly different. This is when the actual actors are supposed to be touching the monster. The creature design itself is okay though.

Those special effects though...

It's not the most original concept but it does make some gross noises, is rather agile and has an interesting way of killing people. The camerawork was decent though. The director of photography to this project was Howard Atherton. Atherton also worked on Fatal Attraction (1987) and Michael Bay's Bad Boys (1995). Although Atherton's work is competent and captures as much of the set as he can, it does get angular at times. Apparently Atherton likes to have dutch angles. They aren't super tilted but for some it could get annoying. The film score was composed by Jerry Goldsmith, a veteran of this type of film genre. Goldsmith also scored the music to Alien (1979) and Leviathan (1989), of which focused on people being trapped in a small place. The music isn't the most recognizable but it does have a main theme for the title and its monster. The cues also contain a lot of horns and percussion beats to emulate the power of the creature. It's alright.

This movie has been seen before plenty of times with a group of people on an isolated vessel trying to survive a creature attack. It's disappointing too because Treat Williams is literally the only highlight to the cast. The music, action, horror and camerawork are fine but Stephen Sommers' writing didn't get enough revisions. Unfortunately, it's only mediocre at best.

Points Earned --> 5:10