Dom Nickson Spoiler Alert! OK I get it, slasher movies died down around this time and to be honest this film sort of sucks! I liked most of the creative kills and the mask the killer wears, this film just flat out sucks. The acting from the girls are just plain horrible and I didn't really care if a single one of them died! The deaths are really just over the top and yet creative. I think the thing that really makes this film stick out from the rest is the mask and the creative kills. The story is sort of stupid because if a psycho really wanted to kill somebody that hurt them I don't think they would wait a whole 10 years until they come after you. Overall I give it a 4 out of 10.

ironhorse_iv No Bones about it. Only an Angel could sit through this film. David Boreanaz's Valentine is one of those contemporary Slasher films that is riding off the coattails of 1996's Scream success. Rather than trying to be like its own movie, it follow a lot of the previous film clichés to the point that the film rarely stands out. If 1978's Halloween is a good example on how to make a holiday themed horror flick; Valentine is the worst. The film is loosely based on the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, settling and plot are very different from the film. The book is pretty awful source material, but at less if the movie follow more of it, the film wouldn't be as bad as it is, now. One of the film's biggest mistakes, is the way, they try to make it, suspenseful. The movie tries really hard to make you ask, who done it, but clearly can't pull it off. The killer, Jeremy Melton, is killing people because at junior high school prom. It was there, he was cruelly shot down by some really over the top valley girls. If that wasn't enough, he was then bully by their boy/friends. Instead, of going on a school shooting, the next day, the killers waits 13 years later on Valentine Day for some unexplained reason to get revenge on the girls. Honestly, I don't know why he waited so long. He clearly got over it and by this time, can get any woman, he wants. The movie doesn't really explain, what trigger him to kill them after waiting for so long, but hey, we wouldn't have a movie, could we. Another thing, why didn't he even bother trying to kill the real people that treat him badly. You know, the boys that strip him down and beat him? It's such disproportionate retribution. One thing, the movie does too much in the beginning is gives way too much information about who the killer is. Without spoiling it, It's pretty obvious who it is. Honestly, who in the hell would believe the killer is a girl, when you see that Jeremy Melton in the beginning? If he had a sex-change, he clearly wouldn't be any of the girls that dissed off the guy in the first place. So, by making one of the victim, a suspense of the murders, doesn't make any sense, movie. Then the movie has the nerves to give other list of red herring suspects that isn't even close to believable that they were the killer. If you thought, they were, they get axed off, anyways, so you can tell who it is, by the end. At less, make the fake out guys, seem like their death was needed because they were the bullies that hurt Jeremy, but no. They were just random dudes at the wrong place, wrong time. You really got nobody to root for as all the victims character are god-awful clichés horror stereotypes. The girls grown up to be even sluttier. Denise Richards as Paige Prescott fit the role, well, but isn't really giving anything new. She is just an awful typecast actress. Oh, and there's no nudity, in case you were curious. The women deaths throughout the film are bit an ironic foreshadowing. You would think the killer would be a little bit clever with the deaths. While, the kills are remotely alike, and he does use some really innovative weapons. It's nothing, we haven't saw before. Mid, while the killer is able to do a lot of unrealistic things like change clothes in seconds during attack scenes, and pulled off being at two places at once. While the concept of the masked killer is far from original, the cherub mask is a cool, creepy look. It could had been better. Director Jamie Blank really could had done, something about the pacing in this film. It's so damn slow. The movie put so much time on minor character's character development, that the main characters have very few of them. The soundtrack is pretty OK, but I don't think it add anything to the story. I don't find any of the main characters listening to Disturbed or Rob Zombie on their down time. The soundtrack compilation was even lampooned in a sketch by Saturday Night Live because how 'out of place' it was in the film. The movie even steal a Halloween style score in the beginning, but never truly use well. I thought it would add more a creepy feel to the film, rather sounding like a bad written heavy metal fan horror mystery film. I wouldn't say, it's the worst horror movie of all time, but don't expect to come in, hoping anything to stand out. It's just your typical slasher film. The original 1981's My Bloody Valentine, another Valentine's Day-themed slasher flick is a little bit better if you want something rather than a rom-com for Valentine Day.

elshikh4 1_Group some 20 something terrible actors and actresses, to make an enough number of suspects and victims. 2_Make a mad vague unstoppable serial killer who loves, just loves, to intimidate his victims before ending them. 3_Make a frequent way of threat; phone calls, gifts, postcards, bloody lines on walls…etc. 4_Many killings going on to dispose of that cast, one after the other. 5_Write the most idiot and useless dialog (who cares ? It doesn't matter here !). 6_A big finish where many killings happen and the identity of the killer appears. 7_A zillion sequel, since the real killer will NEVER EVER be killed !This round (Valentine) does look like a spoof sometimes; the first scene at the school party, the date session, or watching a leg while wearing a pantyhose then discovering that it's for a man ! Though, it's pitiful that it wasn't made as spoof. Because despite having a good formation for a script, especially the ending's surprise, some matters made the parody, any parody, sure more watchable in comparison.The movie suffers from a die-hard TV-ish condition. The image is away from being a bit dazzling or even cinematic. No factors said that we're watching anything else the movie of the week. While we're supposed to be in a thrilling horror, there was a state of stagnancy and indolence around; which pushes you to ask who was the real slasher of the movie ?! (Denise Richards), the first name on the poster, is a major turn off. I came to believe that being her is an enough reason to be killed. I loved the moment of killing her since it meant not seeing her again. Her dull presence and awful acting ruined big part of standing the viewing !Then, the vocal cat fight between (Dorothy) and her young stepmother led to nothing, since not the stepmother or the father ended up as murdered or ever appeared again ! How (Dorothy) thought that her boyfriend left the villa near the end ? His clothes were left, being killed in his bathrobe, so he's a nudist ?! And by the way the killer's mask seemed a bit laughable, as if it was modeled after actor (Frederick Koehler)'s baby face !I find it strange why (Scream – 1996) made that horror boom, for the slasher subgenre in specific, at the middle of the 1990s. True (Scream) isn't a great movie in my book, but there must be causes for its box office success, many sequels and likes. Aside from presenting a well formula for a thriller/horror/teen movie for Hollywood to feed on, I think it met a strong sense of being unsecured for the teens of the time, and a case of distrust among the people in totally materialistic world where love is missed; notice how the first victim (played by Katherine Heigl) Leaves a disgusting possible lover to work – more satisfied – among corpses, (Dorothy)'s father cares about his new wife more than his daughter, (Dorothy)'s love isn't trustable; loving her money not her, every girl in the movie suspects her lover, the end is about trusting the wrong lover, and originally the killer is someone had nobody to love or to trust either.(Valentine) as a horror parody ignored some potential irony. And as only a horror it bores; due to not much of scary moments, no artistic dealing and predicting the formula easily. Comparing it to (Scream) proves missing the cinematic heat; namely craft and better talents. So it managed to be a slasher movie's weak copy, following the known-by-heart steps yet poorly. That's why the voluptuous beauty of (Jessica Capshaw) is the whole show here, and nothing else it ! Slasher movies are like porn without sex. Namely cheap and empty. Since the start I don't talk about the bad ones, because the thing is…almost all of them are !

raisleygordon Friday the 13th. Halloween. You know what you're in for. What's new this time is that the "story" is set on Valentine's Day. I know what you're thinking: Halloween events taking place on the sweetest day of the year? And yes, there's a prologue. I don't want to spoil anything for you, but what's revealed in the last scene of the film makes the prologue disappointing and pointless. Will you enjoy this movie? Well there wouldn't be any point on answering that question if you also liked (or loved) the Friday the 13th and Halloween movies. It's just the same thing, only in February. Needless to say, the movie is also predictable. Since it's just a rehash of the aforementioned movies, there's no need to judge the acting, positively or negatively, except to say the ending of the movie is a cop-out.*** out of ****