Valentine (2001)

Too much of everything

To me, this movie is perfection.

Such a frustrating disappointment

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

A predictable teeny slasher movie which scores thanks to a wealth of explicit and gruesome death sequences, a few good jumps, and some nice stalk 'n' slash routines which are handled well by enthusiastic Australian director Jamie Blanks (who cut his horror teeth on URBAN LEGEND). Blanks seems to have his heart in the right place - after all he is a big horror fan - and indeed with the right material he could be the break that the genre is currently looking for. In the meantime, VALENTINE is fairly mindless fodder, appeasing enough but nothing that you wouldn't expect from the premise. Although the movie is fairly slow paced when it comes to the action, it's plot heavy stuff with plenty of minor characters and red herrings to keep the viewer on his/her toes and the running time pretty much flies by; rarely was I having to resort to checking my watch as I sometimes do with new releases.The death scenes are the one element of the film that do show some originality about them. Victims are killed in novel fashions, with weapons such as irons, hot tubs, even a bow and arrow in one macabre and violent romance-inspired game. The appearance of the killer, in a creepy cherub mask and black clothing, is a fairly memorable one (a lot better than the boring parka-clad fencing-mask-wearing murderer in URBAN LEGEND, that's for sure) and there are some okayish suspense bits going on here, my favourite being at the beginning with the macabre yet methodical stabbing of the corpses in the body bags, whilst another murder at a weird media art exhibition is disorientatingly good.On the downside, the characters are grating and unappealing and the story appears to have been borrowed wholesale from SCREAM, following a very strict and unremarkable plot to the unsurprising end which nonetheless finishes ambiguously, which makes a nice change from the usual run-of-the-mill productions which feel it necessary to tie up every single loose end. The casting is fairly average; the young actresses are good enough to carry themselves but the ante has been upped in the youth horror genre as of late and none of them excel as they perhaps should. The biggest offender is Denise Richards who is more than happy to play a one-dimensional bitchy character and who grates on the nerves throughout. David Boreanaz appears briefly but is largely wasted, at least until the end. At the end of the day, you can safely miss watching VALENTINE and not worry about anything remarkable that you lost out on seeing; however, if you want some slick, glossy, well-made and occasionally stylish thrills then you could do a LOT worse than this, what with all the junk on the Blockbuster shelves at the moment.

There's one in every school, that boy or girl with thick lenses in their nerdy glasses and always staring like some pervert, acting all religious or obsessed with video games, maybe even concealing their love interest. Remember Carrie (1976), Sleepaway Camp (1983) and The Pit (1981)? Well, this freaky little 2001 slasher has an antagonist equally as nerdy, a boy named Jeremy. When he was a kid, a fat girl kissing him framed when she was caught by the popular boys, claiming that Jeremy tried to rape her when he didn't. Years later, Fatty Dorothy is nothing like she was before, and she and her snobby group of friends have forgotten Jeremy. Unknown to them, somebody wants the entire group dead.Why does Valentine have such poor ratings? Well, it certainly doesn't compare to classics like Sleepaway Camp or My Bloody Valentine (1981). That being said, Valentine is a pretty good slasher film for its time. I can't say I liked the awful 21st century soundtrack but the acting was pretty good and the film managed to be entertaining the entire way through. It definitely beats movies that came out later on the next year like Death Factory and Resident Evil (2002). I'm not saying you'll want to add it to your list of favorite horror films, but give it a chance.

So I've just finished watching Valentine, and for those of you who don't like reviews that are too long - let me start off by saying it's definitely worth the watch. Good ol' late 90's Slasher/Thriller. My main problem with such films is that they are tagged/labeled as Horror. Having a killer in a film, even this kind of stalking creepy killer, doesn't make a movie Horror. There are many films that resemble Valentine in many aspects and features that weren't labeled as Horror, so why? Because it had blood in it? Just my opinion.Valentine, as I said, one of the better Slasher/Thriller films of the new millennium. It has all the makings of suspense and "on edge" sensation. I personally found the dialogues to be superb, absolutely my favorite part of the film, especially the "letter from hell" style Valentine cards and Gary's discussion with Kate. Respect to all 4 screenwriters (and of course to Tom Savage, writer of the novel). Also, great soundtrack! Really enjoyed the music.As for acting, it was also good, especially Denise Richards who really aced the role of the flirty-slutty member of the group (none of the actresses lacked good looks, and still Richards really manages to stick out). Nice work also by David "Angel" Boreanaz who really managed to get into the role of the guilt-ridden slightly neurotic boyfriend with the drinking problem, although his "drunk act" wasn't all that convincing.As for the story - nothing special about it, basic Slasher type revenge tale. It appeared that I hadn't really understood the ending before I read about it in the message boards here, but it was also good. Could have used a better, smarter and slightly more obvious twist to it, a good twist is what makes a good slasher great.All in all, Valentine is definitely a worth while film that I'm glad I got to watch, even 11 years after it's release. Recommended!

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 !