He Knows You're Alone
|
Our Price: $22.62 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $8.75 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of He Knows You're Alone
Movie Review: An 80's Classic Slasher!!!
Summary: 4 Stars
This has a pretty good storyline and has the classic look of an 80's slasher! A lot of the movie reminds me of HALLOWEEN! The killer doesn't really have a name. If they said it, I missed it. Tom Hanks has a cameo. A psychopath is trying to murder Amy on the night before her Wedding day. Will he get her? I'd like to see a remake of this. If you love classic slashers of the 80's, you'll love HE KNOWS YOU'RE ALONE!!!Movie Review: Great Movie
Summary: 4 Stars
I loved this movie as a child and the was excited that the DVD version was released. The movie is a pretty decent movie for the budget it was probably made on. I know when I first saw it I could not go to the movie theaters unless I sat in the very back row against a wall. The movie has a few scares, but is still very predictable at the end. I would recommend it if you are a true horror fan.Movie Review: The pre-wedding jitters, compounded by a case of ...MURDER
Summary: 3 Stars
Every girl is frightened the night before her wedding, but this time...there's good reason! That's the fairly tame tagline for He Knows You're Alone (1980) aka Blood Wedding, a fairly generic post Halloween (1978) slasher film that most notable probably because it was the first film Tom Hanks ever appeared in...
Directed by Armand Mastroianni, who went on to direct mainly episodes of television series like Friday the 13th: The Series and War of the Worlds: The Second invasion, the film stars Caitlan O'Heaney, whom I most remember from the early 80's TV show Tales of the Gold Monkey. Also appearing are Don Scardino (Squirm), James Rebhorn (Meet the Parents, Independence Day), Paul Gleason (Trading Places, The Breakfast Club, Die Hard), and, of course, Tom Hanks in a minor bit parts encompassing all of about 5 minutes of screen time.
Okay, so here's the basic plot...Amy (O'Heaney) is about to be married. Along with the usual problems, dress fittings, flower arrangements, etc., she's been noticing a mysterious figure everywhere she goes. Turns out a killer is on the loose, and he seems to have a thing for brides to be...also, it seems the killer is somewhat known by the local police, as he's struck before, but had stopped for awhile, confounding the efforts of law enforcement to capture him...but now has returned and is up to his old ways again. One detective in particular has a personal interest in seeing the serial killer stopped. Anyway, Amy continues to be stalked, yet those around here think her sightings are due to nervousness of her impending nuptials, and don't take her seriously. The killer not only stalks Amy, but begins finding victims in Amy's friends and those associated with the wedding in general (pity the poor tailor...). Will Amy be able convince not only herself, but also her friends (the ones that are left) and the police of the existence of this mysterious killer before it's too late? I hope so, because the reception hall isn't keen on returning the deposit...
The first thing I noticed in He Know You're Alone is how much the musical score apes that of Mike Oldfield's Tubular Bells, used so effectively in The Exorcist. Often lesser films, especially within the horror genre, borrow from better films, but this just seemed a little too blatant for my tastes. The characters are a bit hollow and lifeless, lacking any real chemistry, and don't do enough to really endear themselves to the audience which is pretty important as ideally you should be concerned for their welfare thus increasing the tension when danger is near. I never really connected with any of the characters, so I cared little if they found themselves victims of the killer. Also, the motivation of the killer never seemed clear (well, at least until the end, and even then, it was pretty translucent). The whole idea of him killing women soon to be wed fell apart, as we soon saw this wasn't really the case, as victims were pretty much random. There was no mystery (other than his motivations) to the killer as we saw his face often, and he didn't really present a formidable or fearsome nature (he looked like he got a lot of sun on his face while wearing large sunglasses, giving the effect of a rather large raccoon). Even his methods of killing were rather bland, more or less stabbing his victims with knives. There was a decapitation (not shown), which resulted in a horribly pathetic fake looking head in an odd place (I won't say where, as that would give too much away). Also, there is little to no blood anywhere throughout the film (maybe it wasn't in the budget). I don't really see how you can have a slasher film with no blood, unless they decided to `buck the trend', and try and focus the audience's attention on the suspense rather than the gore. Fans of the genre like their blood, and will probably be disappointed. There were a few tense and suspenseful moments, but so much of what was going to happen seemed entirely obvious that I found myself often guessing (correctly) how various particular scenes were going to end. Another thing, I found it quite annoying how easily the killer gained access to many places undetected, almost as if he were able to `will' himself inside. There are a few original moments within the film, but even those are kind of spoiled in that often they are dragged before the audience too long, as if to say "look at this", effectively draining the subtlety and spoiling the intended effect. As mentioned by another reviewer, correctly, in my opinion, this whole film seems to be a paper-thin copy of Halloween, without any of the elements that made that film so good and fun to watch. As I said before, the ending seemed a bit transparent, but provides a nice wrap around, and the reward was just to little, too late. Basically what you have here is a mediocre film borrowing a bit too much from a better film, packing little punch (and blood). I kind of see this film as being a primer for someone who hasn't experienced many horror films, especially those within the slasher genre. Kinda like training wheels on a bicycle...try it out, see if you like it, and then move on to more advanced material. If you're already there, then you might find a passing interest, but don't expect too much.
The wide screen picture on this DVD looks excellent (to my surprise), and the audio comes through pretty clear. Special features include a theatrical trailer, and a commentary track by the director Armand Mastroianni and screenwriter Scott Parker. All in all, not a bad film, certainly serviceable, and retaining novelty value given it's Tom Hanks first screen appearance, but I would recommend Black Christmas (1974) for someone looking for a underrated and not often seen gem in the genre.
Cookieman108
Movie Review: We Like Caitlin O'Heaney
Summary: 3 Stars
This is now out on DVD with a commentary by Director Armand Mastroianni and Writer Scott Parker. The movie isn't much by itself but is worth watching with the commentary "on" if you enjoy observing self-delusion. They seem to actually believe that they made a very clever movie and Mastroianni name drops anyone or anything that ever said a kind word about anything he was involved with; I kept waiting for a reference to his third grade teacher's praise of his watercolor painting ability. But otherwise they seem like nice guys. The film was shot on Staton Island for about half its original budget and the commentary gives an interesting account of the various economy measures that were used to squeeze this thing out.
Anyway this is a horror film from 1980; and like a lot of the stuff made at that time it shamelessly cheats rather than bother to create plausible scenarios for its plot elements. I've never been sure whether this type of cheating was due to lazy scriptwriting, budget issues, or because the producers of these things believed that audiences did not want to be scared "too much" and would welcome it when the suspense was destroyed by an absurd plot development. Certainly movies like "Psycho" and "Silence of the Lambs" are scarier because they go to some length to make the terror plausible. Even the first "Jason" and "Halloween" movies are scarier than their sequels for this same reason. But audiences paid to see this formula stuff throughout the 1980's so it must have been OK with fans of the genre at that time.
In one moronically contrived scene the killer stands beside Caitlin's parked car and slaps listlessly at the windshield, a few seconds later (while hanging onto the roof of the speeding car) he smashes in the windshield with his fist. The climax is filmed inside a complex of fuhrer-bunker-like tunnels (actually an abandoned sanitarium) but the night establishing shot is of just one tiny brick building; where this tunnel maze came from is never explained.
Anyway, the star of the film (and the only good reason to watch) is Caitlin O'Heaney (remember Snow White Charming). Although better suited to romantic comedy than to horror, O'Heaney is smart and beautiful and does fine in this role. Dana Barron (remember Audrey Griswald at Wally World) plays Caitlin's little sister, Tom Hanks has a minor role as a jogging college student, and Paul Gleason (Breakfast Club) has a minor role as a detective.
Perhaps the most puzzling element of this film is the "tribute to Hitchcock" shower scene. Not because the girl is never actually attacked in the shower but because instead of a nude Caitlin (something you would want to see) they show a nude Elizabeth Kemp (something that you wish you had not seen..."must purge the image of her slug-like body from memory").
There are a few original elements in this film although most of them are teases; like setting the stage for a standard horror moment and then not pulling the trigger. It does have a clever twist at the end which you can guess if you have been paying attention but not until just a few seconds before it occurs.
Movie Review: Same Thing Happened To My Wife!!
Summary: 3 Stars
Here's a slasher film more in the mold of Halloween than Friday The 13th, which is to say that the focus is less blood and body count and more of a stab(hehe) at suspense. Though I wouldn't say the movie is lousy by any means, I actually wish it would have been a bit more on the bloody side, coz as it is, it's too close to Halloween for comfort at times....and not done as well.
A psycho who got the green weenie on his wedding day decides to kill his bride and then go around killing any other bride-to-be he can get his hands on. His sights are set on the cute, yet naive and kinda loopy Caitlin O'Heaney(I'd always remembered her as the hot english teacher in Three O'Clock High). She's set to marry a guy she doesn't particularly want to marry, though it's never really explained why she seems almost forced to go through with it. Maybe she just can't say "no"(my kind of woman). Aside from being stalked and tormented by the killer, she's also stalked and tormented by her ex boyfriend, Marvin, who's a kooky, lovable, nerdy mortician. Caitlin seems to have no hangups about flirting like crazy with Marvin while her fiancee is away at his bachelor party. And speaking of bachelor parties, you may already know that Tom Hanks is here in a small role as the romantic interest of Caitlin's best friend. Don't get too excited, Hankophiles, he's not on camera too long and his role isn't very relevant, only to spout some psychobabble about why we like being scared by horror films and roller coasters. There's also a detective with a personal vendetta hunting down the killer, along with that token authority figure jerk from every 80s film(the detention teacher from The Breakfast Club). The killer, like the killer in Slumber Party Massacre, is shown frequently and is not hidden behind a mask, or disfigured or anything. He doesn't speak.......but we do know his name is Ray!!
All in all, this movie is just so-so in my opinion. Aside from a silly looking severed head in a fish tank, the movie is very bloodless. Plus, it's not terribly suspenseful, especially when many of the techniques are lifted from Halloween. But it still has it's entertainment value, as pretty much all slasher films from this era do.