(Review originally written at 27 January 2008)

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Thinner" is just one of those movies that I always enjoy watching when its on. It's basically a great way to spend 90 minutes.

I think the foremost reason why this is such a watchable movie is thanks to its wonderful concept. Its highly original and you just can't go really wrong with it. The story nevertheless is quite silly in parts, which is I think also mainly because there are some difficulties with the book translation to the screen. What works in a book just doesn't always work for a movie. Another problem with movies based on books is that a book has a beginning and an end, with in between a couple of hundred pages to lay out the story and characters and everything that happens in between. You then next have to try to put this all in an under 2 hour movie, without loosing the core and essence of the story. This most of the time has as a result that some things get rushed in the movie to get from point A to B.

The actual ending is just great but there are also still some problems with it. Problem with the ending is that it's totally unclear why the main character is suddenly freaking out so bad and why he suddenly turns into psychotic murderer. Apparently a real returning theme in Stephen King novels; the main character going psycho toward the ending. He blames his wife for everything that has happened but this is totally unbelievable and unlikely this would ever happen. She at least most certainly did not deserved to die because of it. They try to 'justify' his killing of her even more by implying that she cheats on her husband with doctor Mikey. But again; now way that that justifies the thing happening to her in the end.

No way the story would had still worked out as good if the make-up effects weren't as good. Robert John Burke goes from extremely fat at the start to extremely thin toward the ending, all with the help of make-up.

The movie looks like a made for TV movie, which is obviously due to its restrained budget. So don't expect anything big or surprising camera movements and innovating directing or editing.

The movie also doesn't have a too great cast but each actor serves its purpose and fits its role.

Actually quite silly and nothing too great but it's a perfectly watchable and enjoyable little movie.

6/10

(Review originally written at 24 September 2006)

If you're going to watch "Eight Legged Freaks" expecting a tense 'monster' movie with spectacular action and a solid story you shouldn't even think about watching this movie. "Eight Legged Freaks" is a pretty fun parody/homage to the fake and ridiculous monster movies from the '50's.

As a parody/homage this movie is a pretty good and successful one. It uses all of the genre clichés and the movie is filled with some typical B-movie moments, characters and dialog, which obviously were put intentionally into the movie. It makes "Eight Legged Freaks" a fun movie to watch, especially when you're familiar with the '50's B-movie monster genre.

But just because its fun, that doesn't mean that the movie is a great or perfect one to watch. There are several things wrong with this movie, which is the reason why the movie is overall still a bit of a disappointing one. I expected a fun perfect to watch parody/homage but the end result was a mixed movie with a fun and comical undertone but also with a disjointed story with simple characters which makes this movie not always a pleasant one to follow.

The overly present humor makes sure that the movie never gets tense or horrifying. Because of the tone of the movie you can never take the movie and what happens in it ever serious. That's the reason why it lacks in tension, which causes this movie also being far from an interesting or compelling one. "Eight Legged Freaks" is fun but not great to watch.

The movie its story starts off well and promising but soon after that it starts falling flat when it begins to introduce and follow way too many characters. Some of the characters aren't in the movie for like 15 minutes but then suddenly pops up again and the movie starts to follow them like they are some of the key characters of the movie. It makes "Eight Legged Freaks" feel like a disjointed movie, filled with some arachnid attack sequence without feeling an obvious connection. This also adds to the reason why the movie isn't exactly a very tense, exciting or compelling one to watch.

The effects of the movie are only so-so. I don't know it this was done on intention but I don't think so. They should had made the effects look entirely convincing or entirely fake looking. Now it's somewhere in between.

The actors did a great job. They obviously knew to not play their characters very seriously with as a result that they help to set up the right mood and B-movie atmosphere. Especially David Arquette did a great job with this. It was also great to see Scarlett Johansson in a role before her great breakthrough one year later. No way she would had ever played in a movie like this one now, at this moment.

By no means a must-see but when you watch it you'll probably have a good time, if you at least know not to take it very serious all.

6/10

Watch trailer

(Review originally written at 6 April 2006)

Like most others who have seen this movie, I also grew up with watching the first "The Hitcher" movie. Even though it was far from a masterpiece, it has still grown a bit into a classic over the years, mainly due to Rutger Hauer's impressive and scary performance. This movie doesn't have Rutger Hauer in it, so I wasn't expecting a better movie and expected the worst. But why compare this movie to the original in the first place? You should take the movie just for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller. And for what it is, a straight-to-video thriller, it's a pretty good movie. It's professionally made, with good camera-work and editing and some fairly good performances by the cast.

The movie might not be that scary but it does have a few surprises in it. It does have some returning element from "The Hitcher" in this movie but it does it in an original way. Fans of the first movie should be pleased by some of the subtle and not so subtle homage to the first movie and not be offended or angry about it. It also does have more than enough original moments in it and the movie is mostly unpredictable, in terms of who dies and who will survive in the end.

Even though the budget of the movie was probably low, it doesn't really show on screen. There are some spectacular moments, with gunfire and explosions and also the visual look of the movie is good. The cinematography is nice and the movie is told with a pleasantly fast pace and with some nimble editing.

The performance are fairly good. It's sort of fun to see C. Thomas Howell reprising his role but was it really necessary? Real main part of the movie is being played by Kari Wuhrer, who has appeared in quite a few B-movies over the years. She is good enough as the new main character of the movie. This time the hitcher is being played by Jake Busey. Leave it up to the Busey's to play a convincing and scary looking psychopathic villain. Of course he is no Hauer but he pulls it of pretty well and is more than good enough in his role.

Of course the story does have its flaws and improbabilities but when you watch a movie like this, you know you shouldn't expect to much from its story.

Especially when you've seen more straight-to-video and TV thrillers, you have to admit that this movie is a good one or at least an above average one, that has a professional look.

6/10

Watch trailer