IMDb user comments for
Valentine (2001)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 36:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

352 comments in total

---

34 out of 50 people found the following comment useful :-
Not just a silly slasher film, 7 marzo 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller da New York City

A group of model-caliber San Francisco women who have been friends since elementary school are suddenly being threatened and attacked by someone sending them bizarre Valentine's Day cards. Who is the killer and why is the killer after them?

My rating will often change on subsequent viewings of a film--sometimes slightly up, sometimes slightly down. However, I can't remember another film where my rating has changed as drastically as it has for Valentine. The first time I watched it, upon its theatrical release, I thought it was pretty awful--I gave it a 4 out of 10, the equivalent of an "F" letter grade. Watching it for a second time last night, I can't remember what the heck I didn't like about it. I can only assume that maybe I was really in the wrong mood to watch it, or maybe I just didn't get it. In any event, I loved it this time, giving it a 9 out of 10, or an "A".

It might sound ridiculous saying I didn't get a film like this, but there is something to get. Valentine is almost a comedy/horror. Director Jamie Blanks, who was also responsible for 1998's Urban Legend, takes the stereotypical teen horror formula that became so popular in the late 1990s in the wake of Scream (1996) and pushes most of the elements up a notch, making Valentine intentionally cheesy/campy almost to the point of absurdity (where absurdism is a positive stylistic term). On top of that, he gives us a film imbued with humorous commentary on romantic relationships. The humor is unusual in that it has the same exaggeratedly campy tone as the teen horror aspects. Most of the situations in the film, and the modus operandi of the villain, humorous or not, are tied in to the Valentine's Day theme.

Many viewers will likely subtract points from the film for its various cliché-rooted but implausible scenarios and plot developments. However, in light of the above, the film is intentionally clichéd, implausible and ludicrous. It's as if Blanks is attempting (and mostly succeeding) to transcend the typical teen slasher by mocking/spoofing the conventions of the genre while also satirizing eros. That's the attraction to the irony of basing a horror film on Valentine's Day. It's an incongruity that is cleverly woven throughout the film, and that is itself at the heart of the slasher genre, making it prime fodder for Valentine's extravagant lampooning. Scream had a similar aim with its horror material, but the twist there was that the film was "self-aware". Valentine's Day is intentionally not self-aware; the viewer has to rely on contextual clues for satire. Lest some think I'm "reading too much" into the film, it's worthwhile to note that Blanks said in interviews that he "didn't want to just do another slasher film after Urban Legend" and producer Dylan Sellers said he wanted to do something "more adult".

Other viewers may dislike the fact that Valentine's Day differs so much from its putative source material, the novel of the same name by Tom Savage. The novel's characters, setting and plot are very different from the film. Sellers has said, "While it was a fine book, I didn't think it was the right story for a film". So instead the novel, which is much dryer and more serious in tone, was used as a launching pad, a motif to create variations on for a horror/thriller story centered on Valentine's Day. While those facts won't help purists familiar with the book like the film, it's helpful to understand why the film has its divergent plot and attitude. It's probably better to look at the film as an independent entity with a similar theme.

Blanks' direction is impeccable visually. Valentine's Day has a lush look throughout, with complex, deep colors, interesting sets, and good staging. Blanks is admirable for keeping his villain and attack scenes not too dark, with clearly conveyed action. He also directs his actors with aplomb, catalyzing often slyly humorous performances. David Boreanaz, as Adam Carr, is involved in many of the funniest moments.

While Valentine's Day is no masterpiece, it's a very good horror/thriller film that seems strongly prone to misconceptions. If you watch it expecting something more tongue-in-cheek you may find yourself appreciating it a lot more.

---

11 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
The St. Valentine's Day Massacre for beauty-queens., 16 dicembre 2005

Author: Coventry da the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls

I think I'll have to categorize this film under "guilty pleasures", since the rest of the world really despised it (and probably righteously so...) whereas I found it mildly enjoyable! Sure it's banal modern day horror junk that hangs together by clichés and stupid plot holes, but at least it's never boring and it's actually quite funny in a cheesy kind of way. Five hot twenty-something babes, seemly with a lot of free time on their hands, all receive shocking Valentine cards signed with the initials "J.M". Could this be the morbid revenge of a nerdy kid that the popular girls collectively humiliated during a school dance more than 12 years ago? The joke really becomes alarming when Shelly is found brutally murdered...and she's only number one. The poorly written script is (unintentionally?) hilarious! Even though it are mainly just girls that get slaughtered, this movie is very man-unfriendly! Every male character that gets introduced is either a sexual pervert or a socially dysfunctional loser...most are even both! Heck, even the police inspector turns out to be an obscene freak! There's absolutely no tension and you can predict every next twist hours in advance. The beauty-queen killings are reasonably inventive but almost entirely bloodless, so gore-hounds beware. The ending (as in: the actual revelation of the killer's identity) is totally absurd and makes the movie even worse that Jamie Blanks' previous turkey "Urban Legend". In fact, "Valentine" was released 20 years too late! With a plot and gore opportunities like this, it could have been a minor 80's slasher-classic like "Happy Birthday To Me" or – oh yes – "My Bloody Valentine". Nobody cares about such slashers anymore nowadays. The politically correct American horror standards don't allow nudity or brutal gore and that's why every new slasher attempt looks lame.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Not very good, but better than expected, 3 marzo 2002

Author: jhaggardjr da Chicago, Illinois

"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however.

** (out of four)

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Marilyn Manson is on the soundtrack. What more do you want?, 8 agosto 2002
Author: Jack the Ripper1888 da Chicagooooooo

The best thing about the film is the soundtrack: Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie and a bunch more. But, the film itself wasn't that bad. The killings are original and much better than Wes Craven's SCREAM. The cast is not very well known except for Marley Shelton (one of the many stars of THE BACHELOR) and the amazingly hott Denise Richards (you must see WILD THINGS)!

VALENTINE scores some points for being able to pull of some scary moments, which many horror movies are not able to do. It does not have the steadily mounting terror that THE EXORCIST held, nor does it contain interesting characters (most of them are original and stupid people who learned nothing from Jamie Kennedy's "Rules to Survive a Horror Movie" in SCREAM). If you want a horror movie that isn't genre defying nor terrifying, see VALENTINE. It is somewhat scary and entertaining which is most important. VALENTINE gets 3/5.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Horrible translation of a great book., 12 febbraio 2004

Author: billkubert da Clifton,NJ

Valentine is a hack job of a horror film that not only rips off a very good novel but also completely screws up the tension that the novel gave. It makes the movie `Scream' look like a masterpiece, and all of the actors involved deliver bad performances except David Boreanaz who actually does a decent job with what is giving but not even he is good enough to save this movie from itself.

Avoid.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Very disappointing., 5 febbraio 2001

Author: AllenOh da Twin Cities, Minnesota

This movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The trailer looked good, but the suspense was absent from this thriller. Everything was predictable, except for certain scenes that had absolutely nothing to do with the storyline.

The acting was ok, given the horrible script.

About the best thing I can say about this movie is that it would have been great for MST3K.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Abomination that should not be related to the stellar thriller novel, 30 giugno 2007

Author: jonp1 da United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This film was supposedly "based on the novel by Tom Savage," but it bears very little resemblance besides the revenge aspect of the storyline. The characters are not close to the same, which leaves the film characters as 2 dimensional garbage. I would like to say that there was a silver lining to this movie, but I can't find one. Hollywood wanted a horror movie and they got a bad one. The book is a much more elaborate plot that gives you far more insight to the reasons for the revenge and what makes each character tick. Instead we get how can death occur and "who has the bloody nose?" Give me a break.

I think Tom Savage should give his money back to get his name removed from the crap. My suggestion is that anyone who has an inkling to see this movie, should turn off the TV and read the book.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Not worth the time., 3 febbraio 2001

Author: jcurtis1

If I had paid money to see this movie, I would've been really angry with myself. The movie isn't too bad if you see it for free. It is your typical horror movie with a guy running around in a mask. There are a few different features which I won't mention, but the movie honestly doesn't have much that hasn't been shown before. The only good person in the movie was Denise Richards and she isn't even that special.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
You do not want to sit through this one., 2 febbraio 2001

Author: Emily (agentpez) da Pittsburgh PA

Thank god we caught the cheapy show for this flick, because it wasn't even worth the $5.00 that I had to part with to see it. The idea for the movie was brilliant, but as a sat down in my seat and watched it, the cast and acting proved otherwise. I was truly scared only one time in the beginning killing scene... other than that the rest was predictable and you wanted the characters to die, they were a bunch of bitchy, rich affected bimbos. I just wanted it to end and as expected there was a catchy little twist at the end, but it so wasn't worth my time or money. If you still insist on seeing it, wait till it comes out on video...I give it 2 weeks in the theatre.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
I'd Buy That for a Dollar!, 4 marzo 2006

Author: nycritic

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This has to be a record in horror movie-making. Not even ten minutes into the film and you're already throwing in the scares? What fresh hell did this concept come from? What do you leave the cast (and us, the doomed viewers) to work with when we've seen the killer and he happens to use what seems to be the mask that the killer used in ALICE, SWEET ALICE? Not much, but then again it didn't seem to be the director's intention to instill any shred of suspense in what could have been a passable movie. This is just a mish-mash of the same old, same old wash-rinse-repeat cycle... or a perverse joke to play on your True Love on February 14th as you "wish him or her the best".

---

---

Page 1 of 36:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Recensione Amazon.com	Voti
Premi	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Official site	Plot keywords
Dettagli principali	Your user comments	Your vote history