User Score
8.7

Universal acclaim- based on 78 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 65 out of 78
  2. Negative: 7 out of 78
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. chuckyo
    Aug 30, 2006
    7
    There isn't anything original about the movie, but it's still fun. Also, Denise Richards looks incredible in this film, and her scenes are great.
  2. B.J.
    Aug 1, 2002
    3
    This is how I see things: You watch a comedy to make you laugh, porn to get you sexually aroused and a horror to scare you. With this in mind I'd have to say "Valentine" does its job as well as a porn starring Madeline Albright would. In other words, I find the story shallow and action/murder scenes boring and unimaginative. However, some people probably like it. The "twist" at the This is how I see things: You watch a comedy to make you laugh, porn to get you sexually aroused and a horror to scare you. With this in mind I'd have to say "Valentine" does its job as well as a porn starring Madeline Albright would. In other words, I find the story shallow and action/murder scenes boring and unimaginative. However, some people probably like it. The "twist" at the end has a contra effect making the movie even more stupid instead of better. I gave it 3 only because there are still worse movies than this one. Perhas the novel is better... Expand
  3. RyanM.
    Jul 26, 2001
    8
    A new addition to the teen "slasher" genre is probably one of the best. It is certainly the best slasher since the original "Scream," and it ends up delivering more scares than the whole trilogy. Same idea to a "twist" as "Urban Ledgend" which we were expecting because both are directed by Jamie Blanks, who to me looks like a smart new horror director.
  4. MattM.
    Jul 27, 2001
    7
    One of those films that could be referred to as style over substance. The film itself is a predictable mess of classic horror cliches, but the cinematography and production design are exquisite. The death scenes, while not overly elaborate, are expertly executed. The performances are fair, and the direction is decent. See it simply for its look...not its content.
  5. LifestylesOfTheRichAndMulroneycakes
    Jul 14, 2003
    1
    David Boreanaz gives good brood. He can be as introspective and miserable as all-get-out. Also capable of being very frightening. Can't do anything else very well, though: brood and scare, scare and brood. He doesn't have much opportunity, alas, to do either in this. So that's a waste of time. In fact, the whole thing is a waste of time. And effort. And energy. And cake.
  6. NedD.
    Sep 14, 2001
    4
    Not the worst of its kind by a long shot. However, it's too bland, predictable and silly to ever be anything more than it is: A gory time-waster that will evaporate from memory mere seconds after the credits roll.
Metascore
18

Overwhelming dislike - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 17
  2. Negative: 13 out of 17
  1. Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    4
    Because so little of what occurs on-screen either engages or entertains, there's ample time for the boiler of your self-respect to build up quite a head of indignation at the forfeiture of your time, money, and (exceedingly minimal) cerebral exertion.
  2. The slasher-movie genre may never die, but can't its perpetrators think up variations more clever than this by-the-numbers rehash?
  3. 10
    Highly reductive and deathly dull slasher flick.