|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Index||34 reviews in total|
I consider myself a huge horror movie fan. One night I wanted to just rent
some newer horror movies to make fun of. Then, I rented Milo. I was so
surprised by this movie. It scared the hell outta me. That's not
I can say very often. Usually Halloween only scares me.
Two other friends watched it with me, and were left with a disturbed feeling. A good feeling, if you ask me, after watching a horror movie. If you are unaffected, then what's the point.
This movie was original. It didn't follow the normal guidelines of a horror movie. That's why movies like Valentine bombed for me.
Of course, many are left with unanswered questions, as most horror movies do. It is worth the rent though.
A lot of people on here are leaving bad reviews about Milo. Personally,
I didn't think it was all that bad. The idea behind was somewhat
original and the movie over all was creepy. It left me and my friend
feeling a bit disturbed after watching it.
The bad points though? The acting is pretty bad. Also, as most of the other reviews have already stated, there are a lot of holes in the plot line. You have to really pay attention to every single little thing to try and put things together yourself. I only watched it once though and picked up on most of what was going on.
All in all though, it all depends on what you're into. If you have to have everything explained to you and have everything make sense, then this movie definitely isn't for you. I would also stay away from it if you have a weak stomach. I would recommend it to you though if you like movies that are a bit out of the ordinary, and leave you with a disturbed feeling.
Except for fans of "That 70s Show" who get to see Mila Kunis as a child actress in an uncredited role, and "Providence" fans who get to see Paula Cale in a supporting role, I can't think of any reason to view MILO. The plot is formula all the way, with no twists or surprises. Production values are bargain-basement. The acting is competent, but no one performance stands out. Even aficionados of graphic gore and gratuitous nudity will get nothing out of this flick. Normally I cut these low-budget potboilers some slack, but even graded by their own standards, MILO is a failure.
"Milo" is a film that undeniably has a lot of reasons not to take it
seriously, and would make a lot of people dismiss it after the first 30
minutes. I belong to a small crowd of people who love this movie and
accept it for what it is, leaving the flaws on the side. The budget is
low, there is technical and directing sloppiness and there are a lot of
script irregularities. All these things spell "bad movie" in capital
letters, but in some way, "Milo" works well and not in a patronizing
way. I find the story to be rather dark, as it features some genuinely
disturbing scenes, and the villain is pretty distinctive and creepy.
The story begins with a group of little girls meeting a strange boy named Milo Jeeder. The girls go to Milo's house, which is also his father's office, a sinister gynecologist who performs clandestine abortions. The strange boy is playing "the doctor" with the girls and he inexplicably stabs one of them to death.
About 20 years later, one of the girls who survived the tragedy appears as an apathetic substitute teacher named Claire Mullins, who lives a very lonely life and her only "friend" is her goldfish pet (for real). Claire gets a wedding invitation from Ruth, one of her childhood friends, and she unwillingly returns to her hometown to assist the ceremony. When Claire arrives, she is informed that Ruth passed away in a car accident, but she stays in town anyway, where she gets to reconnect with her two childhood friends, Abby and Marian (sure, why the hell not?).
Though we find out that Milo supposedly drowned many years ago, Claire believes she has seen him on the street and still looking like a young boy. Abby and Marian assume that Claire is having hallucinations because she's back in her childhood town, but the truth is that Milo really is alive and out to get them. Hopeless and desperate, Claire tries to find someone who believes her, but everyone presumes that she is insane, and in the meantime, her friends start to vanish inexplicably.
My main concern with "Milo" is that there are some script irregularities that leave a bunch of things unclear, and it is evident that the lack of details to explain certain things are the result of lazy writing, rather than a deliberate attempt to leave some mystery for the benefit of the story. The idea behind "Milo" is very good, but the script is not very consistent, as there are a lot of things that don't make sense, mostly concerning the characters' nature, which are poorly written in many scenes. The dialogs are silly and artificial (which I can overlook in a slasher film), but the main problem is that the characters' actions are incomprehensible sometimes. For example: why does Milo suddenly decide to reappear after 20 years and start murdering his childhood acquaintances? Should we just assume that he is mad because one of them is getting married, which pushes him over the edge? How come the girls seem so well after their friend's death? I mean, first, we see Marian and Abby telling Claire that Ruth passed away and in the next scene, we see them laughing and remembering the old times? I didn't expect a tear-fest, but they seemed pretty okay with the idea of Ruth being dead, kind of like "Poor Ruth but we might as well just make the best of this reunion, right? Let's have a few drinks!" I don't find this very coherent, especially because these girls are otherwise portrayed as caring and sensitive characters.
"Milo" features almost no gore, since most of the murders are very subtle, and some of them are even off-screen. I don't necessarily expect gore in every horror film as a rule, but "Milo" belongs to the slasher sub-genre and in films like this, some gore is required. The lack of gore is balanced by disturbing imagery, mostly featuring Milo and his father, in their dark house, in which we get to see an antique cabinet full of jars containing fetuses and stillborns, and an embalmed body in the basement.
The acting is mostly good. The late Vincent Schiavelli gave a solid performance as Milo's dad, partly because of his physique du rol, but also because of his intentional deadness in his mannerisms and the sinister look in his eyes. As for Jennifer Jostyn, I like her a lot and even though he acting is mostly okay, a little bit more energy and strength would have been fine. What I like the most about this film is basically the character of Milo, which is an interesting villain. The fact that he looks the same throughout a period of 20 years makes us wonder what is wrong with him and though we never really get an explanation, one can only imagine that Milo's lack of growth is due to the fact that he was brought back to life by his father after his alleged death, which somehow affected his normal development. Once again, this is another reason to complain about the weak script, because honestly this should have been clearer.
I admit it, "Milo" is a faulted film, but a very entertaining one and it seems like there are a lot of people who either take it for what it is and love it, and in the same way, there's a lot of people who latch on to the obvious oversights to oust the film. I try not to let the imperfections bother me and enjoy the movie for what it is: a slasher about a weird zombie child using a yellow raincoat (even if it's not raining), who wants to kill his childhood friends and keeps their embalmed bodies and dress them in wedding gowns. I certainly don't think it deserves the 4/10 rating that it got on IMDb.
Plot? What of it there was: Girl moves back to home town. Girl starts
teaching at her old grade school (in place of her already "murdered"
friend). Girl gets stalked by ghost from past. Ghost gets all of girl's
friends. Girl must clear her name. Girl becomes entangled in a wild web
deception and spookiness. Does she get away in the end??? I could tell
The real complaint I had with this movie was that the plot kept slowing down enough to cause me to lose interest. I did like seeing Huggy Bear (Fargas) in a non-pimp role (he does have to pimp slap the bad guy a little at the end just for good measure). The story had little glints of something interesting and the final twist was gory enough, but the slowness of not only the plot but the characters proved a little aggravating. Okay, so I had more than one complaint...and my final complaint was the ending. One of those "The End?" ending that makes you cringe. All in all, decently bizarre and Jostyn reminded me pleasantly of one of *my* teachers from grade school (wink, wink).
This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the
producers agreed to finance it.
We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.
I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?
Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, "This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father." Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.
Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?
Besides "What is Milo?", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.
This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.
This was the worst movie I have seen this year. The acting was horrible, the story-line was contrived and somewhat vague. This was definitely a low budget not worth spending $2.75 to see it movie. Don't waste your money nor your time!
This is the worst acted movie that I have ever seen. I was surprised to find that several of these actors have actually been in other, more respectable, movies because this acting is worse than a grade school play. The plot is the standard 'B-Movie' "horror" plot, nothing special. Having said that, I did watch the entire movie with morbid curiosity to see exactly how bad it is. I even paused and rewound to verify I didn't miss anything. I certainly would not pay to watch this movie, but it is one of the free movies on my cable channel so I gave it a whirl. Of course, if you believe that 'Chopping Mall' and 'April Fools Day' are cinematic genius then you will love this movie.
I've read so many bad reviews about this film..and not much good..it's not really that bad of a film. I enjoyed it. It wasn't a hit with me or a great movie..but a good movie worth seeing. The plot is creepy( 10 year old boy who never grows up is tormenting women 16 years after a horrifying experience has scarred their lives), the horror is scary enough, and the movies main song is chilling. The only thing bad about this movie is the acting. The main character's frightening expressions and screams didn't really make me think she was in trouble. She is an okay actress besides that..and a very beautiful one I might add. Milo was very creepy but needed work on his expression. He was very scary when it was dark and had his raincoat on. The only person that I thought gave a good performance was the janitor, Mr. Kelso. So forget the bad reviews and don't even look for good ones either(chances are you might not find any) and see it for yourselves. I think you'll like it. 7 out of 10
In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their
friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side
of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his
pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back
to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed
that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her
friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims
Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying
When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it!
Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.
Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.
|Page 1 of 4:||   |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Plot keywords||Main details||Your user reviews|
|Your vote history|