IMDb > Playback (2012/II) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Playback
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Playback More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 51 reviews in total 

52 out of 76 people found the following review useful:

Decent Flick. Good gore.

7/10
Author: Jon Doe from yourhdd'
6 February 2012

Ill start off by saying,if your the kind of person that's always looking for connections in movies(Most people on IMDb who think their intelligent, but just young) then you may not like this one, but if your old school like me and have seen everything already and don't care too much if movies draw slim similarities to others as long as they're good then I would say have at it.

There's some great gore, naked girls, and a twisted little story line that doesn't steal 'too' much from other movies, but taking just enough to get the troll's panties in a bunch. The similarities are sparse, trust me.

What really bugs me is not one of the fake reviewers, the "Changed my life" review along with the griper who yells at people with fake reviews(due to only one review history) when he himself is a shill. And thats the flaw in IMDb voting system. The fact that any nitwit can make multiple accounts and trash any movie before it even has a chance to get out there. This makes even more stupid people run around saying, "Oh yeah I heard that movie sucked!"

Well, I actually SAW this last night, I was expecting nothing good after reading reviews here. I have to say was surprised with the movie's pace, acting, and GORE! Storyline, Basically 15 years ago a kid murders his family. Fast forward to today and another kid decides to unravel the mystery for a school paper. Yes it has that familiar sound, but no this is no "The Ring part whatever". This borrows from a few movies while keeping its own individual style. We have Christian Slater playing an "interesting" part to say the least along with a creepy kid who likes to go through old film in his spare time. Again sounds like Chinese Ghost stuff, but this actually has Gore, Nudity, things Chinese cinema lacks. Basically it earns its R rating which means a lot to me in Horror.

I for one will admit that this will win no awards, nor will it become a big block buster. Its a genre movie aimed at genre fans. Nothing too great, but not bad at all either..

I gave it 7 out of 10 because of the sh%*storm of idiots who will undoubtedly ruin the rating/reviews of this movie(as they do to so many) all because one person left a good review before everyone else did so everyone assumes there part of the crew and its their duty to make 3 accounts and post fake reviews..how sad peoples lives must be. In reality this movie is a Solid 6.

Another thing, don't run out and buy this, wait till its on cable or Netflix.Its worth a watch when you put it up against the crap that true Horror fans have to sift through to get a decent watch, but its not a must see.

Was the above review useful to you?

45 out of 73 people found the following review useful:

Playback will never hit Theaters

5/10
Author: J. Davis (horrorsession@gmail.com) from USA
3 February 2012

I was not expecting much but the coming to theaters March 3rd post gave me some hope and I also thought it would be kind of like "The Ring", but this is just another DTV ball of crap. The acting was harsh and the characters were so random and extremely hard to care for. Half the time I could barely even recognize who was getting offed so the empathy scale is a 0. So many questions are left unanswered and plot points unexplained. The adding of Christian Slater's character just cheapened the entire film, when is the last time one of his movies hit the big screen? I really usually love & enjoy horror/thrillers but this one seemed really forced with very little thought in the direction area. Of course the ending is just another cheap horror cliché, with their intent for a sequel already primed I'm sure. If you have nothing to do go for it , but I warned you. This is a VERY generous 5/10

Just to be fair, movies I watch on the net I add a extra point to just to put things in the right prospective.

Was the above review useful to you?

38 out of 64 people found the following review useful:

Copy/Pasted and done before

5/10
Author: Mdln DeHond from Canada
4 February 2012

First pet peeve with movies like this is 30 year olds playing teenagers. C'mon! Furthermore, don't get fooled by the reviews written by people of the production company or "friends of the director", this movie really isn't worth anything more than a 4 to 5.

A federal law should prevent any more Japanese style horror movies. It's done! Go sit in the corner with the found footage films and the creature features and if you ask me, the highschool road movie.

So here it goes again. Mundane, predictable, the copy of the copy of the copy. It might be nice as a background movie while you are cleaning your fridge don't spend a Saturday night on it.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Whatever You Do, Don't Look into the Camera

4/10
Author: Chris_Pandolfi from Los Angeles, CA
9 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Playback" is a horror film that crams in all the current popular subgenres, namely dead teenagers, technology, demonic possession, and found footage, with just a hint of historical fiction thrown in for good measure. Perhaps it's precisely because of this mash-up that the film never seems to know what it's about. Structurally, all one can glean from this film is an idea that was never completely brought to fruition; we muddle our way through scenes that strain mightily to connect to one another via a back story, but somehow the harder it tries, the less sense it ultimately makes. Thematically, there's nothing more or less at work than an excuse for gore, violence, death, and even a moment or two of nudity. Some audiences live for this kind of filmmaking. I'm not one of them.

The story begins in 1994 in what I suspect is somewhere in the Midwest. Through a combination of an omniscient camera and hand-held footage, we watch as a teenager named Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) wanders through his house in the middle of the night holding a camcorder. His parents have already been murdered; we see their slashed bodies in various rooms of the house. His sister (Jana Veldheer) is bloody but alive, crawling on the floor, frantically screaming at Harlan to not hurt her baby, who lies innocently in a crib in an upstairs bedroom. Harlan sets up the camera in front of the baby before going down to the basement and activating his makeshift editing center, where a TV set shows live footage of the baby's room. But before anything can happen, the police arrive, and everyone but the baby is dead.

Flash forward fifteen years. A high school student named Julian (Johnny Pacar) is taking a journalism class, in which the current assignment is to rediscover forgotten chapters of local history. He chooses the Harlan Diehl case. He recruits his project partner, Riley (Ambyr Childers), and his three friends as actors for a video reenactment of the murder scene. Ostensibly, this is because it gives him the perfect opportunity to indulge in his real passion, filmmaking, and produce a gory slasher film. All the necessary recording equipment is loaned to him by Quinn (Toby Hemingway), a teen who works at the local news station cataloging cassettes all day long. He's one of those creepy kids that wears all black, resists long-winded conversations, avoids most people, and gets high by sniffing a rag soaked with what I think is paint thinner.

Julian asks Quinn if he could hook him up with news tapes related to the Harlan Diehl murders. Quinn locates a cassette, inserts it into the station's VCR, and sees raw footage of Diehl's body being wheeled by stretcher into an ambulance. But it seems he wasn't dead just yet; he lunges at the camera and screams, at which point we see split-second intercut images of static and what appears to be an old photograph. Quinn is knocked out of his chair. The logistics are a little fuzzy, but it seems Diehl passed something into the camera, which then imprinted itself on the tape, which was then unleashed into Quinn's body when he inserted the tape into VCR and hit play. As the film progresses, his body will deteriorate. No reason is given for this, but then again, I guess one isn't needed.

And from here, the story gets increasingly silly and perplexing. We learn (in a hilariously convenient scene of exposition) about a nineteenth century French man named Louis Le Prince, supposedly the real father of cinema, and about how he captured footage of his family. Each member was murdered shortly thereafter because, supposedly, Le Prince was possessed. Of course, if all his family was murdered, then there would be no way for there to be a bloodline, which factors prominently into the present-day portions of the story. Anyway, Julian and Riley are determined to dig deeper into the story and figure out the identity of Diehl baby, who no one seems to know anything about. Julian's mother (Dorien Davies) urges him to not pursue this any further, although she doesn't want to tell him why.

As horrendous as I found the plot and the characters, who are essentially disposable teenage typecasts, two specific elements of "Playback" do the most damage. One is a completely unnecessary subplot starring Christian Slater as a perverted cop who pays Quinn to set up spy cameras in the girls' locker room and in the bedrooms of two of Julian's friends, who are hot sisters. The other is a plot twist manhandled by the filmmakers into an indecipherable mess. Part of the problem is that, even though no real effort is made to hide it, no one bothers to confirm or deny what the audience already knows. The rest of it just doesn't make sense, given the characters involved and their relationship to one another. And is it just me, or is there far too much transferring of evil from TV screen to camera to body, along with victims staring helplessly at camera lenses? Perhaps the real lesson here is, quite simply, to look away.

-- Chris Pandolfi (www.atatheaternearyou.net)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

nothing is really there

1/10
Author: jessegehrig from United States
7 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Movie equals sh*t, let's get that out of the way. Now the main event : this movie mentions Louis Le Prince as the originator of film. The legend in the film is that Le Prince was the Devil and he used the film to steal souls; its sort of an extended version of the Native American myth that when one has their picture taken the camera steals part of their spirit. That should be the f*cking movie! Not a bunch of teenage highschoolers in modern America! Why wouldn't you make the far-out period piece about the Devil stealing souls with the world's first movie camera? That movie, that movie would creep people out, that would be a real horror movie, this movie, Playback, no bueno. Its called writing, when used well it can reinvent reality itself, when used poorly hey you get this and like the tens of thousands of other boring wasted movies.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Lame, exceptionally weak possession killer

4/10
Author: GL84 from Los Angeles, Ca
25 February 2013

When a group of film students attempt to document the brutal history of their town's past, they unleash the evil spirit which inspired the rampage and must stop it's current rampage before it exposes the secret behind it's existence.

This is overall a pretty lame and barely worthwhile effort. The only true sense of credit that this one really has is it's plot line about the body-hopping spirit that can only be transfered through video, which is pretty creepy and doesn't get used often-enough as a concept since it generates some really impressive moments here and there of the possessed beings out and about with their unknowing victims. Otherwise, this here is a gory, low-budget boring mess that seems to fling itself around in ten different directions without any sort of inner compass to determine what it wants to do, a low-budget feel that never lets it's full scope become apparent despite the feel it's going for and a laid-back pace that rarely lets on it's a horror film and never really goes for any sort of excitement or enjoyability. A true let-down and not really worth it.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence, Nudity and underage drinking.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Noisy, Lame and Messy Garbage

1/10
Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
21 September 2012

On 21 October 1994, the deranged Harlan Diehl (Luke Bonczyk) kills his family in their farm and only a baby survives. In the present days, the teenager Julian Miller (Johnny Pacar) borrows a camera, tripod and other equipment from his friend Quinn (Toby Hemingway) that works in a TV studio to make an amateurish film about the infamous Harlan Diehl with his girlfriend Riley (Ambyr Childers) and their classmates DeeDee Baker (Jennifer Missoni), Nate (Jonathan Keltz) and Brianna Baker (Alessandra Torresani).

Quinn sells footages of DeeDee and Brianna in the change room in the high school to the sick police officer Frank Lyons (Christian Slater). When Julian inadvertently unleashes evil through the playback of videotapes, Quinn is possessed by Harlan Diehl and begins a violent crime spree.

"Playback" is a noisy, lame and messy horror movie recently released straight on DVD in Brazil. I am a fan of the genre, but this film is a complete waste of time, with a terrible and senseless story. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "De Volta ao Terror" ("Back to Terror")

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 82 people found the following review useful:

i was happy before this came along

1/10
Author: maximum_2083
5 February 2012

The only thing great about this movie is probably the over rated movie poster. The movie itself was absolute crap with glitter wrapping on it. i hope to never ever come across another load of crap again. The plot was none existent, the characters where incredibly watered down to the point where you will find yourself not caring about them at any level and the scares where just loud noises like a loud truck or dog suddenly barking. This is not even a movie you consider if you where bored. Majority of the time i found myself looking away from screen and just wondering how the directors can get away with releasing movie like this. At the end of it i felt i had wasted over 1:30 minutes of my life for no reason. Do your self a favor and don't bother watching this crap.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Louis Le Prince Would Be Sad

3/10
Author: natmckn from United States
18 May 2013

A horror film, this is not. In fact, I don't quite know how to classify this movie. It is a thriller, I suppose, but fails in delivering any type of thrills or edge-of-your-seat moments. It is a slow burn, without any sort of satisfying pay-off.

Most of the budget had to have been used for the soundtrack, because there were some decent songs used throughout the film (Awolnation's "Sail" was excitingly in here) and the rest probably went to pay Christian Slater for his less-than-memorable performance. If you still have respect for his earlier work, please stay far away from this petty attempt at cinema.

The acting from the rest of the cast starts off really bad, but I blame the written dialogue for this. I understand it's hard to write teenage dialogue, especially at the beginning of a "horror" film, but you'd think someone would have spruced it up a bit after the initial draft. It gets a little better later on, after the movie tries and fails to introduce the characters, but it's enough to make you blush a bit for the producers.

The plot seems to go all over the place, and there's no real sense of meaning to anything that's going on. I felt literally no connection to any of the characters, and was thus never compelled to sympathize with any of them. I would have enjoyed to see more of the Louis Le Prince story show its face, but the writers instead just used it as a device to ...well...I don't even know. I'll chalk it up to writer's block.

And, I'm going to go ahead and say it...I think Quinn had a huffing addiction. It explains EVERYTHING! The crap on his face had nothing to do with a demon, and had everything to do with a $4 can of silver spray paint from the local hardware store. Case closed.

~NateMcCheezy

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good horror thriller!

7/10
Author: xxxsarahmariexx
30 March 2013

I'm a humongous horror fan. Hostel and Saw are amazing. So when I saw this at family video, I thought why not? I absolutely love Johnny Pacar, so I knew it had to be decent, right?

Right I was! The acting is solid, the gore is realistic, and the plot twists are believable. I read all the reviews beforehand and expected a stinker, but do NOT read most of the reviews. They're either making fun or they were expecting something else.

Yes, there are plot holes. Yes, the ending is predictable. But it's fun, it made me jump a couple times, and the gore doesn't look ridiculously fake like most B movies!

Will I watch it again? Heck yeah! Will I buy it? Possibly. Do I recommend it? Absolutely.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history