61 Reviews
Sort by:
In the minority, apparently.
29 August 2012
Im not the type to jump on IMDb and write reviews, but when I have questions or a movie seems to "bother" me, I feel I must. I must be in the minority to not have been blown away by this movie. All through it, I found myself saying "why are all these people here?". Brian Cox, wooden Anna Paquin, Tehmoh Penikett- why are they here? The first two seem to be recruits from the X-Men series, also directed/produced by Bryan Singer. The others seem to be people who thought it would be a fun project- fair enough.

I can see why this movie was shelved for a few years- its not something that would've drawn in tons of theater audiences. By its very name, its something that should/usually has starting actors and a few gallons of red corn syrup. And usually when a movie IS shelved, its not a good sign.

Now the "comic book" horror anthology" style has been done before- Creepshow, for instance, which this movie reminded me of in several parts (ie the zombie children). But it didn't make any sense here. Besides having people walk by, in the background et al, there wasn't really anything that tied these stories together. They Weren't part of a comic book series like Creepshow and adding in "Earlier" and the credits in comic book font doesn't make it so!

Also the "hot chicks that are really something else" was almost a direct rip off of the Tales from the Crypt episode "House of Horror". The "rite of passage" part was kind of cool, but what do we get then for this "turn the tables" piece of female empowerment? A bunch of sorority bunnies stripping and having the camera zoom in on their breasts.

The pacing of this movie was tedious- I understand the building up of tension, but then why start off in a hardcore way? Was it just to be a typical horror movie type "beginning"?

I also agree with another reviewer- the "Halloween" rules were not especially set down. They actually killed and mutilated someone because she blew out her jack'o'lantern? If Halloween is now a grisly gut-cutting festival, why have that Rhonda explain about the original origins?

The zombie children sketch was something else that puzzled me. I understood it all, but then I kept waiting for something else to happen, like the zombies to come into town or something. But no, they can defy time, space, death and submersion, but a simple elevator keeps them down below.

Sigh. It wasn't awful, but its not something Id watch again. It was simply boring and nothing new for the genre.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Bunnyman (2011)
War of the IMDb voters!
11 August 2012
I can come into this honestly, for I had never heard of this movie before, never seen any trailers or had any expectations of this film. I consider myself a horror buff, not an expert but as a viewer who has seen her fill and can enjoy an exquisite masterpiece just as much hopeless schlock. Both of us run the gambit of low-budget to blockbuster. Bunnyman, however commits a serious movie crime: its freaking boring.

I can appreciate moody, atmospheric, tense. Things hinted at, mysterious beings. This however, was boring. The first HOUR gave us the token girl being killed, and then, well, we have some road rage and walking. And some talking. And some bickering. And a pointlessly disgusting hillbilly. Then a little killing. Some torture porn.

All in all, it was pointless, sloppy and lazily written. The absence of splatter gore didn't bother me too much, it was absence of caring about any of these characters, trying to find a motivation for our victims (he sets down the chainsaw-?) and trying to I guess fill in the back story of our killers since the movie didn't help at all in that regard.

I saw another reviewer bring up "The Room"- like "Birdemic", all three of these movies suffer from being out of order, story lines that go nowhere and pointless characters. Find another movie for atmosphere, if thats what you're into. This is NOT "David Lynchian"- this is freaking boring. If you're looking for atmosphere, try "Surveillance" with Bill Pullman, directed by Jennifer Lynch. If you're looking for splatter gore, try "Wrong Turn"- I suspect thats what this movie was trying to rip off. If you're looking for low-budget splatter comedy, try "Monster Man" by Michael Davis. Those are some ones I can recommend, that actually ENTERTAIN.
16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fingerprints (2006)
A teen with a troubled past tries to make a new home in a town with its own past
27 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I agree with the other reviewers on here- not terrible, and it started OFF strong, but fizzled and became extremely sloppy.

I have mainly questions, which addresses said sloppiness, rather than a re-hash of the plot you can already find here: 1.) If indeed the kids were killed by the conductor, why would they push cars to safety? They weren't actually hit by a train, and when they were abducted, they were in a stopped and safe position by the tracks.

2.) I actually suspected Penn of being the killer for a while- so right away, I didn't question why/how he was at the Depot- then after he was killed, I now wonder how/why he was there.

3.) How did the cops know she was in the cemetery? Also, when did Melanie find out that there were none of the other kids buried there? 4.) The Mayor- this is sort of silly- but the guy would have been at LEAST in his 80's- he looked to be maybe in his early 70's...was this just an attempt to get a semi-known actor (Geoffrey Lewis, actually 73) in the movie? Just a few things wrong- otherwise it got kind of boring. But at least they tried to make something original.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Wickeds (2005 Video)
Whats to spoil?
16 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I love bad horror movies, but I actually turned this one off because it got to be really boring. It was a mix of Amityville Horror, Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead, and a piece of lint I guess. It was more movie loaf, real movie pieces chunked in form.

I have some comments: 1.) Decide what you're going to be! Are you a zombie flick? A ghost/haunted house flick? Possession? Vampire? 2.) Most zombie movies are pretty good about this, but if we are supposed to assume that most of the zombies are coming out of their graves, not just fresh & turned kills, why would they be buried in jeans? A wedding dress? Completely nude? Did a prom bus turn over near the cemetery? 3.) The zombie caught instantly on fire.

4.) The actors- yeah they were pretty bad. And the blonde chick had the worst hair, it was like Christina Crawford from Mommie Dearest! 5.) Ron Jeremy, in here for novelty, sounded like he trained with Howard Cosell. But of course, hes not really known for his voice...

6.) Ah yes the Ancient Curse from the 1970's...Yeah the "Vampire King" or whatever- German Primse- looked like Captain Spaulding & Clint Howard had a baby.

7.) Could the beginning have been any more directly ripped from the Return of the Living Dead movies? Those were so campy and ahead of their time, but c'mon! 8.) I was laughing so hard during the "slow mo" action scenes. yes he jumps from a second story porch onto a huge pile of hay! Action! It was the Walker Texas Ranger Lever.

9.) So...there are members of the Sex Pistols and deBarge buried there? At least try people! 10.) As a woman I appreciate making out and foreplay, etc., but that was the longest "sex" scene I have ever witnessed! And sex didn't even occur! 11.) Okay wasn't the Vampire guy already IN the house? Then why was he outside again trying to get back in? I don't know what to was like a poor-poor mans Troma. All that I can forgive- if its at least entertaining, interesting. This was really boring.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
BloodRayne (2005)
May not be "fine cinema" but very entertaining!
7 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I saw some of the comments on here, and yeah okay the acting wasn't the best, but everyone involved seemed to at least try to give it their best. Im a 24 year old woman, and I found myself quite a few times channeling a 13 year old boy saying "sweet!"- some of her moves were awesome. Don't get me wrong, I made plenty of jokes, but overall I thought it was pretty entertaining.

I've seen MUCH worse given way better ratings, so it surprises me a little. I saw the Unrated version- aye yaye yaye, one of the hottest sex scenes I've EVER seen in a movie! Although this movie may have a lot of negatives, it was never really *boring*. Now if you want a movie that sucked AND was boring- try watching DOMINO. That was plain horrific.

Billy Zane really didn't figure in, did he?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2001 Maniacs (2005)
3 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This was okay, but I found myself basically laughing through the whole movie- I actually STOPPED the movie when I saw Eli Roth, and ran upstairs to make sure this Wasn't "his" movie...I would've stopped watching immediately.

*Sigh* This is another instance of "WHY Didn't THEY JUST LEAVE FROM THE GET-GO?" *Nice of Freddy there at the end to have the ramp and fire-ring all ready for the big stunt.

*Why did they split up??? WHY??? I don't even know what to say about the rest of this, it was AWFUL. And what was with that ending? Is that supposed to make us all feel bad? Well, it doesn't!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dr. Chopper (2005 Video)
Odd, but funnily enjoyable
15 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a B-Movie fan, so I set myself down for a great treat when I read the description of "Dr. Chopper". We seem to have 4 different story lines going on here- namely, one, being that lesbians are complete morons, a tortured park ranger (I though Park Ranger's carried guns), a "Doctor-murderer" who no one has caught over 20 years in the same patch of woods (and who looks like Frankenstein from Death Race 2000) and the group of horny teens out in the woods.

I HOPE this was supposed to be funny as well (c'mon, the Doctor thought he was "hot" 20 years ago? He looked like the Sandman from the Metallica video). And I like how the Park Ranger ran away from a woman about a foot shorter than he was. The kid who played Nick was a TERRBLE actor, and the other sympathetic characters (Jimmy, the blonde guy) were taken out first.

Anyway if you can get by the many many "huh's?", its pretty funny. One more question: with all his nurses dead, was he going to do a heart transplant on himself? In conclusion, as Tom Servo says "The movie that delivers more 'huh's' per second!".
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Detour (2003 Video)
The Hills Have Eyes...but no budget
24 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Let me just preface this by saying I've seen worse. A LOT worse- see "Death Tunnel", for one. And I'm sure the director of this one simply wanted to make a popcorn flick.


1.) A.) Okay so lets open up with some "hot lesbian action". I've actually driven cross country across the desert, and I can say, without a doubt, wearing shorts that small and tight would definitely give you some problems down the road. Women will know what I'm talking about.

B.) So she sees the gigantic insano guy coming towards her, and continues to stand there?

C.) Why did the other feel it wise to get OUT of the car? And how come she got so far ahead when running?

2.) The cowboy at the rave looked like Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus" video.

3.) So lets see, the B-horror checklist: the "wild" girl, the straight girl, townie that warns them, artsy boy, goth girl, the PDA couple and of course, "Spcecial-K" who looks like Billy Zane in Demon Knight. Who respectively look like rent-a-center versions of Paris Hilton, Eva Mendes, Jason London, C. Thomas Howell as Hugh Laurie as Rumsfeld as Pete, Ali Larter, Dan Cortes and Tori Spelling.

4.) A.) Don't RV's have bathrooms? If so, why didn't he go to the bathroom in there? He did later on!

B.) Longest pee ever.

C.) He didn't notice the dripping appendage before?

5.) Whne the RV crashes, I didn't see a little girl- actually thought it was a fully cooked headless turkey.

6.) When LOST in the desert, it IS customary to ask the following very important questions? Does that affect my thighs?...hotpants?...bikini top?....short shorts? The girls changed outfits like 30 times.

7.) Nice of the Cannibals to make a warning sign. 8.) Neil still tried to flag down the "Human Head bumper mobile"? 9.) They had to tell the guy to lock the door? Also, when trying to raid the enemy cave, lets shout at each other as loud as we can, throw our heavy flashlight and also let them know we have almost no ammunition left.

I could say a lot more, but I don't want to.

4.) Yes how very mature for college kids- tell us your gay!!!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I agree with the reviewer above
8 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this AFTER seeing "Death Tunnel" (this being, without question, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life) so you can understand I went in rolling my eyes a little at seeing the directors and producers of that cinematic gem being in charge of this one. First of all, I thought the director and producer were the same guy. They both are Kid Rock meets Dawg the Bounty Hunter. I watched the TAPS investigation, and I am not a skeptic- I think TAPS is the closest one will ever get to a scientific method in the field. That was cool and believable- I do believe they are haunted.

But this, like the reviewer above mentioned, like taking a tour. Okay a tour, fine, but the "investigators" and "group leaders" seemed to make a pretty penny and have a financial investment into whether its haunted or not, so when THEY have fantabulous stories, I have to take it with a heaping teaspoon of salt.

As someone else mentioned, I could make out whatever they wanted me to see in the picture about 50% of the time. The rest of the time, I couldn't make out anything. Also without any context to the photos- time of day, type of camera, moisture in the room, dust particles (which 75% are what the orbs are), weather and a ga-gillion other factors, I cant accept them. I also cant help thinking that some might be doctored.

Why would that band keep the numbers from the door? Vandalism? Also during the TAPS investigation, they tried to dig up the death certificates of those nurses- and they only found one which was ruled "accidental" (people didn't want to officially proclaim suicide). Yet when one of the guides was mentioning this, he said "yep, and its marked suicide." It really felt like the guides to the haunted houses here in October.

I DID however like the interviews with the patients and staff from the old hospital(s), that really gave it a lot of perspective and a personal touch. I'm also glad that they mentioned that the staff had the best of intentions, and weren't some ghoulish-wardens. They weren't the best methods, but its all they had. They were desperate to stop the disease.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh I got some comments for this one...
6 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Basically this whole movie can be summarized in ONE sentence: "Okay, better get going now...why aren't you leaving???????" I see others had the same "WTF's" has I had, so I don't feel so bad about this review: 1.) The whole beginning sequence was laughable, it reminded me of that Simpson's commercial "Canyonero" for their SUV.

2.)I just laughed when they had the music playing over the cop's radio talking.

3.) What is this supposed to be a very sad commentary on our State Troopers? That first of all, she wouldn't get him to get OUT of his car before showing her badge? And that one on one with absolutely nothing else around you could STILL lose your suspect.

4.) They just got Civil War re-enactors to be the extras, right? 5.) Its 28 Days Later in the Old West.

6.) The credits went for around an hour, I think. House of 1000 corpses fan much? 7.) If this IS an attempt to comment about slavery and race relations, why did they make the one "carjacker" in the entire desert a coked-up black guy with a gun? 8.) His gun changed a few times, semi, handgun, revolver...

9.) Some of the slow motion action scenes were tailor made for Conan's Walker Lever.

10.) The people turning into zombies was very reminiscent of the Return of the Living Dead movies, but without the campiness or originality.

11.) Ah yes, our new sort of hero: Coked Up Guy!!! 12.) I agree- I think Bloody Bill DOEs look like Mad Dog Tannen (Back to the Future 3), the McDonald's moon-man and William Sadler as the Grim Reaper (Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey).

13.) When "Eric" set off the grenade, why did smoke come out of only the top floor window, when it was blown off ground level? 14.) Bloody Bill apparently didn't have to do that much. He spent 95% of his time simply standing there.

15.) Gwen sensed something was wrong with the "Eric" in cowboy attire coming towards them, yet she continued to simply stand there, why? 16.) Bloody Bill can tele-transport from place to place- so why didn't he locate himself into the little tiny room they were hold up in? 17.) The end was a total ripoff of the Friday the 13th's, when someone pretended to be Mrs. Voorhees at the end to track the bad guy.

Basically I found myself asking everybody Didn't JUST LEAVE!!!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh I got some user comments for you
29 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, definitely better than my viewing of Death Tunnel. Actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. It was kind of like Wrong Turn meets the Hills Have Eyes.

BUT: 1.) When the "kids" (high school or college?) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen, everything Shae says is almost an exact quote from Scream (1996). The thing about the big-breasted girls etc.

2.) Was Steve NOT a bootleg Randy from Scream? 3.) Besides the fact that it took place in October, what the hell did the movie have to do with Samhain? Pretty unnecessary if you ask me. I find it humorous when I see those horror movies from the 80's that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram.

4.) Wow they made a Sam Raimi reference!!! 5.) Why was Gary and his sister in the movie? They're characters had nothing to do with anything. And hes so psychic that he couldn't even see his OWN death? 6.) When Gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point, the deaths became simply Troma-licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door? 7.) Gary's sister commented on Haggis- thats primarily a Scottish dish, not Irish.

8.) So the lesson is if you ARE like Shae and don't have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film, you'll be the one to live? 9.) The mutants were pretty cool, but they looked like walking dishes of Chili con carne.

10.) When they brought in Gary's sister, did they forget that Steve HAD been strapped there and wonder where he went? 11.) Was there not more than one killer? Shae beat that one, but never encountered any more of them.

12.) What was with the flashbacks to those other people? Half of them Shae didn't know if they were dead or alive, so what was with that? 13.) Why didn't they kill Gary and his sister before? 14.) Why did no one ever call the police? And apparently everybody KNEW those people lived in the woods, why did they never organize some kind of raid? 15.)As far as I know, they were not zombies OR vampires- so how could she "turn into" one at the end? I'm with everyone else on the giant "huh?" at the end.

Way better than death tunnel, but still quite sloppy. I still don't understand why they even placed it IN Ireland, considering Samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent, but could've been better
27 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In the words of Tom Servo:

"Its like they have 2 servings of tension that they're trying to stretch out for 7 people."

I think the lead-up to the actual events was more of a "cry-wolf" scenario. I mean she hears a noise and its:

1.) the sprinklers for the arboretum 2.) the cat 3.) bushes outside 4.) birds 5.) the housekeeper 6.) the ice machine 7.) her friend being a jerk 8.) a tree limb falling down

By the time the actual suspense comes, there's nothing to be shocked from. It was almost half over before anything even remotely scary happened. Also, having the previous babysitter's story a little more developed would've scared us more. What did he do? In the original, the kids were dead I believe and in the sequel they were kidnapped never to be found. Also I don't think he taunted her enough for it to be really creepy. Te original was better, with or without the inclusion of cell-phones. This is more like a movie for kids who truly cannot get into or do not wish to get into an "R" horror movie. Pretty dull.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Death Tunnel (2005)
How could I have been so wrong?
26 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The trailer ON DEMAND looked good and with all those "awards"- how could it be bad? And it could, does and is.

I had no absolutely NO idea what was going on. It was like if House on Haunted Hill and the Saw movies had a baby and peed on it. I understand them wanting to make the storytelling original, but we didn't need all the flashbacks, and it made the movie very hard to follow.

1.) Why were some of the ghosts naked? 2.) Is this how professional students act in med school? The people in this film acted more like they were in high school! 3.) Were the "bitches" supposed to be rich and everyone else poor? 4.) Did they leave at the end? 5.) Wha? She witnessed her own death? What is that like the past pluperfect subjunctive? I had no idea what was going on, I think thats the part that bothers me the most. Too bad all the characters decided to be in different movies.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cry Wolf (2005)
Pleasantly surprised
26 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I must say I was not expecting this sort of storyline- "a long con" as it were, sophisticated and well acted. Everyone should know that Dodger is trouble from the beginning- especially when like Eve in Eden, she's sitting there, plotting and holding an apple (although the Eve stereotype isn't true). But it really is a movie that keeps you guessing, instead of it being some run of the mill teen-slasher flick. I must say I was pleased that Jared Padalecki doesn't die in this one, as he has died in every other movie I've ever seen him in.

All the actors were great considering the fact they are young, and even Bon Jovi was good.

Fun movie which is a great throwback to Hollywood's classic "Whodunnit's".
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just Friends (I) (2005)
How can people have hated his gem?
25 April 2006
Perhaps it was the previous weeks' viewing of "Fun With Dick and Jane" which was devoid of any real humor, but I cant believe "Just Friends" didn't get more buzz. Even though Ryan Reynolds is regarded as Hollywood's "hunky dork", he is an amazing versatile actor- drama, horror and comedy- which I feel is his forte.

Getting beyond the whole "fat suit" thing, I don't think my friends and I have laughed so hard in a very long time. I really liked the depth into Ami Smart's character, and also that some psychological damage of youth simply doesn't "go away", no matter how much you change yourself on the outside. Chris Klein was perfect and I couldn't believe it when RR just screamed like a woman and rushed him. I really enjoyed it, and if you want to laugh I suggest you rent it.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dead Scared (2004)
Straight to video- this should have beat many others to the box office
25 April 2006
I found "The Hazing" to be an enjoyable film, and I really appreciated the director's subtle references to the Evil Dead series- an arrow being shot at a Bruce Campbell poster, for example. The director really seemed to have a sense of humor about the whole thing, and it just wouldn't be an A- film without the inclusion of Jeff Fahey, Brad Douriff or Malcolm McDowell. Douriff did a good enough job, as the psychotic professor. It also reminded me of "Demon Knight" in some parts- where the demon talks people into their own deaths. Really enjoyable, but I don't know how "scary" it really was. The leads were good and I really liked the "blonde bimbo" change. Very cool!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004 Video)
Eventually turned it off
25 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I actually didn't know this was a sequel to anything, I shudder to think the first two were any better. I am a horror nut, especially B-Movies, but I had enough and turned it off when- YES- the scarecrow comes OUT OF THE WATER (HES SUPPOSEDLY MADE OF STRAW) and Jason Voorhees-style grabs the girl from behind and brings her down. Did the scarecrow have Bermuda shorts for his time on the beach? I mean flannel and all... Also there was a hospital, then beach, then cornfield, then school- anymore jumping around, it shouldve been considered a vignette. 4 different stories apparently.

It was one of the worst things I've ever seen in my life. At least Troma KNOWS its bad- I don't think this film did!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Monster Man (2003)
Odd mix of genres
25 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Well, at least this movie was entertaining, and way better than "Cabin Fever". When I first saw the title, I expected something like from Werewolf (MST3K), a guy with a puffy hat driving a car.

The main guy, Adam looked like a strange mix of Jason Biggs and Matthew Fox, but was likable enough. His friend Harley was like a knock-off Jack Black mixed with Stifler.

Although the movie was uneven, jumping between (like another reviewer stated) Road Trip, Jeepers Creepers, JoyRide, Detour, Wrong Turn and The Last American Virgin.

I actually wrote down a few points to bring up to the good people of IMDb: 1.) Why was Harley wearing women's shoes? I don't even wear heels that big. 2.) Why the use of "a-hole"? They didn't hold back on any other swearing, so why stop there? 3.) Brother Bob (?) walked like he was doing the loco-motion. 4.) I'm calling for a industry-wide moratorium on the use of the pentagram as an evil symbol. Also, so she practices "witchcraft"? Why does it seem to be a scapegoat for horror movies that don't have another explanation (Curse of Michael Myers)? 5.) There's a "devils manual"? Can I get that at 6.) What a fortunate series of coincidences for the freaks! A virgin who happened to come along and fall into the series of strange occurrences. And also, is stated in the Ancient Texts that "someone must sleep with roadkill"? Did they have roadkill before cars? They didn't HAVE to explain it away, it just could've been a menacing prank by the Jeepers Creepers guy.

Anyway it was entertaining although uneven. Way better than Cabin Fever- I don't think it was trying to make any kind of statement, which is cool.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Way better than I thought it would be
15 April 2006
So its a notch above the gross-humor of "American Pie", which is refreshing. At first I was a little offended by Kumar's crudeness, but I realized upon a second viewing thats just his character.

ANYWAY It was utterly original, and the one scene I had to tell my friends who hadnt seen the movie about would have to be Kumar's fantasy about the bag of marijuana.

My only beef would have to be that pretty much every white person in the film was racist or strange in some way. But as long as its supposed to go along with the weirdness of the film, thats cool.

Very original, I am actually looking forward to the sequel. Liked the mini-homage to "Tommy Boy" with the Wilson-Phillips sing-along.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cabin Fever (2002)
This was utterly laughable!
14 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Okay I had heard little about this film, so when it came on the movie channels on TV, I wanted to watch it, being a horror aficionado. I think I can do a collective "huh?" for everyone who watched it.

I decided to move on with my life, but at a party with my closest friends, we saw it was coming on and some of us having seen it already decided we could laugh our way through it, both of us proclaiming "this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen". It wasn't scary; Ill give it to Roth (who I think is a young hack); characters do change throughout the film, ala "Cube".

HOWEVER despite your typical "rats in a cage" scenario- who will turn on who, etc., it was pretty average horror.

A few points: 1.) What was with that kid? I'm not even talking about him being weird and biting people. I'm talking about the whole "slow motion karate kicking", what was that? 2.) Okay I know Rider's character liked Jordan Ladd's, but as a young woman, I was appalled that he just went ahead and molested her in her sleep. Uh, thats illegal.

3.) Roth was in the movie just so Roth could be in the movie. Talk about pointlessly writing yourself in! 4.) What was with the deputy? 5.) So she was just instantly pulled apart by the dog? And there was little to no blood left? Just a scrap of her jeans? Anyway we were LAUGHING our asses off, and I love laughing during horror movies (Return of the Living Dead 2, Evil Dead), but I don't know if we were supposed to be laughing here...
22 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
One of Them (2003 Video)
I'm all about bad-horror, but this wasn't even entertaining
13 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of Them was absolutely awful. I am one of those people who scour On-Demand stations for absolutely horrible horror movies. But this one was just plain BORING. And it must have been a nice way to stay on budget by cutting out actors from pieces of cardboard and leftover set...oh those were "REAL" actors??? My bad...

It was boring, stupid and predictable. Lots of loose ends (if you're into that whole "story coming together at the end" sort of thing). I think the most INSULTING thing to those of us "in the know" in regards to the genre, was the BLATANT and may I say, BADLY done corpses stand straight up, Nosferatu style.

If I may point out some of the more questionable things: okay so if they were really worshipping "false gods/demons" then why did they actually end up having power at the end? Where actually WAS the farmhouse that Elizabeth was supposed to lead them to? And why were they going there? And if Trina knew she was going to be killed, why did she go alone into a dangerous area instead of staying in Hollywood, where she was in the beginning? Was that really "Trey" calling from the woods? What of the girl Charlene, with the whole "slitting her own throat" thing? And why was SHE hiding as well? What was with the blinding thing (also a ripoff of Un chien andalou (1929))? Not even entertaining in a BAD way, this is a definite MST3K stinker.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Triangle (2005)
Strange, a bit lengthy
13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am not so mad at all the sci-ency-government conspiracy gibberish as I was the ending- it ended, for me, with a huge "WHAT?". I did enjoy Katharine Bell, a sassy but sensual heroine who had amazing chemistry with Bruce (Michael Rodgers). But COME ON! What the hell?

I think Bruce said it all:

"My reality is having a family, responsibilities and a bum leg."

So, we never get to see Bruce and Emily get together and they have odd "lives" now. It was very strange, I kept expecting them to say "to be continued" or something.

I think TT's biggest problem was the fact that, like all mini-series, it was too long. It was like Devlin and Singer had to keep coming up with plot twists. I agree with the other reviewers that the whole point of having Lou Diamond Phillips in this film was to have Lou Diamond Phillips in this film.

I don't know, very mixed feelings.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The L Word (2004–2009)
Good, but as of late has gotten irritating
6 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe its the inclusion of Alan Cummings- "look at me I swing everyway!" additude (don't get me wrong, I like AC), but the show has become a complete "anything goes". I have to agree with others about Dallas Roberts and Moira. I thought the job interview was degrading and horrible, but she went in completely as a man but with a womanly voice and name. I'm not saying it was right, because I was absolutely appalled by that man, but not everyone is going to be as accepting. They aren't going to understand what it's like to be her and straddle that line with gender.

The only one on the show who hasn't been completely irritating is Alice, who I feel is the most relatable. Everyone has gone through those levels of heartache. Maybe shes the only one who ever shows what shes feeling, her search for a new love, not a waiting in the wings model to sweep her off her feet.

Also with the political commentary. Enough already! It was bad enough we had to sit through Gloria Steinem's dated tirade during the Heart concert (who totally rocks, I was put off by that "intro"), but then Bette's little speech to the Fine Arts members. She couldn't have picked a MORE controversial piece to take there. I am myself an artist and an advocate for "alternative lifestyle" rights, but I didn't particularly like that piece. I wouldn't have liked it if the artist was gay or straight. If you're going to be schmoozing with people who are historically "conservative", maybe you should pick a different piece to show them. Agreed you shouldn't have to, but pick your battles! Jenny is, and always has been to me the most annoying person on the show. I absolutely hated what she did to Tim- (cheating is okay as long as its with a woman I guess), and her haircut was awful. We get it, okay? You're a rebellious writer in the midst of sexual liberation. Does everyone in the universe have to know about it? It just surprises me what a bubble these people live in. Bad enough its LA, but then its the gay community in LA. I live in Buffalo, a very "artsy, alternative" place and I love it. I'm not homophobic or against it or anything, I don't care what your preference is. But for them, there is nothing outside of their little restaurant. There is virtually no straight people in their lives (save for Kit, and maybe Alice). I don't know, maybe its just venturing away from the relatable for me.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
House of Wax (2005)
Was an okay horror movie
9 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I like to think of myself as a horror aficionado, so I feel competent to judge.

I think it is disturbing that after skimming about 34+ pages of user comments, I only found 3 entries total which mention Wade's horrible death. If Paris Hilton hadn't been in this movie (death was OKAY- I wouldn't say spectacular)- would the others get a fair shake? I didn't care about her presence one way or another. Actually I felt a little better for her- evidently its better just to hurry up and get killed right away before the guy could get you ALIVE.

Okay that being said: With Wade's scenes, actually trying to figure this out (which I know is dumb, its a movie!): wouldn't the wax have reached his eyeballs as well? And if not, wouldn't his eyes rot out eventually? Would Vincent (nice little homage to the original with Vincent Price) THEN replace them? Was anyone else cringing when Dalton KEPT peeling at his skin? If Wade was "rescued" what could really be done for him? The wax went through all layers of his skin evidently. Would they just put him in the burn unit and wait for his own body to regenerate its skin? I felt so bad for him (and knew it was really stupid for him to wander off into the creepy redneck rooms.

I am not squeamish, but I absolutely HATE sadism or psychopathic apathy (I walked out of Devil's rejects) because that kind of serial killing is too realistic. Jason down at Crystal Lake is just ridiculous- and at least his victims die fast.

So lets review, for Wade's sake: first he is attacked, has his Achilles cut so he cant run (very pet Sematary). Then gets some other wounds. Then is drugged, has all his hair (presumably everywhere) ripped out with burning hot wax. THEN has his whole body covered in boiling hot wax, unable to scream or move. THEN when HES STILL ALIVE- is positioned grotesquely at the piano there, his eyes still being able to see everything happening to him and his friend. THEN his friend tries to help him, peeling off his skin. THEN part of his face gets knocked off (still unable to move). THEN- finally gets to die- but burned alive. This is what made me physically sick in the movie. It really freaked me out. The whole cover in wax thing- fine (VERY different from the original)- but to have him STILL be alive after all that? That was just too much.

As for the twin thing, okay- but why even show us the beginning with Beau and Vince as children? Obviously they were both the "bad ones". So what with the good twin/evil twin plot? Its very different from the original- the only similarity being that the wax figures were real people at one time. At least the Prof in the first one had the decency to kill them beforehand.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
King Arthur (2004)
I cannot believe someone thought this was "realism"
30 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I was actually very excited about this film. I was on exchange to Scotland at the time, studying actually this period in history. I know that there was a historical Arthur, Gwenfyar etc., but I also loved the mythology behind it. I also love these kinds of period pieces.

1.) First- I am an Archaeology student- WHO was fighting WHO now? All the groups looked exactly the same and I had no idea who they were exactly fighting all the time- is that the outskirts of the Roman army, the Saxons, villagers what?

2.) I did like that Gwenfyar seem to have a pair, and they made her Pictish. They could've gone into what she was a little more, and who those people fighting with her were. I don't like that they cut out the love triangle between her, Lancelot and Arthur.

3.) Uh, Arthur was NOT Roman, or from the Roman Empire. He was part of the groups (Celts living in England, or as some call him "The Pictish King".). I don't know why they felt they needed to make him Roman.

4.) Most of the groups that encountered the Romans fought with every fiber of their being. The Roman's didn't even go further into Scotland because they were afraid.

5.) I understand the need to make a "historical" piece. But why, with the exception of a tiny appearance by Merlin, cut out any religious backgrounds of the people? The Roman Empire, for all its faults, was very free in regards to religion. Up until Constantine, that is. Couldn't they at least have Morgaine, Lady of the Lake, etc., as just plain old priestesses? The Druids gave council to the rulers of Kingdoms throughout the British Isles. Again, a reason to make Arthur a Briton.

6.) Unsatisfactory, anti-climactic ending. So they have a big wedding and thats it?

Very, very bad. Read Mists of Avalon.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.