Reviews written by

Page 11 of 37: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
370 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

The Rage (2007)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Killed by bad acting, 2 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The fact a lot of the movie is CGI shows there was some budget. Most of the CGI is bad, some is actually okay but the camper driving with the green screen stuff was embarrassing. But like all low budget movies, it appears no time or effort was put into casting the movie and yet again, a low budget movie is killed off by really, really bad acting. I literally couldn't watch any scene with the "campers" after a while. By the time they were being attacked by the vulture puppets, I would just fast forward when they were on screen as nary a line or scream they bellowed was remotely believable or done well. It's a cliché to say it's like a porn without the sex, but I've seen porn with better acting than this. And the worst acting of all was provided by two kids, who are literally the worst actors in the history of movies on DVD. They appear completely bored and are unwatchable. They had to have been someone's kids on the production because these kids were simply reciting lines with the vigor of a corpse. When they were killed in the movie ( by the guy from Phantasm who of course, makes a lame Phantasm reference), one could only be happy.

It's got some stuff that is okay, but when a movie starts off with a diabolical mad scientist who laughs sinisterly while by himself, which no one in the real world as ever done in the history of the world (this is what they did in 1930 movie serials and old cartoons), you're not off to a good start. The fact they named the movie and the disease after the same thing from "28 Days Later" is bad too. You can't come up with an original name? I mean, come on. You're doing a movie, you can't come up with a name that hasn't' been used before? And when the director seems to be showing signs of actually directing, he nullifies everything with the shaky camera anytime there's any action going on, which is the sign of the idiot. "We don't want people to actually know what's going on, so move the camera around really really fast." I only give it a 4 out of 10 for effort. With a better director and cast and some script changes, it could have been better.

And of course, with these cheapo shot on video movies, you have to watch the "making of" documentary, which as usual, you'd think they had just finished doing "Gone With the Wind" the way they talk. This particular making of documentary was really slow, the pacing was awful and I could only watch about ten minutes because it was sprinkled with lots of long sections from the movie. Someone needs to explain to these buffoons, when you're doing a long "making of" documentary, no need to have long shots from the movie WE JUST WATCHED!!! If anyone is watching a "making of" documentary for a movie like this, one with bad acting shot on video, we just want to see how you made it. We don't want to see the actual movie again.

Kaw (2007)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Some of the most boring characters in film history, 24 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A farmer is attacked by some crows. The sheriff gets the call to head out to his farm. He gets there and finds the body. He is the only one there. Apparently the birds who killed the farmer, made the initial call to the cops that something happened on the farm.

There's lots of stupid stuff like this. The worst being that every character is so boring and clichéd, you only want everyone to be killed by the birds.

Especially the Omish. You can literally see that the beards the Omish men are wearing are not even attached, as the grandpa talks, where the beard is supposed to be growing out of his cheek moves with every syllable, it's hard to believe no one in the production pointed this out. It's also the only Omish that drive cars.

As the moron cop shoots his gun at the 100 or so birds that are terrorizing the street, five or six jump on him as he falls the ground when his bullets run out. Instead of getting up and running inside, you know, six feet away, he just lays there as if the birds are weighing him down. Some how someone watching this film is supposed to be scared or even shocked. I was, at how stupid the cop was.

Of course it's the main sheriff's last day. Does anything bad ever happen on a sheriff's first day? Why is it always his last day? The only thing missing was his long time partner to be killed.

The birds are nice looking, actually and some of the CGI is good (some of it's not, some of the green screen is way too obvious).

If you're going to make a movie that literally everyone who watches it will compare to Hitchcock's movie, you better do a damned good job and they didn't here. I was so bored at this cliché-fest, I just couldn't finish it.

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Not bad at all, but NOT great, 15 February 2008

Hey, this movie held my attention from start to finish which is something that happens less frequently nowadays, but with that said, it's not as great as all the comments I'm seeing here. I'm seeing "comparible to Pacino" and "Goodfellas backwards" and "Unofficial Departed sequel" and I'm wondering if these people even saw the same movie.

First off, it'd directed well and the characters are three dimensional, the script is not bad at all; that is, until it takes a turn that is something out of the Simpsons, where the drug using, club manager son is made a "probationary police officer" to help them catch the bad guys. Yeah, forget all the possible lawsuits by simply giving someone a badge without any training or procedure knowledge or anything, this guy couldn't be a cop in a million years no matter who his dad and brother are. It was one of the oddest, most unrealistic turns I've seen in an otherwise good movie in a long time.

And the other problem is at no point do you believe the three principles are related. Good actors, each one, but not believable as related.

Someone should do a tally of how many movies Duvall plays a guy whose wife has died earlier and he says to his kids "your mother would be proud of you."

Halloween (2007)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Please tell me, how, HOW does Rob Zombie get work as a director?, 11 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's baffling. Rob Zombie doesn't direct straight-to-video films, he gets big budget, theatrical releases, in a world where there are lots of good directors who never get that shot. This guy has yet to make a good movie and here he is, making these crappy, poorly written and directed hackfests.

Now he's taken one of the greatest horror films of all time and turned it into your basic, run of the mill slasher film. Everyone is either your typical white-trash hick (what is about Zombie and his movies, he has these characters in every film. Is he a white trash hick or just infatuated with them) or a really unlikable idiot. He's taken Laurie Strode, who in the original the audience cared about and was afraid when she was stalked by Myers, and turned her into a buffoon, an unlikable moron, who in her first minute on screen acts like a true idiot that you want to see killed. What were they thinking? It would be like taking Dorothy from Wizard of Oz and have her first scene making porno references. Yeah, we're really rooting for her now! In this version, we get more of Myers background, which is plain stupid. The idea is he's a mindless, soulless killer yet you never get that impression with the kid in this movie. When McDowell says to an audience "His eye were blank, there was no life" you don't see that with the kid. At no point does the kid actually come across as someone with no soul in his eyes. In fact, it's still never explained why the kid is the way he is, other than the fact he's a hick, his family are hicks and you couldn't give a hoot about any of them. The original Myers really was soulless and a killing machine. He was from a regular middle class family and just went berserk. This Myers makes masks. He enjoys arts and crafts. He carries a picture of himself with his sister when they were kids. The only thing missing was him petting rabbits. Whatever this was, it wasn't Michael Myers.

Everyone gets killed which is no shock. There is no sense of dread or tension and when the scenes come up where there should be tension (and of course you know what happens), Zombie all of a sudden, like every hack director today, loses the tripod and starts flinging the camera all over the place, making sure you can't clearly see what's going on. For the life of me I cannot figure out why anyone does this.

Although it was good seeing Ken Foree, this movie was otherwise a complete waste of time and I couldn't wait for it to be over. I can only hope that Zombie never gets another directing job and that this won't get a sequel, but alas, there's too many stupid people in the world and both will happen.

Lake Placid 2 (2007) (TV)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Why? Just, why?, 5 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I really liked the first one, I thought it was well cast and written. So they made a sequel. It was like one of those Star Trek fan videos you see, where they make their own version of Star Trek. It's got amateurish acting, directing, special effects and only the die hard fans would find it entertaining. I don't know if this sequel was made by a die hard fan of the original, but it was written, cast and had special effects worthy of any Star Trek fan movie.

Let's just forget about the bad acting and special effects from 1990. How this script was okayed and I don't just mean by the director or producers, but the actors, is a mystery. Surely when they were reading their part they had to have went at some point "man, there's no way in the world someone would act this way at this point." The Sheriff's co-worker is brutally eaten by the croc and he's laughing and and hitting on the woman shortly after. In fact numerous people he knows are killed and he's worried about getting the money for his boats that were destroyed. After a terrible 24 hours of battling crocs and seeing numerous people beheaded, having limbs torn from their bodies and chopped up by the crocs, he drops off his son with a girl and jokingly says "okay, I'm trusting you!" Then in the car with the hot chick, they're talking about going to dinner and "no talking about your ex-wife." Yeah, forget about the fact we just witnessed what should have been the most horrifying 24 hours a human would have to go through in real life, you better not talk about your ex while I'm eating dinner. At no point does the idiot feel any remorse for losing what were supposed to be people he knew well.

The acting was terrible and as is the case in every single one of these idiotic movies, we get yet another son who doesn't like his dad and doesn't want to be there. The son is a jerk and hates life. Poor son. Of course in this particular instance, to no one's surprise with this awful casting, the son is probably about five years younger than the dad.

Of course, everyone is a jerk in this movie and you don't even get the satisfaction of wanting them to get eaten by the crocs because the special effects are so awful, the amateurs on the Star Trek fan films are actually better. At no point do you actually think anyone is getting eaten by anything. It's baffling that a movie that obviously put some money into it could have effects this bad.

The script was terrible and I'll only give you one example of some of the amazingly terrible attempts at humor:

Girl: You're a jerk

Guy (to assistant): I think she likes me.

Yikes. There is someone in this world who actually thought that would be funny. I've seen better written dialog in a porno. I'm not kidding. Some of the dialog will make you cringe. THIS is why you do more than one draft of a script, folks.

Avoid this movie.

8 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
Absolute garbage, 13 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, this may officially be the time that the IMDb's rating system has no meaning. At the time I write this, this movie is 7.5 which is absurd.

This movie is awful and the only people who could possibly enjoy it are people who get off on watching torture. Now I'm not saying there couldn't have been a movie in there somewhere. But there is no tension. At no point is there anytime where you think "yes, she just might get away now" or "they're going to get caught..." The girl is just tortured. And tortured. And tortured. There's no real attempts at escape or almost escaping or anything resembling suspense. It's just one torture scene to the next. The boy who is supposed to be the "hero" just stands there and watches without saying or doing anything pretty much, which is just ridiculous. If he actually cared about the girl, he would have told his parents at the first hint of torture, let alone standing there throughout.

There is no reason (that I saw) why this lady tortures the girl or why she thinks she can possibly get away with it. It's just ridiculous. She's got all these neighborhood kids standing there watching as if it was a neighborhood bar-b-que and at no point is she actually worried about what will eventually happen to the girl or herself as a result of her actions.

Then I'm reading people claiming this was based on a true story, so I did some searching around and found absolutely nothing about a true story. I guess making that claim makes it easier for them to say they liked this garbage so much, instead of it just being a fictional piece about a girl being tortured for two hours and nothing else.


2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Makes Die Hard look like a high school documentary, 8 January 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie is stylish, well directed and well cast. Too bad it turns into a cartoon about ten minutes into the film. Suspension of disbelief has to be held at a level that has never been held before if you buy into this film. Stuff happens that is so amazingly out there, it's hard to like the film.

Of course, it has the "Commando" rule that the hero can hit every shot with dead on precision while being fired on by hundreds of bad guys from all angles and not get a scratch. If it was just that, it wouldn't be as bad. But all the little things the hero does are so over-the-top, even James Bond would be shaking his head in disgust.

Forget that he can hit any object no matter how fast it or he is moving with ease, the fact he rams his car into a van to purposely get thrown into the van to kill everyone was awful. You could do it in real life 100 times and still probably not "exit" that way (not taking into effect you'd probably break every bone in the crash). But when he jumps off an overpass, shoots out a sun roof in a car and lands safely and easily into the car's seat without any damage to him or the car, what enjoyment I could get from the movie kind of went out the window. He might as well jump off 18 story buildings and land on his feet, or swim under water for a couple hours without air because it be just as believable. I was expecting the bad guys to walk in the room, see the hero and their eyes pop out like springs in a Tex Avery cartoon; that's how real this movie is.

And the baby gets thrown around like a rag doll, of course a real baby's bones would have been broke about 20 minutes into the movie.

Yeah, there are people who will whine and say "your complaining about a popcorn movie, take it for what it is..." which is fine, but when the action is so cartoonish as it was in this movie, and you're a human being who expects SOME semblance of realism in a film, it's hard to enjoy it like people who just like guys shooting guns in any movie.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Leave your brain at the...well not even the door, more like the garbage, 28 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Man, what a pointless waste of time. I realize these "buddy cop" films follow a certain formula, but this one, literally, has zero logic to it. From the assassinator escaping OUTSIDE THE BUILDING IN FULL VIEW OF EVERYONE in the beginning to the two main characters simply DANCING AWAY from a crime scene in the last scene of the movie, one has to scratch their head and wonder how anyone thought this was a good movie. Okay, let's forget that literally every scene has something stupid and illogical to it (it's not even like a Die Hard movie where you can still be entertained), the dialog is awful in this film, the "gags" and I use that word lightly, are just dreadful. There wasn't a funny line uttered in the entire film and it's just baffling that not only someone wrote that garbage but that someone else green-lit it afterward. I swear Chris Tucker was just reciting half his lines or reciting them in that annoying high-pitched fast voice that isn't funny or effective anymore.

But once you realize that the movie is horribly written, you just sit there analyzing every scene for how stupid each scene is. You can easily find fault in every scene that's about the only entertaining thing about this movie. I hope this is the end of this terrible franchise and for all I care, the careers of Chan and Tucker too.

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Not real funny, 25 December 2007

It was really nice to see all the actors playing their characters from the original movie, but with that said, it was obvious they were just ad-libbing and none of them said anything remotely funny. After a while, it was just them talking, basically giving details to the end of the movie that describes what happened to each character. So when the end of the movie states that Flounder is a self help guru (I don't remember the exact verbiage used but something like that) in Cleveland, we see him in Cleveland, older and simply talking about what he does, which wasn't funny or even interesting. It would have been better to throw us for a loop with each character and catch us off guard, instead of simply filling in what we already know.

Also it wasn't clear on time-frame. I wasn't sure if Landis was claiming this "documentary" was from the 80s or 90s, even though it's apparent it was recent by what most of the characters were saying (even though Babs makes a reference to our President Reagan), which then of course, the characters aren't remotely the age they're supposed to be (off by about 16 years). Interestingly, Karen Allen and Tim Mattheson are the two that seem to have aged in real life, quite well.

The making of documentary that comes with the movie on the DVD, done in 1998, was much more entertaining.

It Waits (2005)
1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
It (the audience) Waits (for something to happen), 16 December 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The first five minutes we see some really bad actors go into a cave where there's a monster. The monster comes out quickly, we don't see him, so I'm assuming this might make a good movie.

The next half hour we get a bimbo, who we're supposed to believe is a park ranger, the only park ranger who never wears her uniform top. Instead, she prances around in a tight tank top displaying her large breasts. If this were real, every ranger in the U.S. would want to work with her. She wouldn't be believable as a mall security guard, let alone a park ranger.

For the next 30 minutes we get 100% soap opera. Really, really bad dialog and amazingly bad acting and the whole time I'm literally cringing wondering how in the world any filmmaker could start out what is supposed to be a horror film with this? We get thousands of flashes back to an accident she caused and a really badly dubbed bird that not a single viewer bought into (man, this is one of the most clichéd movie devices ever, in fact we get two: the blabbing, poorly dubbed bird and the "a bad thing happened to me so I'm an alcoholic" character).

Was this movie made by some junior high kids? Didn't I see Steven Cannell's name in the credits? I couldn't watch anymore. After a half hour I started fast forwarding, then skipping sections to see if anything would happen and there was LOTS of bad acting and still whatever I'd skip to was long and boring and finally I couldn't watch anymore. I don't know what the monster looked like or what he was up to because I couldn't take this unbelievably boring and poorly acted film. And looking at the lead actress's credits, she actually has gotten a lot of work. It makes me sad; very, very sad.

Note to idiot filmmakers who make these bad straight-to-DVD movies: bad acting and dialog to start out a movie (and throughout the movie) is not going to get your movie watched or any positive reviews (or more work for you). I absolutely cannot remember how this ended up in my Netflix queue but it did force me to go through it with a fine tuned comb.

Page 11 of 37: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]