Reviews written by
F_Jenkins

Page 3 of 37: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
370 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

7 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Awful, 22 January 2013
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just wanted to see how many "reviewers" would compare this to Tarantino, which was what the writer wanted. However any Joe blow can put a bunch of "whacky" characters in a movie and think they're doing Tarantino. It doesn't work that way.

The "freeze frame with the character's title" thing is a bad cliché now and is done ad nauseum in this thing. Please, please stop. The "whacky" characters who pop out of nowhere was supposed to be cool but it was to the point of ridiculousness. The dialog wasn't well written at all and you don't care about a single person in any shape or form, especially Christian Slater's character. The writer is trying hard to be a Tarantino-type director but fails miserably by doing every clichéd, overused trick in the book. I couldn't finish this. I got to about the 40 minute mark and stopped. The hot blonde with the big boobs walking around freely in the open with a tight suit and two guns to her back, even if she was supposed to be some killer, would never happen and was so stupid to be believable in any way - there comes a point where suspension of disbelief can only go so far. I didn't buy anyone in this pile of junk.

I like quirky. This isn't quirky. It's just stupid and unoriginal. Gary Oldman, really? He's turning into Michael Caine - he'll do any movie now for a check.

16 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Cringe-worthy awful - this was made why?, 17 January 2013
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is basically a "spoof" of the Paranormal Activity films with a few other recent movies and TV shows thrown in. I use the word "spoof" very lightly because there wasn't one remotely funny thing about this. There are reality show references and if you do not watch reality shows you will have no idea what's going on. In fact a lot of the movie "references" are all recent - meaning this will be pretty dated in about 5 years. I'd like to say this is something that will not hold up well over time but it doesn't hold up well over five minutes. It's incredibly unfunny and it's trying hard to be funny.

There are lots of dick jokes in fact that's pretty much all it is, but nary a humorous one. There are references to other movies but again, the guy who "wrote" this seems to think simply referencing another movie is somehow funny. The daughter is from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but there isn't anything funny about it. This is one of those movies that was clearly written over a weekend, no rewrites, no input from anyone funny or with talent - just a quickly thrown together bad attempt at a spoof. Looking at the director/writer's other credits, it's no wonder this was so awful. Someone needs to tell this guy he's not good at this. This type of humor is not easy to write and this is a good example of why not everyone should be trying this.

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Unwatchable, 28 December 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have to comment when I see poorly made amateur-fests like this getting ten stars from people with one review - this one, talking about how great it is. Even someone who actually found this pile of garbage entertaining wouldn't dare give it ten stars. I mean, Godfather is ten stars. Godfather and this movie? Really? I've said it before, I'll say it again, people who work on the cheapo videos should not be allowed to comment on them in here. It's unethical pretending to be a viewer raving about this dungfest.

There isn't one person who can act in this - but went you have a bad script and a bad director, it's like a porno without the sex. There are some scenes with really quick cuts where the people meet the zombies. This would actually be good if something was happening. But you see someone swing something. Someone else fall down. Someone yell. Someone run. What a complete mess. Learn basic editing. There isn't one redeeming quality about this mess. Syfy has better made movies than this. Giving it one star is being generous.

L.A. Takedown (1989) (TV)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Watched because of Heat - it's a footnote in film history, 24 December 2012
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is not a bad film at all on its own merits. Essentially 95% of the scenes in this movie were made almost exactly the same in Heat (with Heat have much more character detail hence its longer run time). But knowing Heat is a remake of this, makes this film a very interesting footnote in film history. There is no way to not compare the actors performances in both films.

Of course, it's hard to be compared to a role Al Pacino ended up doing. You will lose. But worse, Scott Plank here was just miscast anyway. He doesn't appear to be a bad actor - he's too young to be leading this task force and looks like the "porno version" of the character Pacino played. He plays the character like a bad TV cop show cop and that's the huge negative of this otherwise pretty good movie.

I found Mann's direction no where near as good in this as in Heat. Plus it was made when Miami Vice was still on there air so this is almost like a West Coast version of Miami Vice. But overall not bad at all. And being it was remade by a film many people consider to be one of their all time favorites, this little TV movie will always have a remembered spot in film history.

Touchback (2011)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Clichés and bad casting, 9 September 2012
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Forget that this movie leaves absolutely no cliché unturned, whoever cast this movie should be relegated to straight-to-DVD horror movies from now on. Of course this small town high school team is really good. All the players are 35. At no point do you believe any of them are in high school and the main guy is the worst. He was 34 when shooting this and looks 34. There ARE actors in town who look 18 and can play football. Why in the world they would cast a bunch of guys who look like retired football players is a mystery.

In this movie, a guy tries to commit suicide and somehow goes back in time. It's never really explained how, or how he knows which classes to go to or how he remembers plays from 15 years ago (I played high school football and for years and years after would have dreams I was back in the huddle but couldn't remember the plays) but since he makes sure to get a pass to the crappy player that somehow actually happened, it's not a dream. And why is a team that is in the state championship starting a guy at receiver who can't catch? Wouldn't happen in a million years.

When he's walking through the field at the end, my first though was "please don't have him do the 'Gladiator brush his hands over the field as he walks' thing" and sure enough he does. Any cliché you can think of, happens. Oddly, the one thing that was odd was his girlfriend, the hot cheerleader, was not a bad person - which usually is the case with these movies. In fact, she was nice and kind of gets the brush off in the movie. It's almost like they were going somewhere with that part and just left it during a rewrite.

On the plus side, they did a great job filming the football scenes, which of course is a waste when you don't have believable people playing high school kids. And the fact the poster is a straight-up-rip-off of "the Rookie" poster is criminal.

I want to like this movie but because of the casting, just couldn't. But it did have Kurt Russell, so that's always a plus.

7 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Poor filmmaking, 17 August 2012
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Once again, many facts are left out. This documentary acts like Jesse was coerced into confessing. As if he's so stupid, he would actually think confessing to a capital crime would get him a reward and he'd be "home with his dad" that night. He doesn't have the mind of a six year old (the famous claim that is repeated) however even if he did, a six year old has the comprehension to understand confessing to murder isn't going to lead to anything good for you.

That aside, they conveniently leave out the multiple other confessions Jesse did, including one where he wants a bible to swear on and one AFTER his verdict in the car ride with the sheriffs (which was mentioned in the first documentary). An innocent man does not confess multiple times to a crime he did not commit especially after he's been convicted. Supporters will claim the fact he had stuff wrong in his (multiple) confessions means he was making it up - yet oddly in every confession he mentions chasing down the kid who tried to run away. Every confession. Odd for something that is being "made up." The stuff about Hobbs is criminal too. They literally try to claim Hobbs killed the kids as a means to sway uniformed people away from the WM3. Damien's lawyer has the nerve to claim Hobbs is a psychopath who could pass a polygraph right now. What he fails to mention is that his own client Damien FAILED a polygraph test in 1993.

Now I do not know for sure who killed those kids. No one does except the people who did it. However if you're supposed to be presenting the facts in a documentary, present the facts. Don't leave stuff out and paint a picture on specific facts (like Jesse only had one confession and it was coerced). No DNA at the crime scene does not mean one is innocent. Another fact left out. I'm positive all these celebrities who support the WM3 have never read the whole case files. They only know what other celebrities have said, who also have not read the files and only know what they saw on a documentary with a clear agenda.

The guys who made these documentaries are not bad filmmakers at all. This was just bad filmmaking.

Scalene (2011)
35 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
Uh, are we supposed to know who "Zack Parker" is?, 28 July 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I love these awful low budget films where some unknown guy puts his name above the title. Bad acting, bad directing - everything that comes with these types of films, we have here. And of course the first two reviews - by "people" who write exactly the same and start their "review" with "I saw this at so-and-so festival" and of course name "Zack Parker" in the "review" including "his third film." Really? Are we not supposed to know this is Zack Parker writing these? This is what has become bad about the IMDb - the plethora of cheapo videos getting listing, then plundered with "glowing reviews" by people who made the cheapo video. This guy has the nerve to actually write "why was this not nominated for an Oscar" in the IMDb forum for this movie!!

There's no "strong performance" and certainly no "Hitchcock-trained eye" Just once I'd love to see these guys be honest. You'd be surprised how much more that would go over in a positive way than fake reviews praising your work.

11 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Good premise marred by clichés and bad acting, 2 June 2012
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the end, I do not buy that the kid has the skills he does in this movie - there's some massive suspension of disbelief you need to possess here; that said, this isn't too bad. The problem is clichés, bad acting and bad directing.

I almost stopped watching the when the "I hate you mom" daughter got to the screen. Another clichéd "I don't get what I want so I'm a b***h" daughter. Trust me, anyone watching the movie wanted her to die first but anyone watching the movie knew exactly how it was going to turn out.

The lead bad guy was ridiculously miscast. Over-the-top acting made him hard to watch and his henchmen were bad clichés - the bad guys you see getting shot in one scene in a Lethal Weapon movie, they've just got a lot more scenes here.

I think if this movie had been rewritten by a better writer, directed by a better director and recast, it would have been pretty good. The premise definitely is. It wasn't executed too well in this case but on the plus side, I did watch the whole thing and usually movies with a bad acting and lots of clichés I'm lucky to get through 30 minutes. The premise was the best thing about this.

11-11-11 (2011)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly good, 18 May 2012
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

We live in the age of a multitude of bad horror flicks because of DVDs and cable. 97% of the stuff that comes out on a weekly basis is absolutely awful - for someone like me, hard to sit through. I watch a lot of bad movies on fast forward. This is not one of them.

It looked like it might be bad but 25 minutes into the thing (no fast forwarding) and I caught myself going "geesh, I'm actually liking this." It does have some smart dialog (despite the multitude of bad "reviews" I'm reading here by people who I'm guessing are big pro wrestling fans) and good performances. I have never heard of the lead actor before and his constant grimace was kind of getting on my nerves at times, but overall he was good. The premise of 11.11 opening a door actually works here. There was one too many "You believe in a magical man in the clouds but you can't believe this?" uttered in the movie and a couple contrived 'scares" (where we see a face quickly in the background with "shocking" music) but overall, I really liked this film.

Take it from someone who hates most stuff I see. This was really solid. Definitely worth a rental.

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
There are no bridges here - or logic, originality or good writing, 13 May 2012
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Hey, uncle Stan gave me 70,000 bucks to make a movie." "We should make something original and scary!" "No, let's just make the same boring slasher movie that's been made 200 times already!" "Okay!" Honestly, you'd think even the worst "writer" would avoid the "let's meet the characters on a long ride to where they will go to be killed by a famed killer" cliché. Not here. 30 minutes to kick the movie off.

The killer isn't scary in fact, he's some really skinny dude that any one of these girl's could beat up - but he does have a pig mask for some reason - so he must be scary. There wasn't an original thought written in this movie. Not one. The same stuff that has been done a million times before - I'm baffled as to why anyone would was making this would think this was good. If you look at the only "good" reviews here, the usual over-the-top glowing "this movie is amazing!" and "I was so sad when (cliched character) was killed!" clearly written by people who worked on this, which apparently is the law in the IMDb now. Note they all have only one review - this one.

One of them had the nerve to write "if you like Hills have eyes and Wrong Turn you'll like this." That's what these amateur screenwriters do. They pick out good movies, then claim theirs is in that league. No one outside the production has said this. Just the guy who wrote it.

And what's sad is the cinematography and even most of the acting is not bad for this type of film. Just wasted on a ridiculously awful script. What was this guy thinking?


Page 3 of 37: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]