Reviews written by

Page 8 of 37: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
370 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Where's the tripod?, 25 January 2010

We've come to the point where we now have two kinds of movies: those with tripods and those without. This is one of those without. I, for the life of me, cannot understand why making an entire movie without a tripod or steadicam is supposed to make it an enjoyable viewing experience. The actors, the cinematographer, the crew were all doing their jobs, yet the camera has to sway all over the place so we can't quite watch it like a normal person. I noticed two still shots and one was an fx shot (the bullet falling to the ground in slow motion and the guy calling his exwife at sundown).

People compare this movie to Platoon and I think it's an insult - or that this movie will win Oscars (it will because of the hype). It wasn't a great script by any means. It's okay as far as story goes - it's not award-worthy in my opinion in an sense, but what do I know? I like movies with tripods so I'm in the minority anyway.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
5 minute skit turned into bad movie, 21 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First off, the opening we see a "news reporter," a woman who looks about 19 with bad teeth who wouldn't be able to get a job as a news reporter in Walla Walla, let alone anywhere else - and in the first ten minutes she actually compares herself to Diane Sawyer - now that was laugh out loud funny.

It's supposed to be for "channel 12" yet the "cameramen" are holding Cannon xg1 consumer cameras. Pretty amateurish.

So the idea is she's interviewing a serial killer in the vein of Michael Myers and Jason, he's kind of funny and has personality - for about ten minutes. Then after the joke is played out, it just drags on. More "set up" of stereotypical slasher film plot points - yeah, we get it. It's a five minute skit dragged on for a whole movie.

By this time you're allowed to think too much about what's going on and any rational adult is going "why is she promoting this as he sets up killing a bunch of people." Then it turns into a real slasher film - bad acting, overdone music, not scary - unwatchable. I had read good reviews about this and now I'm just officially never trusting reviews anymore. That was the last straw. This movie sucked.

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Please, please stop Rob Zombie, 18 January 2010

This movie was wrong on numerous levels.

I don't even know if Zombie even saw the original. In the original, Michael Myers, or the Shape as he was once called, was a mysterious monster who was popping out of shadows and appearing where he shouldn't have appeared - he was scary. The new Myers is just a bum who kills people. There's no mystery about him. He's not scary and just likes to stab people because he keeps having dreams about his mom and for some reason, himself as a kid. His mask plays very little part of this movie and in the original it was one of the things that kept him a mystery in fact, it was his identity. This version was stupid beyond belief. It was also just a way for Zombie to get his wife a big role in the movie where really, she should have nothing to do with.

Laurie has went from being the wholesome heroin that the audience identified with to an obnoxious rocker chick that you couldn't care less about. She's the third or fourth girl in the back who gets killed in slasher movies now elevated to the lead - completely unlikeable. I'm sorry, at no point would someone who had went through what she did, have a picture of Charles Manson above their bed. I don't think there was a lot of thought put into this character. Zombie, thinks he has an idea what he's doing, but it's like a guy who has no business making movies given free reign to do what he pleases - it's insulting, really.

And Dr. Loomis was the last hope - the guy who had the chance to stop Myers in the original. In this one, he's a side show, another terribly unlikeable or uninteresting character who really has nothing to do with what's going on - until the end at which point everything he's done up to that point could have literally been edited out of the movie and it wouldn't have made one difference.

I'm no fan of Rob Zombie as a writer or director - I wish people could see how really bad this movie is and how even more offensive compared to the Carpenter movie it is - yet people still pay to see these terrible remakes. I just wonder what Carpenter thought of these two movies - he had to be cringing. I have nothing to do with the original Halloween and I sure was.

Shattered Lives (2009) (V)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Awful and Amateurish, 11 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Ugh. Another case where someone who worked on the movie left a great review here in the comments section and clearly this movie is not worth anything remotely resembling a great review (note the person's name who left the "review" - almost the same as the movie title and lo and behold, he's only got one other "review" to his account) - I've said it before, I'll say it again, people who work on the movie should not be allowed to "review" it in here - especially in this day and age of "everyone has a camera and now is a director." This movie was shot on video - which is no excuse with all the software to make it look more like film - which was not used here. Nor was any kind of cinematographer. One scene where a lady is driving and having a conversation with her daughter, the lighting changes every two seconds which any actual director wouldn't have allowed.

The opening scene we see some bad actors get chopped up by some killer - no one seems to really be hurt since no one actually screams or make any noise and you'd think being chopped up with an ax would hurt. Then we see some (super hot) mom and her kid and the mom is cheating on the husband and there are some midgets and it's all over the place (the "love scene" in the shower, totally out of place and horribly "directed" is hilarious). Bad acting everywhere with a "director" who has no clue what he's doing. There is no cinematographer and when you're shooting on video the highest paid crew member should be the cinematographer.

I couldn't make it past that part. I have no idea what this movie was about. I tried fast forwarding a little and it was all over the place - I still don't know how the first scene with a guy chopping up a bunch of mutes worked in with the rest of the movie but I just don't care. It was painful beyond believe. This is another reason why not everyone should have a camera or be allowed to "direct" or write a movie.

The best thing about it, though, is that I'm sure the "director" checks this IMDb page frequently so he'll read this and see what anyone who attempted to watch this tripe thinks of it. So please, please, keep your day job.

Tyson (2008)
2 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Could have been better with a competent director, 5 January 2010

This is a documentary, not Citizen Kane or something requiring bad editing. I would have liked to have just seen the documentary with out the split screens and repeating words - for some reason, the director thinks having these periodic scenes where there's three shots of Mike on the screen and he's talking all at once and a lot of it is repeated over and over is somehow interesting or entertaining or artistic and it's none of those. It's simply annoying. Really annoying.

When we get Mike on the couch talking and shots of the actual events, it's quite entertaining. But then the director goes back to the split screen crap because he's a director and he must be different, even for the sake of having a watchable documentary.

Mike contradicts himself a lot (in one sentence he'll say he loves to talk to people and a few sentences later, he'll say he is introverted and doesn't like to talk to people - lots of stuff like this) which really brings up his credibility on the negative aspects of his life (like the rape incident - whether you believe him or the girl). But the good thing is Mike is forthcoming - he's no rocket scientist, which makes it much more entertaining than say a Barbara Walters edited interview.

The absolute worst parts though, outside of the ridiculous split screen stuff, is anytime Mike is on the beach. I had to fast-forward. I couldn't watch or listen - it was unbearable. You'll see.

I watched this because someone said it was the best documentary of the year. I do not agree, but it was entertaining and could have really been great with a director who wanted people to be entertained and informed instead of going "oh look at that odd split screen stuff..."

Hide (2008)
3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
An unwatchable cliché, 4 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS: We sit through ten minutes of AWFUL clichéd dialog at the beginning from two completely unoriginal characters with bad twangs (ripped off from Kalifornia and Natural Born Killers - there isn't an original thing about these two) and you're going "either they're about to kill everyone in the diner or already have" and lo and behold guess what happens.

I can't stand all the Tarantino wannabes out there and this guy is one of the worst. I got maybe 25-30 minutes into the thing when I just couldn't take it and stopped watching. Miner's really bad acting was unbearable - I couldn't take it. That, and the terrible script. After reading some of these comments I see there was a big twist - well guess what? No one cares. When you create completely uninteresting, unoriginal and unlikeable character like these two clichés, no one cares what big "twist" may have happened. I hope this is the end of these types of movies.

3 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Might have been good with a competent director, 3 January 2010

There isn't one single still shot in the movie. In every shot the camera wiggles all over the place. Two people are lying completely still, the camera is moving all over. The moon in the sky - the camera is moving all over. Why in the world does anyone think this is better than a tripod? The movie itself would have been a lot better, even keeping most of the same shots, with a director who wanted to viewer to enjoy the movie, not get sick from a moving camera. And half the shots are out of focus, it's really annoying.

Of course, this is the guy who did Blair Witch - he should have retired right here. And guess what - he does a Paranormal Activity spoof. PROOF he should be kicked out of the business.

6 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
I don't like guns. They kill people., 26 December 2009

There are lots of bad lines like that in this movie.

"Dying's easy. Rock and Roll is hard." Really? Wow, written and directed by Dolph Lungren, there's lots of cheesy dialog and scenes to laugh at. If he would have taken out all the shaky camera stuff and learned how to direct fight scenes, it would have been a star better - anytime there's any kind of combat or fighting, the camera closes in (when he takes the gun from the security guy, all we see is him turn around and suddenly he's got the gun - there's lots of stuff like this).

The "teen" lead singer "Venus" says to Dolph "you're kind of cute for an old guy" and Dolph's band members kid him "old guy - hehehe." Uh, yeah, by 25 years, even more if you consider the girl is supposed be younger than she is in real life.

And of course, as it clearly is in Russia, everyone speaks English with bad Russian accents. The worst of this of course was the two daughters (one of them is apparently Dolph's real life daughter). There's some pretty bad acting in this.

With some script punching up and a better director, it might not have been too bad. Dolph is still perfect for action movies of this type (I believe - someone needs to give him a good script to do, I think in the right movie he'd be great) and clearly this thing had a budget, it just needed more competent people making it.

Frayed (2007/I)
1 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Awful and Amateurish, 26 August 2009

Okay folks, this is what I mean - when you've got six or seven "reviews" of a movie, they ALL praise the movie to high heaven and all the "reviewers" have ONE review to their credit, it's the same guy or just people who worked on the "movie" trying to build up their movie.

Note, all the "reviews" of this movie claim to have seen it at the same festival - no one no-name festival has had so many "reviewers" for one movie in the history of the IMDb. Can this guy make it any more transparent.

Especially when the movie is awful. This amateurish, poorly made video should fool no one. In fact, if somehow you're able to see this terrible "movie," come back and read the "reviews" again and you'll see, the IMDb needs to make a rule: "if you've worked on a film, you're not allowed to leave comments on it in the IMDb."

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, 16 February 2009

I was a big fan of the original show. I have been watching the episodes on DVD and can see the eventual progression from serious sci-fi western to campy spoof. The first couple seasons were great. By the fourth season, competing with Batman, the show was very watered down and campy.

Then came the reunion movie a decade later. It was awful. It was great to see the two leads together again, but the script was just terrible. This sequel was put together and just shows you how far the series has dropped. It's just a bad comedy, bad being the key word. It's hard to believe this is the same show from that first season. West and Gordon are just like a campy Batman and Robin now. They're there to deliver bad '70s attempt at comedy - spoofing various 70s shows like the Hulk and others (Six Million dollar man was horribly spoofed in the first movie). The style from the original series is completely gone. When you cast Jonathan Winters as your villain, you've pretty much admitted it's not a serious show anymore. This movie was for little 8 year boys pretty much, boys who like myself in the 70s, came to know the original show from reruns. No adult of the show could possibly have found these awful films entertaining.

It's always great to see Conrad and Martin together again, those two guys are always great. But the scripts for both of these movies were just absolutely terrible. A real disappointment.

Page 8 of 37: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]