Reviews written by

Page 10 of 37: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
370 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Not bad, just clichéd writing and some bad acting, 14 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Can anyone tell me how Freddie Prinze keeps getting work? I've never seen any of the romantic comedies he's been in, maybe he's good in those. However, I have seen some movies he's been in where he's been horribly miscast, like the pool movie (name escapes me) and this one. Every time he spoke with that bad Brooklyn accent, I was cringing. Having him do voice over in that voice knocks this movie's entertainment level down a couple notches. He's awful.

Ferrera (the kid who plays Turtle on Entourage) also CANNOT ACT. How does he get work? I see people here praising him but he's awful. And Caan is playing the same character he always plays, which is a version of his dad's Sonny Corleone. And these guys were supposed to be 22, he looks well into his 30s.

I see other people saying Alec Baldwin was awful, but he wasn't. He was the only actual competent actor in the bunch.

Some of the dialog in this script is cringe worthy. It just shows you, after you've built up your credits, you can sell anything. This script was a couple rewrites from being produceable.

Outpost (2008)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, terrible movie, 14 August 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I am angered at all the "good" comments I see on this, it's the only reason I watched it and I wonder if these people saw the same movie. This movie was just awful - poorly cast, no pacing. Stevenson was clearly just going through the motions to get his paycheck.

The other "actors" were unbearable - I do not exaggerate. The guy who was the "hillbilly" super soldier was just terrible - it got to the point where I would fast forward anytime he was on screen, he was so bad. And I ended up fast forwarding through a lot of this movie anyway. It made no sense and when you have bad direction and bad actors, you're going to waste two hours of your life.

The person who compared this to "Dog Soldiers" should be banned from ever commenting on a movie in here again.

Doomsday (2008)
3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Escape from New York meets Mad Max with bad direction, 4 August 2008

Could have been better but as usual, half the time you can't tell what's going on. Anytime there was an action scene or a fight, the edits were literally a half second, so there would be 200 cuts put together so quickly, all you could tell is that two people were fighting. You couldn't tell who was winning or what was happening because like so many directors today, they feel that having shots that last longer than a second will bore the viewers which is the farthest thing from the truth. At least it wasn't the shaky camera thing which is even worse.

This movie is almost a total remake of "Escape from New York," it's got the exact same plot points, except instead of getting the president out, she's got to get a virus antidote out (I can't believe people aren't pointing this out). Then the end becomes Mad Max. I don't know, the cast was all good - I think it was a really well cast film. It was just wasted on a bad director.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Unwatchable, 18 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't know how the other commentors here were able to get to the 60 minute point, I made it about 20 minutes into the thing before I couldn't take it.

It's another "shot on video" DVD with bad acting and directing that somehow lands a DVD deal. The director has no idea what "pacing" means. We have to see every little thing. The girl is having the most boring phone sex in the world while driving. This goes on and on, she sees a bus with "help me" on the window. She stops. She searches in her bag. She finds a flashlight. It needs batteries. She takes the batteries out of her vibrator and puts them in the flashlight. She shines the light around. She gets out of the car. If this sounds boring it's BECAUSE IT IS!!! Why are we watching all this? She finds a girl in the bus whose hands are chained and is wearing a mask covering her face. Her hands aren't chained so they can't move, she can easily raise her hands to her face, yet she doesn't take the mask off, nor does the main girl take it off. WHY? Because that would be what someone in real life would do. Apparently these are the two stupidest people ever put on a straight-to-DVD pile of garbage.

I got about ten more minutes into the thing before I just couldn't take it. It wasn't scary, it was poorly made and I just wasn't going to waste any more time, I already wasted the netflix rental on this.

Trust me, if there are any good comments here about this thing, it's people who worked on it. There is no way anyone in the world, family members of the cast and crew included, who would ever find this remotely enjoyable.

Avoid, avoid, avoid.

P2 (2007)
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly good!, 7 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wonder how many people saw the cover of this DVD and thought "when did Jodie Foster make that movie?" The lead looks a lot like a young Jodie Foster. I think why a lot of people don't know about this film is its title, "P2", which refers to the level of the parking garage the lead's car is parked, and where the story basically begins.

I really enjoyed this film, it was a pleasant surprise. With all the straight to DVD movies that are coming out now about psycho's after a woman, you pretty much expect them to suck now, so when you come across one that doesn't, you're kind of taken aback.

All the story takes place in the garage and is done well, mainly because of great direction and great writing - a lot of the psycho's dialog is superb. You really wonder what the guy could be thinking, why would he do the stuff he does, and then when he continually makes comments as if he and the girl are long time friends, you can plainly see he doesn't have all his marbles.

The two leads were perfectly cast, which along with good writing and directing is practically a rarity nowadays.

There was one MAJOR plot point that I thought the movie was going to take a wrong turn from, but it didn't, even though this point sticks out and bugged me: Spoiler: When she breaks free of the nut-case and runs back to the office, she could easily pick up the phone in the office (which she does, then hangs up to get her cell phone which she already knows doesn't work in the garage) dial 911 and just put the phone down if she needs to move. Instead, she ignores the phone, which no person in the free world would have done.

Otherwise, great movie.

Carver (2008) (V)
14 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Possibly one of the worst DVDs I've ever seen, 2 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't call it a "Film" because it's not, it was shot on a Canon hd camcorder. It's absolutely awful. It's about what you'd expect, but I had read a couple semi-good reviews and now I realize they had to have been from the people involved in the film (again, I state the IMDb should have a rule that people involved in a film cannot comment on their own film).

The younger brother is the worst and he walks around with a constant scowl on his face like he had a bottle up his bung, it's kind of funny. Some of the greenscreen was embarrassingly bad (when they're driving, we get some really bad 1989 green screen).

One scene has the people finding some film, load it on a projector and watch the movie. Except what they're watching is on video. We cut to them watching a movie, then back to the screen which is showing video!

Of course all the "characters" are as unlikeable as you can possible get and the acting was awful which is always amplified when it's on video (some of those accents they were trying to do were embarrassing) but of course, if you rent it, get it for the "making of" documentary which these types of DVDs always include, as if it was "Gone with the Wind" they just finished.

The lead "actress" says "I've been in...(counts in her head)...four horror films." Now I'm sure it was a problem for her to count to four, but if you look at her credits, her only credits pretty much are the "horror films" (all the same shot on video crap). It's not like she didn't know exactly how many movies she's been in and checks her IMDb credits every day (which of course, have her "biography" which is hilarious).

If you've seen these awful "making of" documentaries for these shot on video movies, they're all the same. "I saw a posting on craigslist so I answered it, I auditioned and got the role (and what I'm doing is very important, I act like I have lots of credits but in reality this is my first)." But the best was the younger brother "actor" who actually had the nerve to say "I was shooting this movie, my friends were back home working their crappy waiter jobs" as if this "movie" was his big break and made his career. Two days after the movie was done shooting, he was right back there working the "crappy waiter jobs" along with his friends (he also has one IMDb credit, this movie).

For once, I would just love to see a making of documentary where the people just admit it's a quick, crappy thing shot on video for straight to DVD that isn't going to make anyone's career and know it sucks. I'd give a high rating to that.

The Take (2007)
22 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Another "where's the tripod?" movie, 1 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie could have been better with a competent director, but instead we get a guy who, for some reason, refuses to use a tripod. It's almost entirely hand held. Not steadicam, just a guy holding the camera while riding a skateboard. Even in simple scenes with people talking in a room, the camera is swaying all over the place? Can someone please tell me why this is supposed to make the movie going experience better? A good cast is wasted here. For some reason the cops think Leguazamo was in on the take, despite the fact he would have been completely aware of the cameras watching them at the company's home base. Surely someone from the department would have done some simple CSI work on where the downed employee was who supposedly shot Leguazamo and where the actual person had to have been for the bullet to enter where it did? It's a little far fetched.

The last scene where Leguazamo is chasing the bad guy with his gun in plane sight was funny. You can't drive two blocks in downtown LA without a cop driving by. Unless you're chasing a bad guy apparently. And the one cop who happens to be where there's a traffic jam, gets taken down easily.

There was a good movie in there somewhere. The cast was all great, just the script needed some work and it needed a real director. When I come across a movie nowadays that doesn't use the shaky-swing the camera all over the place technique, it's like a present.

12 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
Coincidence Road, 1 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I see people writing about "twists" and stuff and I'm completely baffled as to why a series of ridiculous coincidences can be considered "twists." A movie about a man who does a hit and run, how he lives with what he did and how the father of the child lives with the loss of his son and the fact the hit and runner got away; that would be a pretty good movie.

And that's how this starts. Then we're hit with a series of ridiculous coincidences that lead a predictable movie which makes it all a waste.

Not only does the victim's family happen to end up living walking distance from the driver's home (as we find out later in the film), but of all the people the father hires to be his attorney to help out, it's the driver!! Now this is a pretty far fetched coincidence. But then, the father's remaining living child, his daughter, is taking piano lessons from the driver's ex-wife! If you have any questions as to whether the father will find out who hit his kid, you have never watched a movie before. Since everything is practically handed to him, only a buffoon couldn't crack this case (the cops of course don't crack it).

And of course, the moral of the movie appears to be that ten years in prison for a hit-and-run is okay punishment, better than death.

This movie was a waste of good talent by everyone.

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
One Missed Movie, 9 May 2008

You know it's going to be a bad movie when the very first scene has a girl who has shaven off her eyebrows and then painted them back on so they look as unnatural as possible. She gets killed in a pond and I was sitting there waiting for the eyebrows to pop back up.

I don't know what's worse: that the U.S. remade this ridiculously contrived Japanese movie or that the original was a big hit in Japan. The Japanese are not stupid, yet this completely forced and stupid idea for a movie made a lot of money over there. It's amazing.

Haven't we had enough of these "your device that leads to your death" movies? This one is like "The Ring" for the cast of "Deliverance." Really dumb people get killed off by some really bad CGI and this isn't the first poor CGI film Ed Burns has been apart of. I guess his career has went in the toilet.

I want to say "enough of these 'possessed electronic devices'" movies but I'm sure the "Killer Ipod" is only a year or two away.

Catacombs (2007)
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Like another poster said, it was BORING, 5 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I wanted something happen but there was a lot of running and chasing. After about three minutes, that gets pretty monotonous, but it was all they had.

First off, at no point do you ever believe that the lead actress and Pink are sisters. Second, Pink is a terrible actress. She has one level: annoying. Every line is delivered with that "Why are you such a loser" delivery that is incredibly annoying. Third, we're supposed to believe that somehow some guy is able to put on an elaborate rave, with literally thousands of dollars of lights (and apparently generators or how else are they getting electricity?) and elaborate bar set ups underground in Paris, for free, and change the location every night? And the police can't find them. That was even more ridiculous than the actual plot.

And luckily, the lead actress is told about the "killer" about two hours before the actual killer chases her. What are the odds of that? Well, as it turns out, if you saw the old movie "April Fools Day," then you can guess what happens here.

Everyone is stupid and unlikeable in this movie and I just didn't care. I was so thoroughly bored and the ending was absolutely ridiculous and a cop out.

Page 10 of 37: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]