Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
34 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Bafflingly incompetent film from the people who made THE BABYSITTER MASSACRE, 4 August 2014

What in the name of God happened with this movie? I was quite a fan of THE BABYSITTER MASSACRE, but this film is one giant pile of nothing.

Remember those two cute actresses from THE BABYSITTER MASSACRE who did those hot nude scenes? They are also in this movie, and neither of them gets naked in this one. Just so you know. Good job, Mr. Director. You clearly know what your fans want.

The cinematography is complete garbage. It has that same crap hazy blue color scheme that you can find in every single Wal-Mart 5-dollar multi-pack DVD horror set from Echo Bridge.

The haunted house has no visual presence. It looks like a crappy rental property in Podunk, Trailerville. You know, the Amityville Horror house had presence. Mr. Director should have learned from that.

Compared to THE BABYSITTER MASSACRE, this movie is an utter disaster. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Lifeblood (2006) (V)
4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
Worst photography in the history of movies, 27 November 2006

I can't even begin to tell you what this movie was about because the photography was so bad. A good 65% of it is so dark that you can't discern anything going on. Watching this crap, many questions spring to mind. Was the DP trying to emulate the work of Nestor Almendros on DAYS OF HEAVEN by shooting only ambient lighting? How could the director, after watching several days of pitch black dailies, not decide that it might be time to invest in one lighting kit? How did the editor so seamless cut scene after scene of pitch black on pitch black so effortlessly? What photography does come through is muddy and ugly as hell. Had the cinematographer ever SEEN a movie before? I doubt it. Otherwise, concepts like "composition" and "backlight" might have played a part in the framing. When you look up cinematic incompetence in the dictionary, you'll find this second only to BACKWOODS. At least in THAT movie you could see what was going on.

Worst movie I've seen in years. And yes, I've seen Turkish STAR WARS.

36 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
An exercise in total incompetence, 2 February 2006

Do you have any idea how wretched a film has to be for me to consider it the worst "true" serial killer-themed movie ever? Well, this one gets that honor. How it was humanly possible to make a movie worse than SPECK boggles my mind. But this crew did. Oh wait, I know why: 1. Here's a movie whose title suggests it will only appeal to true crime buffs. So let's alienate the only possible fan base this movie could have by changing EVERYTHING factual about the case. Nevermind the fact that the real Ken Bianchi was a slick BS artist. Nope, this movie turns him into Kevin Spacey from THE USUAL SUSPECTS. And what's with that title, you ask? Weren't there two Hillside Stranglers? Yes. Yes, there were. But Angelo Buono is a minor character in this piece. Forget the fact that he was the actual brains behind the crimes and was in effect Ken's mentor in murder. Angelo gets one brief scene and then falls off the face of the earth. Interestingly, Angelo's criminal trial was the longest in United States history up to that point. Do they even see fit to give us little slices of information like that in the closing credits? Nah. Because research is hard.

2. There's this wonderful new invention out there called a tripod. It allows a camera to be placed in a fixed position for a steady, undistracting shot. Our cinematographer hasn't heard of this invention. Therefore, he shoots every scene in a circular dolly shot. No, seriously. EVERY scene. Sometimes to break the monotony of the circular dolly shots, we get a circular dolly shot superimposed onto ANOTHER circular dolly shot. Yay.

3. Our psychiatrist Samantha is such a model of professionalism that she keeps candid nude pictures of herself hanging on the wall in her study. I guess this is to provide a conversation piece to visiting patients and law enforcement personnel. She's also apparently so absorbed in her casework that she can never seem to fasten the top 6 or 7 buttons on her blouse. It's impossible to give a tinker's squat about Samantha because her only character development consists of her having increasingly half-hearted sex with a parade of drugged-out strangers.

4. When the story lags, cut to another drug-fueled orgy! Not that you'll be able to see much, because for these sequences they seem to have strapped a camera onto a hummingbird. A hummingbird with a penchant for annoyingly long dissolves. And because recutting a film to meet an R-rating costs money, let's just digitally fog certain props and naked characters that the MPAA finds offensive. Ah, digital fogging. It's not just for Japanese pornos anymore! Classy.

In conclusion, this movie fails as a serial killer biopic. It fails as a character study. It fails as a procedural. It fails as a horror film. It fails as a suspense film. But if you look at it as an Impassioned Plea for Tolerance and Acceptance of the Circular Dolly Shot, you'll find no better example.

High Kicks (1993) (V)
1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
The first G-rated Rape-Revenge drama, 4 December 2003

Inconceivable! What was the director thinking? Hmm, we're shooting on video, we have no stars, and we have a budget of 7 bucks for our martial arts stuntmen. I have an idea that will put us over the edge!!!! We'll feature tons of women with fake boobs doing aerobics....and we'll have no nudity at all!!!! It's cinema gold! People, there's a reason why you can only find this flick in a bundled DVD 4-pack at Best Buy for 6 bucks. And frankly, I overpaid.

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Run Run Run away!, 4 November 2003

This movie is an utter piece of crap. Much like you, going by the film's poster and trailer, I thought this would be a crappy action film. Nope, it's an even crappier romantic comedy. I haven't seen incompetence like this in years. Wow, a musical montage that doesn't advance the plot at all? I've never seen that in a crappy romantic comedy before. What a work of complete genius! Icing on the cake!

People p*** and moan about bad movies on this board all the time. This isn't the worst movie ever made, but it's definitely going in the hopper.

Everyone involved should be ashamed.

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Even worse than STRAIGHT TO HELL, 28 February 2003

If this movie was a person, I'd beat it to death with a claw hammer. 90 minutes of static would have been more entertaining and less annoying. Definitely one of the ten worst movies ever made. EVER. Why was this made? Why? Why? Why?

0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
It's a buddy movie., 7 December 2002

This entire movie sucks. Nothing even approaching competence is ever achieved. Now that I think about it, this movie isn't about Keanu. It isn't about Rachel.

It's a buddy movie involving Morgan Freeman and a cigar. See, this picture cares not about large plot holes or scientific realism. It cares only about scenes featuring Morgan Freeman and a cigar.

Watch the film. Action scenes are lifeless. Love scenes are lifeless. But scenes featuring Morgan Freeman and a cigar are always played wonderfully.

Dear God, this movie was bad.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Sequal Whoredom, 24 October 2002

You know, this isn't a bad movie at all. It's very disorienting and nightmarish and Kafka-esque. But it suffers from the same problem as the last sequal. It's not a HELLRAISER movie. Both this and the last one played like Jack Chick-style cautionary tales. Everyone talks about JACOB'S LADDER in relation to this movie. It goes further back than that. It goes back to THE TWILIGHT ZONE episode "A Stop in Willoughby" and before that to Bierce's "Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge." The sub-par DONNIE DARKO must have taken heed.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good God, what a bad film., 27 September 2002

There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.

Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?

As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.

This thing is a big ball of nothing.

And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Camp Blood (2000) (V)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
ug, 26 September 2002

83 minutes? Nope, this thing is 72 minutes, tops.

If you cannot guess the killer in this movie, you had better throw your TV out the window, because you ain't learned nothing in 20+ years of cinematic slasher history.

And how come the plain star who never gets naked is always the one you want to get naked?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]