Reviews written by registered user
captaincameron

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

Prom Night (2008/I)
Rated B, for B*$ch don't waste your time, 19 December 2016
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I try not to put spoilers in, but always check the box in case I slip up. The original Prom Night was a classic--early dead teenager movie that helped set the standard. And sure, this is not so much a remake as a re-imagining, so there can be some leeway. But 45 minutes in, you will find yourself strongly disliking Brittany Snow. By the hour point, Gandhi would be hitting her in the head with buckets of salt. You really, really start to root for the killer. And not just because of how irritating she is. Inept police, friends with no clue, boyfriend who feels so strongly about protecting his girlfriend that he decides to do so by sleeping. It is not the worst movie ever made. The music is good, and the cast is pretty. But if you are looking for a quality horror flick, you might as well rent one of the Herbie The Love Bug movies. Really.

Rated W, for WTF did I just watch?, 17 December 2016
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Billy Zane--good actor. Juan PabloDi Pace--I'd never seen him in anything before, but he seemed like a reasonable actor. Kelly Brook--always nice to see her talents on display. That, and her acting skills. But this is an incredibly disjointed piece of cinema. Love triangle? Sure. Survival epic? Sure. Weird changes to make it seem like an art film? Sure. And way too many of those. Get to the Billy Zane "leaf goggles" and tell me I am wrong. It's not bad. It's just not good. It's just--well, just something I can't put my finger on. This is not a movie that you are going to recommend to a friend. I am a person who loves to watch movies again and again, trying to get the best parts, the best lines, the best scenes, and so forth locked into my mind. But you only need one viewing of this to accomplish that. If it's on in the background while I am doing something else, I may not change the channel, but this is not something I will actively seek out again.

The Sand (2015)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Once in a while, a low budget horror film is a wondrous find!, 1 July 2016
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Once in a while, a low budget horror film will surprise you. The dialogue is exceptional, the lead characters fully developed, and the story line solid. This is not such a film. I always click the "contains spoilers" but do try to avoid revealing them very often. That said, if you read the plot summary and look at the stills, you know a lot about the movie already. Scantily-clad women--and a few guys, including Dean Geyer who is a handsome enough guy but always looks like he took Nyquil an hour ago--are stuck on a beach fighting an unknown evil. One pretty girl gets topless, but the whole pretty thing and topless thing loses its appeal when losing the fight against the unknown evil. Why the topless girl could not have survived, at least for while, and instead one of the girls who retained her top could have lost the fight, I don't know. It would not have changed the plot, and while there remained plenty of cleavage, it still would not have been unpleasant. The dialogue is amazing. I think the phrase "Look at me" was probably uttered just over seven hundred times. Or at least thirty, and none of them with one of the pretty people meaning "Hey, I'm pretty. Look at me." You could turn this into a drinking game. What happens at the end? I can't tell you. Not that I won't tell you, as I don't want to give it away. I can't. Nobody can. I would be willing to bet that the writer(s) have no idea either. But it's not actually that bad. If you see it in the discount DVD bin, save your money, but it shows up for free, give it a watch. Eye candy. Unknown evil. Fat man in a trash can. Basically, this is the Citizen Kane of its time.

Time Lapse (2014)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Rated F, for freaking awesome, 20 November 2015
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I always click the "there may be spoilers" button in case I let something slip, but unless the movie is godawful and I want to spare others the pain I went through with it, I try not to give spoilers. That said, quick summary: three friends find a camera that takes pictures of the next day and they use it to their gain, and then comes some of the problems associated with time travel types of things. Then to the review: Not a lot of money was spent on this film, nor was much needed. Small cast, few sets, and no special effects that could not be mimicked using items found in a grocery or hardware store. The story is well-paced, perhaps a little slow at points, but this is not an action film, so that's okay. Plot twists? Yes. Good characters? Yes. Good dialogue? Yes. Danielle Panabaker? Yes! This is not a great flick, but it is definitely worth watching, and even though, as time travel types of movies go, I know how everything turned out in the end, I will watch this movie again more than a few times.

41 out of 79 people found the following review useful:
Rated D, for dull., 24 August 2015
4/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I'll still watch next week--I have faith. But had this show been a stand alone, and the original The Walking Dead series not existed, I would not have kept it on the same channel after the first 45 minutes. It's a different series, of course, and if they followed the same formula as The Walking Dead, that, too, I suppose would get boring. But it might have more than two or three walkers in it. I guess that's not fair--there might have been some other staggering, soulless flesh-eating ambulatory corpses, but this is set in Los Angeles, so that is par for the course. The actors were good. Well, they had the potential to be good. The script jumped around a little too much for any of them to say more than three lines at a time. But, as I say, I'll watch next week. The premise is good, and fairly unique in the zombie genre in that there aren't a slew of them around instantly. But seriously, it needs one or two every hour or so.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Rated just above D, because it was not quite dreadful, 15 July 2015
3/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

But it was pretty close to dreadful. NOTE: I always try to click the box that says a review may contain spoilers, but I try to avoid using them. That said, I won't be using spoilers when I say that this was a terrible, contrived piece of junk. What's worse: it had a great cast. And this includes Jamie Foxx--I will never pay to see one of his films until he either renounces his religion or apologizes for describing President Obama as "our Lord and Savior." But there is about 30 minutes of boredom. Then things blow up. Then more boredom. Then things get loud. Then a compilation of scenes and characters from other action films. Then some boredom. And then--something might have happened that you would not expect! No, it didn't. Nothing happens in this movie that you don't expect. Actually, that is not true. There are a few laughs and a few twists and turns. I am going to say that during the entire two hour journey--and trust me, it seems longer--there are easily six or eight laughs, and four surprises. But the laughs are not big, nor are the surprises. I won't go so far as to say that if this comes on television in the background you should immediately turn it off, but I will certainly advise that you not actively seek it out.

Godzilla (2014)
1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
You can't spell "godawful" without "Godzilla", 21 January 2015
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, you don't go into a Godzilla movie expecting Shakespeare. But if Shakespeare were alive and had taken me to this movie, I would have slapped the crap out of him. I loved Godzilla movies as a kid. And I still do. That is, the 1950's-1970's Godzilla and the reattempts in the 80's and 90's. When 1998 rolled around, I was enthused about the new Godzilla movie. My wife was unfamiliar with Godzilla, so I was more enthused. Two hours later, we walked out of the theater--slightly deaf-- wondering what had happened.So I didn't even try Godzilla 2000. But this Godzilla. This had promise. Great cast, great CGI, an air of suspense. And that was all it had, promise. Cranston was in the movie about as long as Godzilla--maybe ten minutes. Wattanabe considerably longer, but they managed to reign in his acting skills. And Taylor-Johnson made Kristen Stewart look like Sarah Bernhardt. Avoid this movie like the plague, and when Godzilla 2 comes out-- don't even watch the trailer.

Germ (2013)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Worst zombie film since "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", 10 April 2014
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

And, if you've seen Gilbert Grape, you might recall that as zombie films goes, it stinks. This one at least has zombies. Fast ones--like 28 Days Later zombies. Yes, technically they weren't zombies in that film, but technically this film is a piece of trash. Generic plot--satellite crashes to earth, some people turn into zombies and try to eat others. I didn't time it, but it seemed like about a month and a half before you actually see a zombie. Perhaps only half an hour or so. Characters flat. Well, a couple of bouncy ones but the $75 or so that each actress was overpaid was not enough for them to show flesh. Storyline flat. Zombies--fast, but nothing original. Violence--blurry. Lots of gunshots, lots of biting. Nothing unusual. But it's not the lack of originality that makes this film fail. It is this film's utter and complete failure as a film that makes it fail.

Dead Noon (2007) (V)
1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Rated 1.5, for an hour and a half I'll never get back, 10 April 2014
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Oh, dear God. I cannot come up with the words to describe how terrible this movie is, nor can I come up with strong enough words to encourage you to stay away from it. Acting-bad. Dialogue-bad. Effects-Really, really bad. I mean really bad. Story idea-perhaps the only saving grace of this crap-fest. I had this on in the background and am so thankful I was doing work or my eyes and ears might have bled. And it was on Fear Net. For those of you unfamiliar, Fear Net has a brief advertisement 30 minutes into each flick. And when I heard the familiar Fear Net commercial, I thought "That was the longest half hour of cinema history." Seriously, save yourself. I'm sure that I have seen some worse movies--and I am a fan of movies, even bad ones--but right now, I cannot think of any film worse than this. But I try to avoid spoilers (although I always click the button just in case)--don't wait for the 15 minutes of ending credits for the final five second useless freaking scene.

Camp Hell (2010)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Camp Hell If I Know Why This Movie Was Made, 7 April 2014
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I always click the "spoiler" button in case something slips, but generally try to avoid letting those things out. Why spoil the surprise or fun or excitement of a movie for others, right? But in this case, as there is no surprise, fun, or excitement in this film, that's not a danger. Let me start off with the good parts. The acting in this film is very good. Granted, the "big names" (McCarthy, Delaney, Eisenberg) have very limited roles, but the relatively unknowns did well with what they had. And now, the spoilers: The first 15 minutes, nothing happens. Then, in the next 30 minutes, things really heat up, and nothing happens. Then you get about 15 minutes of nothing happening. Finally, the movie wraps up with nothing happening. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. Camp Hell is truly an unfortunate experience and I would save you the pain.


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