Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]
64 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Watch Me (2006)
13 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
do not watch this, 25 September 2007

this film is one of the worst Australian films i have ever seen. it is one of the worst horror films i have ever seen. it is unoriginal and cliché laden, the script should not have been filmed, it should have been burned. no concern has been spent trying to develop a reality in which the story could occur. no energy has been spent trying to make anything in this film interesting. instead it is just part ju-on, part ring, with a dash of snuff. though, even that makes it sound a tiny bit interesting, which it absolutely is not.

this film was so pointlessly bad that i only continued watching to see if it could outdo itself and keep getting worse. in this case it did not let me down. it wasn't even funny bad, it was a tedious 78minutes. acting and characterisation was dull and dodgy. horror was reserved only for the fact that someone spent a chunk of their lives making it. go and vomit in a toilet instead of watching this film, your time will have been much better spent.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
intriguing, 16 July 2004

unfortunately i could only view the softcore, cut, australia version. but even in this mangled version it was still an interesting film. while there were bad moments, and the young all american boy was one of the worst actors ive ever seen, this was an extremly intriguing film. it was a fun action romp, but deodata's direction is superb. there is a real slash of cannibal holocaust in this film, which adds so much more to it. instead of just being a simple action film, it becomes a very disturbing adn intriguing look into the dark world of cults and mad leaders. the occasionally documentary and mondo aspects add an impressive frisson to the scenes which shouldve looked like left overs from an Arnie or Sly flick.

1 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
i paid $1 for this and it was too much, 15 July 2004

not the worst film ive ever seen, not by a long shot, but man, this was painful, this was bad, this was annoying! so many interesting films get labelled as misogynistic simply because they have women being murdered. well if ever a film deserved that title, this filmis that film! it has plenty of sexism to go around. the main character is little more than an annoying rambo wannabe, he seems to exist solely to get angry and abuse people, neither of which adds to the enjoyment of the film or the plot! the plot i might add is not particularly interesting, let alone striking or innovative. its not very original, it certainly has little to do with videodrome (as opposed to what other commentators might say) and is far to badly handled to ever inspire any thoughts on it being a fun nod to old b movies. irritating trash of the worst kind!

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
a slice of cheese, 17 June 2004

when going into this film, i really had no idea what to expect. the cover made vague allusions to zombies and such but after watching over half the movie i wondered if this was ever going to actually happen. so, by the time i got to the end of it, i was pleasantly suprised. it actually had zombies and they were pretty good for an american flick. the problem with this film is, that aside from being almost totally ridiculous, the first half is very up and down. some sequences are well directed, some sequences are well scripted. but the majority of them in the first half are just ludicrous, and will lead to many comments and jokes from the viewers. the rubber gloved demon surgeon who wanders around the grounds of the mental institution looking like he's is modeling the latest full moon production, standard loony inmates, the laughable dream sequence and the sleeping attire of the main character. its all so ridiculous that it is impossible to get by. however, once it gets past this, and stops attempting to be a stalk and slash piece of trash, once it digs out the zombies and becomes an actual horror film, it gets more in its stride, successfully combining humour and gore and the over the top melodramatic aspects into a rip roaring ending, which will probably still leave you laughing but for a better reason than the first half. an overall enjoyable experience as long as you can survive the tedious first hour. note: while managing to take the final part to a different place than the film it rips off, this film is hugely derivative of nightmare on elm st part 3 and hellraiser 2.

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
interesting and entertaining, 17 June 2004

dead kids is very well made and unusual addition to horror cinema. it is an australian/new zealend production, and was made with the intention to sell it to an american market. so you get a film that looks very much like an american film, is shot and crafted like an american film with american actors (who are often better than any australian actor that gets into this kind of film, neighbours and home and away are rarely good casting grounds) but the script has a definite australian feel to it. from the odd, sly humour, to the way it deals with the murders and the almost complete lack of morality in the film. not to say it is immoral, but themes of morality never come into it, which is not often seen in american horror.

for the most part, it is wonderfully directed, one that has to be seen in widescreen to appreciate. however, the murders are somewhat lacklustre, they are directed with very little bite. it is obvious that the director has no idea of hot to show "action". most of the time it does not drastically effect the overall film as this is not a typical slasher film. in a few scenes however, this "relaxed" view of violence heightens the horror, such as the final murder and the "human experiments" carried out on the main character. as mentioned above, the script is quite interesting and entertaining. however, there is a 2 minute ending tacked on after the final showdown which drastically decreases the power of the film.

while not being a classic, it is still one of the better and more interesting horror films of the 80s that deserves a far wider audience than it has recieved.

14 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
highly enjoyable, 17 June 2004

a very, very silly film. not once will you feel horror or revulsion (unless you are the sensitive type or a nun) but you may smirk, and you may laugh and you may even find yourself cheering on dear old sister gertrude as she goes on her rampage of false teeth destruction, morphine addiction, random sex and abuse and an extreme misuse of stockings. somehow this all ties together in a film which is somewhat cohesive, quite impressively directed for the most part, beautifully scored, very well acted and just generally entertaining. certainly not for everybody though, you do have to have a slightly bent idea of entertainment or at least enjoy cinema on the edge, on the edge of what, im not quite sure. over all, an enjoyable psychodrama with a touch of taboo.

highly entertaining horror fest, 17 June 2004

it was good, I've given it a 9 out of 10 rating. it has its flaws, the script has some plot retardedness, there was a complete lack of any human devouring going on except for one little "cleverly" edited scene (hardly even got to see any biting action), the characters werent as good as the original because there were like 20 of them instead of 4. but otherwise, it did what it set out to do, it gave us a hell of a lot of things which have been missing from the zombie film and was competently put together. some scenes were actually quite effectively horrorific even. the long shots, where they just pulled the camera right back out and showed shots of the entire city and/or landscape, were infused with a certain dread and horror that has rarely been captured in other zombie films. the credits at the beginning were nifty, but so not scary. it was tooooo mtv style to be scary, you know, hey look every 5 seconds we'll flash a close up of zombies on screen and you'll jump out of your seat!..... uhuh, don't think so. occasionally they let the idea that high impact speed horror is more scary than lingering knowledge horror get the better of them and it degraded scenes which couldve been much better. but, there were very few actual flaws with the film, and i think most people would thoroughly enjoy it. but yes, no entrails. no devouring of bodies. which for me, unfortunately, made it a little too much like 28 days later. the actions of the zombies became just brutal bashing violence, like 28 days later. it COMPLETELY lacked the absolute fear of being devoured and swallowed up by these creatures. the fear generated by this film is just nerve ending fear, you never feel it in your bones. but it was still damn good, and I'm sure i will enjoy it even more the second time round. and one should keep an eye out for how many exploitation movie references you can pick up on. wasn't so much references to particular films, but just ideas and styles that are classic 70s 80s exploitation, gotta love that cannibal holocaust scene :D although most people will think its just trying to rip off blair witch....*sigh*

25 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Terrific, 3 June 2004

this film works for me. i know it wont work for everybody, but it is worth a go, and it probably is more enjoyable if you've had a couple of drinks and are in a forgiving mood. this film works for me because it is made with verve, everybody (for better or for worse) appears to have really thrown themselves into this film, and they understand that this is not brain surgery, nor is it gone with the wind. there is barely any plot, but they do not allow this to make the film slow, it moves along and its own good pace until it reaches a totally pointless climax which matches up with the rest of the film and thus completes it. it isnt really a laugh out loud film, more like 80 minutes of smirking. right up there with conan for the top silly loin cloth films.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
painful, 3 June 2004

the original story upon which this film is based is an incredibly powerful raw piece of horror. and in writing the script for this film, clive barker managed to capture that, and write some of the best dialogue ive heard from a horror film in a while, just natural and real, without seeping into cliche and trashiness, and while there was not a lot of character development, the characters were again, not cliched. it also had the guts to push boundaries that are normally avoided, even in horror cinema, or should i say especially in horror cinema (but thats a different rant). however, the director deserves to be executed. the entire thing stinks of a dodgy cheap bbc doctor who episode. no imagination in the direction, and not even a documentary style, just a plain old no effort made for tv look, which really hurts the power of the script, totally removes it in fact. add to this the fact that the "monster" looks like something from doctor who as well, except doctor who usually manages to come up with horrors far more scary than this trash. with someone who could actually direct a movie in the helm and some actual effects as opposed to the childrens toy junk that is on offer, this could have been a classic of the 80s. but instead its just a nightmare for all the wrong reasons....

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
trash!, 1 June 2004

oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.

evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.

hero: ok.

evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.

insert sequence in which this occurs.

evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.

hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.

woman: where is my daughter?

hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?

needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.

Page 1 of 7:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [Next]