Reviews written by registered user
eye-sea

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

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

1 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Complete rubbish, don't waste 90 minutes of your life on it!, 14 December 2006
1/10

What a terrible film.

It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.

The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.

It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.

It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Strangely very funny in places!, 12 December 2006
6/10

I caught this movie late one night and thought I'd give it a try.

I hadn't given up on it by halfway through so I watched it to the end. It's a bit samey all the way through, murder after murder, but it's still entertaining.

It centres on Angela Baker, played to perfection by Pamela Springsteen. She's this goofy summer camp woman with an overbite which makes her look innocent but she's far from it!

Angela is an insane teacher at the camp, but long before she got a job there she killed kids before when she was a child at another summer camp.

It's all far-fetched hokum, but fun.

The murders are grisly and graphic, but there's no doubt the tongue is firmly in the mouth of the director.

Give it a go, it's not a bad horror movie!!

Chain Reaction (2006) (V)
5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Very bad. In fact, worse than bad - shockingly bad!, 11 December 2006
1/10

I could not really make head nor tail out of this horror film. Or so-called horror film.

It starts when a bus carrying convicted prisoners to jail, crashes. The convicts escape but take an old doctor with them because a prisoner's brother has been hurt in the accident, and they want to make sure he's okay.

After a lot of needless swearing, countless "f" words (about 1,000), they come across an old village from about two centuries back, inhabited by vampires. It gets dark, the vampires attack and kill the convicts except for the doctor who escapes.

He is then convicted and sent to jail for supposedly murdering the other convicts, but really it was the vampires. If that wasn't bad enough, he is then transported to prison in a van which - get this - crashes.

The same thing happens. Different convicts escaping with the doctor, who leads them all to the same village where the vampires are. Havoc erupts, and err...

I won't spoil the end, but let's just say, this isn't Shakespare. Almost impossibly bad, one of the worst films you will ever see.

Just one out of ten.

6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
1970s' UK teatime TV at its best, 26 November 2006
10/10

I was twelve years old when this thriller was first screened, on Sunday teatime, around 5pm if my memory serves me right. I had just finished eating my Sunday lunch and was checking what was on TV, as my older brother slept a few beers off on the lounge settee.

Soldier and Me immediately caught my attention. It followed a long tradition on both ITV and BBC of showing family dramas on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

The plot was very simple. Two teenagers witness a murder of an old man, only for them to tell the police and the old man turns up alive. Of course he is an imposter, the old man really did died. And as a consequence the two lads spend the following five programmes evading capture from the killers who are spies.

Unfortunately, because of the then UK coal strike, I missed the last episode due to a power cut. I managed to see part of it when the show was re-screened in 1981 - seven years later!! But to this day I have never seen the full last episode.

American Crime (2004) (V)
9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Tiresome from start to finish - avoid if you can!, 7 October 2006
1/10

Ever since Blair Witch Project, movies with little or no plot use a documentary style to fill up the 1 and a half hours, or so, they're given by the film company.

This piece of trash is no exception. It starts off well - the first five minutes a teeny bit scary-ish - but then drops into this very tiresome documentary mode, full of crap interviews, laced with painfully unfunny "humour" and "wit".

The guy hosting the documentary is annoying enough with what sounds like a fake British accent. And the make-up sucks. He's obviously heavily made up to look like someone he isn't. Maybe perhaps a spoof on a real TV news host! Who knows!

And the character Jesse St Clair, played by Rachael Leigh Cook, wears this badly-made blonde wig that's obviously too big for her head. The sets, the script, the plot, the make-up department, not forgetting the embarrassing acting, all make for a movie to avoid at all costs.

I had to steel myself not to get passed the first twenty minutes without whizzing through to the end.

Dire. Zero out of ten if I could give zero. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with a one!

House (1986)
2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Starts well, but after 20 minutes I gave up!, 4 October 2006
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I normally stick with the most tedious horror films - IF there's a tiny bit element of "I wonder what will happen next?" In this movie, there are absolutely zero redeeming features. It's boring, predictable, and has zero plot. In effect, it's complete garbage.

It starts okay with an old dotty woman hanging herself, then there are some small shivers but after 20 minutes the whole thing just gives up, and that fat guy from Cheers pops up and makes the film even worse.

I whizzed through the remainder with the VCR on high speed fast forward, just to see "the end".

Don't waste a minute of your life on it, it's trash. One out of ten? I wish I could have given ZERO.

Leprechaun (1993)
16 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Horror movie, not short on laughs!, 29 September 2006
7/10

Other members of the IMDb may have rated this "1", and that's up to them, but I thought Leprechaun was a real fun horror movie.

I have seen the other films in this series but the first was entertaining.

Low on budget yes, but never boring and always whimsical. Warwick Davis, the small actor who plays the leprechaun, is very good in this role, as he is in all his movies.

He may be lacking in height but not talent.

A brilliant performance by him, and even Jennifer Aniston isn't that bad, and I usually find her a turn off in movies.

Humour, horror, and lots of pace. I gave it 7 out of 10.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Good movie, so why the low rating? I am baffled!, 21 September 2006
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Devil's Prey is not a high budget movie, yet still there are thrills and twists which I enjoyed watching. In my opinion, the violence and sexual content isn't raw; it's mildly presented and if you're over 18 years of age, it's no big deal.

The movie is never boring as we see a group of seven twenty-somethings first at a party who then get drugged and attempted to be captured and murdered by a group of loony satanics; there's a twist in the tail here as two of the young twenty-something "friends" are in fact part of the satanic group drafted in to capture the others.

This I didn't get until almost the end, when to my surprise, they were uncovered! There are other characters in this movie who you sense from the start they're "in with it", and like in "Race With The Devil", the satanic loonies are more part of the town than an isolated group.

It's a good film, low budget yes, but well acted and worth renting. I gave it 7 out of 10. More than the average 3 it currently received while I wrote this review. I still cannot believe how low the rating is!

Audition (1999)
Unnessarily graphic and overlong but...still a 7 out of 10, 27 August 2006
7/10

I watched this movie the following morning after recording it on tape, on UK's Film4. It's obvious from the start that the sadistic Asami Yamazaki is a loony: unless the fella looking for a bride is, which is possible.

It's either one or the other. Turns out it is indeed the pretty young girl who captures the attention of Shigeharu Aoyama, pervy middle-aged bloke.

Two things strike me here. Although I don't condone violence or murder of any kind, there was no way I was going to have any sympathy for this weird 50-year-old bloke who, with the aid of his sneaky boss, slyly "auditions" girls for a film that will never be. It's simply an excuse for the pervy pair to look over young girls so that one can have his way with her - sorry with intent to marry her.

As Asami begins to inflict torture on Shigeharu, she says: "you like all the rest; you audition girls, tell them they're no good, then ring them up for sex." And she's quite right. HE DID DO THAT. Aside from the fact this girl is clearly YOUNG ENOUGH to be his daughter, she's unhappy and suffering from some sort of low self esteem, Shigeharu ignores all advice not to get involved, and subsequently gets his just deserts.

Sorry, but I can not have any sympathy for this man. He's truly a slimy specimen. We see this in flashbacks of memory, where Shigeharu has had in his subconscious, pervy thoughts about his secretary, and his young son's girlfriend who's a schoolgirl.

The story, on the other hand, whilst being interesting and horrific, runs on the screen for far too long. I'd like to have duration, 1 hour 20 minutes, rather than the 2 hours it lasts for.

It's stretched out way beyond it's plot...

Nevertheless, 7 out of 10. But was there any need for such graphic scenes? No.

25 out of 92 people found the following review useful:
More like The SHAM-shank Redemption - SPOILER, 8 August 2006
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Over-long, boring, tedious, over-acted and very very very very very OVER-RATED. Hell knows what goes through the minds of people to vote this the 2nd best film EVER!! I first saw the cut down version lasting 1 hour 25 minutes, and it was still too long.

I wouldn't mind but it's so drawn-out, fanciful and pathetic. The things that happen in that prison would never happen, just because some nerdy bank manager has "hope..." Give me a break! Which soap opera did that sad line come from! No wonder it was initially ignored, and it should be continued to be ignored. Robbins, who is accused and wrongly convicted for the murders of his wife and her lover, never ages. At one point he HAS TO "remind" us he's been in jail for 12 years, because it only looks like a week.

Yet did you see the way he really changed in 12 years from 1994 to 2006. He looks a much older man. And of course he does, he's 12 years older!! In the Shamshank Dedeption he never aged one day in 12 years, and his hair is even cut the same style.

Even when we then go forward something like 20 years, he still looks the same, never aged at all, apart from a few bluey grey hairs at the sides. And after he escapes (after 20 years of tunnelling through thick concrete with a a small screwdriver), he meets up with his old buddy Freeman, who got out of jail legally. And get this, BOTH look younger than when they first went in.

By my reckoning Tim Robbins should now be about 70, and Morgan Freeman in his early 80s, yet both after serving their time still look barely 40.

And what a load of talkative rubbish. The most boring over-hyped-up film in history. Complete twaddle. God knows how on earth I watched all of it, but I did if for a bet, 'cause I cannot stand it. Wasn't worth a UK tenner anyway!! My vote, 2 out of 10 for a mediocre drama.

Get a life, if this is the "best" film you've even seen. Better still, get a cinema ticket!!!! Or rent a DVD. And more than one!!


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