imdb-com-565 Reviews

Husk (2011)

10 minutes in was enough for me

[1/10 · 20 May 2011]

Once a movie starts disregarding simple concepts, it is very hard to believe any message or story it has to tell.

With Husk, teenagers get 'stuck' on the side of a dirt road, when their SUV is in an accident. However, right after the accident, we see the car in the ditch, without any significant damage to it.

Yes, the front windshield is smashed. However, no one even tries to *start* the SUV, and there is no reason for it to not start. It's just in a ditch, a ditch that one could drive out of with any car in existence.

The fact that no one even tries to start the car, that no one even suggests trying to drive out of the ditch -- or, even push the SUV out of the ditch, showed where this movie was going.

Nowhere.

The Way of War (2009)

on top of the plot issues, the camera work sucks too!

[1/10 · 28 August 2009]

I had to stop watching this film 1/2 way through. For some reason, they thought that using a cameraman with Parkinson's disease would be a good idea.

Come on Hollywood! Get with it! People don't want to look at the equivalent of camcorder movies, but pay big bucks for it! Hell, we get even better shots *from* home movies.

What's wrong with you people?! Are you all high?

No one wants to see the camera moving all over the place. Use a tripod for crying out loud! It's call *professionalism*.

Of course, with the comments about the plot of this movie, I suppose this camera work isn't a big surprise....

District 9 (2009)

could have been great, but destroyed by the jiggle cam

[1/10 · 20 August 2009]

I want my money back.

This movie -- a great movie, a movie with a plot, a movie with great special effects, has all of that destroyed by the horrid and inept jiggle cam.

Why is it, that seasoned directors use this tool, which is the equivalent of a 5 year old putting hockey cards on his bike, so it sounds like a motorcycle? A movie like this does *not* require this pathetic technique to hide poor plot or special effects, so why use it? Did the producer or director actually render sub-par effects, and pocket the budget difference for themselves? Who'd know, when much of the cool special effects are hidden by a mass of jiggling camera work?

12 Rounds (2009)

JIGGLE CAM ALERT: possibly a good movie, but who will ever know?

[1/10 · 28 June 2009]

This could have been a good movie. Hard to say, though.

The owner of the store I rent from believes in customer service. He lets me know which movies he's heard have horrible, amateurish jiggle cam action, such as this one.

He also lets me preview it, to see if I could bear watching it.

This movie failed. Barely 10 minutes in, there is so much strange and horrid camera movement, that any good action shots will clearly be unwatchable. Generally, I find that such movies also have no plot.

This movie gets a 1, as all jiggle cam movies do and should. People wonder why theatre attendance is down, who can blame them when this garbage is what you're expected to pay for?!

The Kingdom (2007)

Great flick for many of the reasons listed here, but.....

[1/10 · 31 December 2007]

Jiggle cam, jiggle cam, jiggle cam.

I can only conclude that directors and cameramen must be bowing to some sort of peer pressure. Oh, Bob used the jiggle cam in his movie! That must mean it is good! I guess I'll use it too!

Wake up people.

The jiggle cam is perhaps the worst filming technique ever invented. It completely removes you from the viewing experience, instantly returning you to reality. It makes it almost impossible to see what is actually happening. Why even bother with special effects. One could probably simply use cut out cardboard dummies in all these jiggle cam sequences!

So distracting and unwatchable is this grade school shooting style, that I must give an otherwise good film a 1.

Hot Fuzz (2007)

an OK film, but it doesn't deserve the high rating that regional pride has given it

[1/10 · 1 March 2007]

I've personally given this a 1, but only to try to compensate for the horde of British that are all voting this as a 9 or 10, simply because it is British.

It's not a bad film, I'd probably give it a 6 though... except for the jiggle game. That drops it to a 4. Unless a film is ground breaking in some fashion, or impressive in some way (and this film is neither, everything here has been done before), an 8+ isn't really the way to go.

Worse, and I simply can not stress this enough, I had to leave the film at the end. The special effects with the "mega-jiggle" cam are so horrid, so terrible, so inane, that I simply could not watch any more. I can only presume that the special effects were so poor, or the acting so inept, that the action scenes needed to be utterly overridden by this new horror.

The jiggle cam horror.

What is it, that makes film makers think viewers come to the cinema, to *not* see any special effect save the jiggle cam? When a car is exploding, when bullets are flying, when a 1 million dollar stunt is occurring, wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the view to actually see what is happening?! I guess not. :/

Gone in 60 Seconds (1974)

worst car chase scenes *ever*

[3/10 · 29 June 2006]

I can't believe anyone finds the car chase scenes in this movie, anything but abysmal.

I have not, ever, seen a worse collection of "drivers", as those portrayed in this movie. Dozens upon dozens of people run into stopped cars for absolutely no other reason than they are stopped. Police slide out of control because they are going a mere 80MPH. Accidents happen because boneheads pull out onto the street without looking, or because they are not paying attention. Frankly, I've seen impaired drivers handle themselves better than the police in this movie. 99% of the damage in this movie's long chase scene is caused by the police, something that is utterly laughable.

Weird, weird, weird. Were people so spaced out in the 70s, that they thought this was realistic? Was this movie's script written by someone unable to drive? Were they high when it was penned?

Who knows!