Reviews written by registered user

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

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
All of these are the same... this one's worse., 20 November 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It's nothing you have not seen before. Acting... trash...neither of these hacks... Bobcat included should be allowed near a camera again. This is especially true of that'Gilmore *beep*. Bobcat should be banned from all computers , tablets, and even pens, pencils and paper. He can write with crayons and Crayola markers, that's okay. I cannot forgive this theft of time, even though I hate my life.

Seriously though, put aside my resentful idiocy, and see that this crap is not worth your time. I really am trying to help you; this whole subgenre of horror is filth, and Willow Creek is a queen. Keep away and have a nice day.

62 out of 132 people found the following review useful:
Another excursion in misandry from Hollywood's tarnished finery., 6 January 2016

The writing in this is unforgivable. Never mind that it doesn't necessarily follow the book, that's not it. I felt like I was watching a WB or Nickelodeon production. Not only was the dialogue unbearable, but the characters were so monolithic and less than one-dimensional. Yeah, we've only seen two episodes, but I found myself with no questions, except this glaring one, "Why did these writers get any money?"

I cannot help but be bothered by the profound bias toward female characters. This is worse than 'Star Wars.' Allanon and Ander are arguably the only strong male characters both of whom are portrayed as profound d*@ks. Lorin is a weakling and Wil is an dunce. "We have a female captain of the guard, perhaps it is time we have a female Chosen." Really? Can you be more blunt about your agenda? There is absolutely no subtlety here. Wait, I mean, I could be wrong, but in the novel, I do not believe there was any gender-based exclusion when it comes to group of 'Chosen.' The character of Commander Tilton was created, she is not in the books, while Crispin Edensong, who cuts a solid figure in the books, I wager will be diminished as he will only appear in three episodes and is portrayed by an actor with a limited repertoire. This is what you get when you allow April Blair, one of the producers, into the writing fray. Her farcical list of writing credits include such flippant, feminine nonsense as 'Monte Carlo' and 'Hart of Dixie.' This is laughable.

Amberle's and Eretrea's characters were totally rewritten and NOT for the better. In the book, Amberle is a very vulnerable character, while Eretrea is more an alluring, but good-hearted than a rogue bad@$$ unparalleled in humiliating men, physically and emotionally.

I was eager to watch this show because I liked the books and typically go in for this type of project, but this is damn near unwatchable even if I set my biases aside and get to the objective roots of production, but since I hate myself enough for all of you, I will probably continue to watch and b*t@#.

Do not even mention this foul concoction in the same breath as 'Game of Thrones.' GOT is Metallica, Shanarra is NSYNC. GOT is Jack and Coke... Shanarra is Faygo Red Pop (not even good for Faygo). Still, this is all just my opinion, and if that makes me a 'bozo,' well then I will embrace that title. Watch the show if you want. Like the show if you want, but if it continues as such, it will fail and fail hard. Then again, 'Teen Wolf' made it this far, so maybe there's hope.

15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Unwatchable... GOD AWFUL!!!, 25 November 2015

Don't pay attention to any review that paints this catastrophe on film in a positive light... these were mostly likely written by one of the morons involved in its production. It boasts horrid acting, horrid cinematography, and horrid writing with barely any creativity. The best part of this... I won't even call it a film... fodder-ridden, straw-stuffed horse **nt is the title sequence, which kept me in the movie for five minutes before the pervert in me found the FFWD button to see if this $#!t fest had any redeeming value in the form of nudity... big surprise there... NONE! *yawn* The acting is laughable as is the contrived nature of the story, but not enough to warrant you or anyone on earth watching it. Your time is more valuable than that even if mine isn't... trust me on this if on nothing else. God, we should just outlaw low budget horror distribution and work on getting every horror film from the 80's digitally remastered and redistributed... I've had enough of crap like "The Poltergeist of Borley Forest" sitting on shelves in the fleeting number rental shops in America. Do they even know what a poltergeist is? It's evident through the movie that they do not. Did they figure they covered their tracks by having the ghost throw Paige's ridiculous paintings all over the room and randomly rearrange flowers? I'm sure that d-bag professor who turns into a cartoon just before he's dismembered comes up with some half-cocked explanation in that scene I watched on >> x8. Stupidity begets stupidity, and I suppose I am proof of this.

Patrick (2013)
0 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Charles Dance... for what purpose did you sign on for this trash?, 17 January 2015

Charles Dance provides his typical more than adequate performance; however, everyone else involved (except maybe the writer) is clearly an amateur. I was not scared at all, nor was I really ever nervous or intrigued. The writing was... eh... competent at best, but the plot had the intensity and pace of a talking statue. Sharni Vinson has been a joke any time she steps in front of a camera, come to think of it, none of the cast, other than Mr. Dance, should have been paid, like at all. The performances were not a surprise, making them consistent with the plot. Avoid... avoid... AVOID!!! Unless you're into reliving the trauma of a bad cinematic experience, or enjoy seeing a man's naked @$$... twice. I guess I must be into the former, definitely not the latter, but that's just me.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Not as bad as all that... Decent horror flick with a few common flaws., 22 October 2013

As far as horror movies go, this one is above average (definitely not warranting less than four). Yeah, there were some drawbacks. Some scenes were a bit drawn out and others were completely irrelevant. What was up with that homoerotic male shower? That was over the top and pretty much as gratuitous as most female shower scenes. Lucifer's character shows flashes, but never really seems inherently evil as you would think. It's clear that he knows who he is from the start, but the role is written as if he's going through the puberty of devilhood. If Julie/Gabriel had been required to be nude, I would have given this a 10. Sadly, her clothes stayed on. The gym teacher overacts with a hilarity of epic proportions.

Not as bad as some of its big budget counterparts., 17 February 2013

As far as fantasy movies go, it is far from the worst you will ever see. This movie did absolutely all it could with the budget that was allotted to it. A boring Sunday afternoon saw me watch both D&D and D&D:WotDG. I did not feel led to review the first, though I found it more or less enjoyable, but not without exasperation at its flaws (namely the PS1 quality dragons). That being said, it is next to impossible to create a true fantasy movie without a extensive financial backing. The budget for this movie was approximately 15M, while the budget for D&D (2000) was around 45M. The budget for Return of the King (2003) was roughly 94M. True enough, D&D is no LOR, but it is intriguing to think what either of these movies could have been with such a budget, especially when I found WotDG much better than Eragon (100M) and Clash of the Titans (125M). While Eragon was impudently mishandled in all facets save costume and design, CotT's visual effects, choreography and production design are its strengths, while those are the utter weaknesses of both D&D movies, directly a product of a vastly inferior budget. At the same time, the CotT's script and storyline is powerfully abhorrent, while WotDG is fairly strong in those respects, at least in my opinion.

You could do much worse than this.

Hilarious, 18 November 2012

All the slapstick had me rolling as did the deadpan acting. Pure cheese with a lot of eye candy for guys and gals (including Depp's naked rear... which did nothing for me, but ladies probably will enjoy). Depp had more of a supporting role in this. The scenarios were funny and moved well from one to the next, but they probably only did one take for everything because each scene was contrived and poor in execution. The dialog is horrendously bad, poorly written. This movie literally had me laughing much more often than most recent films. The wannabe Sean Penn was annoying as was the grandmother. To me, the Barber and Reeves are the funniest characters; their brawl in the elevator was so absurd... God, I think this needs to be out there, this movie should be watched, which is why I am wasting these two last lines simply to comprise the required ten. Hope it helps. If not, screw you. Haha.

Rubber (2010)
1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Refreshing... but a little sour., 23 April 2012

A lot of questions can be raised by this film; they all have the same answer... no reason. Why does the girl leave her motel room door open while taking a shower with the door open behind a sheer curtain? No reason. Why is the tire's shower curtain not opaque? No reason. This movie puts a disclaimer on the violation of any conventions, does what it wants and knows what it is from the beginning, daring anyone to question it. So, what else can we say about it? It is the pot calling itself black. Believe me, as you browse the shelves at Family Video or the online archives, you could do much worse that 'Rubber' (and I have... numerous times). In the end though, there's no real redeeming value. So why watch it? Still, no reason.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Why do I do this to myself? *SPOILERS*, 17 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If a construction went into a project with no plan, paid no attention to detail, worked without any clear-cut responsibility or leadership and just kind of decided to throw a bunch of bricks and mortar together in order to see what would happen; we would be left with the architectural equivalent of 'Boggy Creek.' It seemed to me that 9/10ths of the movie was spent on fluff attempting to build up to a climax that never happened. The storyline would have a hard time standing against the most generically idiotic stories written with 12-year- olds in mind. This was like a spooky episode of the OC. The word of the day is contrived - contrived emotions, contrived dialog, contrived situations, contrived shots, contrived character archetypes, contrived death. I'm not upset, there have been many movies worse than this, made with worse actors. The pacing, incomplete plot and one of the worst scripts ever imagined are to blame in this case. The camera-work was not too bad, the make-up and effects were plausible, the girls were pretty, though I almost think they told the black guy to improvise or perhaps his character was just meant to behave like the most stereotypical Hollister-sporting black guy ever. There was one surprise though, the male "eye-candy" didn't turn out to be as big a moron as we're led to believe. Nevertheless, it wasn't enough to save him in the end. So, it's the mysterious backwood version of Seth Rogen to save the day (yawn). I didn't even make it that far. I woke up and the blonde girl was screaming... fade to black and cue credits. I didn't bother going back to see.

The Ward (2010)
5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Just a step above 'awful'... Please don't see it... PLEASE!, 6 July 2011

I'm begging you not to see this movie. It makes 'Gothica' look like 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'. See Gothica again. It just takes pieces of other successful to semi-successful movies of this ilk and copies them. Whole-heartedly unoriginal and a very lame attempt to capitalize on his own name using "Vintage Carpenter" as a marketing ploy, which is what? Halloween? The Thing? Seriously, the only thing of his that I've enjoyed since 'The Thing' is 'Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns.' I won't tell you anything about 'The Ward' other than it is unoriginal; I don't want to ruin it if you're excited about it. However, I am begging you to save the money and the time that Carpenter would have you waste on his latest project. He's probably j*****g off to the mental images of Heard and Co. in the shower, which he didn't show on screen... may have helped the cause, Johnny.

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