Reviews written by registered user
|66 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
For a movie that really takes place in only 1 room, it's not too bad.
There are a few decent performance and the girls are great to look at
but it never really delivers anything new.
I'm tickled pink to see Skeet Ulrich and Sean Young back in action and the main 4 actors were pretty good but the story just kind of lays there and never really grabs you.
Pros: The 2 girls are really pretty. The 2 guys do a competent job. Not bad for a movie that probably cost pennies to make. The actors made the best with what they were given.
Cons Inconsistent story and no real surprises. More padding than a training bra. It's an hour long movie stretched into 86 minutes through use of extreme slow motion. Plus, the main characters could have done a lot more to fight the 'monster'. They had a whole room full of potential weapons, lighters, plates, 1 chair, furniture etc. Screaming and swearing at demonically possessed killers never seems to slow them down.
There are certainly worse movies out there. I mean, it was shot
competently, the acting was fine, there was some atmosphere...
But there is no story.
I was totally taken in by the reviews and again I could kick myself in the ass for believing what I read on the Internet.
Other people have done a better job of describing the faults of this movie so I will just say this.
A scary movie must have a story... a beginning, a middle and end and a resolution (And sometimes, even a non resolution is a resolution.
You cannot make a movie with a vague or absent story line and hope the audience will 'fill in the gaps with what they personally think is scary'.
You cant just hope the good special effects and the BLARING music will cover up for a lack of story.
Nothing is explained here. - Are the bad guys/monsters Satanists, Aliens? Demons? - Why are they doing what they are doing? - What does the past of the characters have to do with what is happening?
No. I'm not falling for it. It is a well made, incomplete movie that takes advantage of younger, naive viewers who never saw Hellraiser, Assault on Precinct 13, Society, or any zombie movie made before 2004.
Producer 1: "Hey, let's make a horror movie, here is the script." Producer 2: "But this is only 12 pages? Producer 1: "Kids these days are too stupid to know the difference and if we add loud music and some good special effects they wont even know I wrote this 12 page movie in 15 minutes.
This movie did not end so much as run out of film. Maybe the projectionist forgot to load the last reel of film. It was like the entire production fell down a trap door.
Horribly, seriously disappointed.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I had tons of expectations because I love the original
And this movie isn't in the same league. But its been 18 years and 3 major members of the original cast have passed away.....
Dan Aykroyd is an amazing writer, but many times he needs someone to edit out his more outlandish ideas. Ghostbusters originally was darker and had teams of paranormal investigators traveling through time and to alternate dimensions. In this movie, there wasn't anyone to pare away some of Dan's weird and extraneous ideas. Consequently, there is some stuff that just seems weird and out of place. Like a magical Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats...
The Good 1) AMAZING, Blues performers - Holy Crap, the number of top Blues musicians and singers is legendary. 60 years from now, people are going to be watching the musical performances on Youtube and wonder who the hell was able to get almost EVERY blues legend on the same stage at once. 2) Almost everyone from the original comes back. Including the great Katheryn Bigelow as the Nun. 3) Stays true to the original in scope and tone. It still feels like the same atmosphere and world of the first one. "My Watch Broke!" "God works in mysterious ways" etc.
The Bad 1) The characters of Cab and Mighty Mac are worthless and don't add much to the story. Mighty Mac barely sings and doesn't add anything. Cab at least was Curtis' son so he belongs there, but he really doesn't add much. The Kid could have worked better if he was a harmonica prodigy from the start (Instead the Kid picks up a harmonica during a live performance and figures out he is a natural. How convenient) The Russians and the White Supremacists are also barely used and have no screen time. Why bother? 2) Supernatural Elements - OK the first movie had some supernatural stuff, but we knew it was God was protecting them. Now, we have a Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats?! Someone should have been there to edit out Aykroyd's more crazy stuff. 3) Lack of Mission - The first one they were desperate to save their orphanage. They were driven. In this one, they are just a band trying to get back together. There is a small subplot where Elwood is supposed to help rehabilitate the Kid but it wasn't explored very much. 4) More of an Emphasis on the music than on the comedy - This isn't necessarily a bad thing but while the second movie has more music, it is not as funny.
I read where this movie was rated as the fourth worst sequel of all time. It does not deserve that.
It's a good movie and, after reading the reviews, much better than expected. The original Blues Brothers was one of the best movies of the last 50 years. At least this sequel didn't screw things up.
Somewhere at a table in an overpriced bar
Misguided Movie Pitchman: "So here's the idea. We take a really thin story and dress it up with tons of special effects, shadows, jump cuts and psychedelic video shots, add a few competent actors but make them play minor characters, give the lead role to an actor who has a total of 2 facial expressions, add some blaring music and some shiny, futuristic props and make a movie!"
Misguided Producer: "Great, but I also want it to look pretentious and somehow make fun of religion."
Misguided Movie Pitchman: "OK, we'll make the story more complicated so people will be afraid to criticize it for fear of being told they don't understand it. And we'll add a villain who believes in God and have that guy be a real jerk."
Misguided Producer: "GREAT! Here's 26 million, MAKE... THAT... MOVIE!"
With 15 minutes left to go in this movie, I wanted to kill the characters myself and to hell with the fate of the Earth.
The director thinks he can create suspense out of bad acting and a lackluster story, by adding loud, stressful music. There are no surprises, very little character development and absolutely no character empathy. In fact, after an hour, you actually want bad things to happen to the characters for wasting your time.
The only reason this movie gets a 4 is because of the set design and the special effects, neither of which is enough to propel this movie into tolerable territory
The worst part of this movie, other than the plodding, glacial pace and the obnoxious music-video style editing, was Cillian Murphy, who is more mannequin than actor. I cannot believe someone actually cast this pretty-boy surfer dude wannabe as a physicist. (OMG!) His performance runs the gamut from slightly bemused and smug to moderately bemused and smug. The voice of the computer had more range and emotional impact.
Do yourself a favor, watch 'Moon' with Sam Rockwell. It was made for a 5th of the price and is 5 times better than this mess of a movie.
I'm only giving this movie a 5 because of the good acting. Otherwise,
it is a 3.5.
The problem is how the characters react to the story line. They make really poor, almost unbelievable decisions. Several times in the movie I was distracted and baffled by some of these character decisions.
There is an anti religion theme running through this movie but it's not too bothersome because it's hard to be insulted by a movie so silly.
The Super Religious Zealots are very one dimensional. They embody almost everything wrong with religious fundamentalism and their actions are so evil it's hard to see how any religion would justify them.
The Good Guys of the movie make really bad decisions, and then make things worse by making even worse decisions. It gets frustrating.
But the real problem with this movie is. well, it is largely empty. The director pads the running time with pensive shots of clouds and barren landscapes. A lot of this movie could be watched in fast forward.
The atmosphere is creepy but plodding. The acting, however, is quite good. I just wish they had a little more meat in the story for these guys to chomp into.
One point; Obviously, one or two of these people appear to be psychic. Why didn't they follow up on this? (Or were the people not psychic but merely good guessers?) Who knows, it went unexplored.
There was also almost an anti capitalist vibe where everyone had an oppressive boss and no one had insurance. Isn't this a Canadian movie?
The ending was just plain hollow, silly, unresolved and lacking.
Don't be fooled by the reviews. There are plenty of better movies to see out there.
This movie rips off some of 'The Devil's Rain'. The Devil's Rain was a 1970s cheesy movie of the week with William Shatner and Ernest Borgnine and it is better in many ways than this unsatisfying, story.
Another similar movie is 'Kill List', which handles this territory much better.
Hope and Glory was delicious, sweet, sad and charming. This sequel,
well, seems like a sequel in name only.
Some characters from the previous movie show up, but only in very, very minor and brief, non consequential roles.
The main story is a little boring and uneventful, like a bland episode of MASH. Pity, I really wanted to like this movie. There just isn't a lot of meat on the table.
Tasmin Egarton was GORGEOUS as was Vanessa Kirby. Callum Turner and Caleb Landry Jones did a very good job with what they had, there just wasn't much of a story.
The movie didn't just end as much as run out of script... I was actually surprised when the end credits appeared.
Sad. I wanted more.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
1) A TOTAL rip off of a Twilight Zone episode and not as good. 2) Good
acting and an adorable girl make you suffer through it hoping it will
have a good twist ending. (See #4) 3) Silly, one dimensional
characters, make obvious dumb decisions. 4) In the end it all comes
down TO A GIRL TRYING TO GET HER LOSER BOYFRIEND TO PROPOSE MARRIAGE?
Are you kidding me? THIS is the ending they came up with?
Well shot considering the budget, well acted considering the story, and it does make you interested enough to stay until the end. But don't fall for it. I was literal angry at the resolution.
The Twilight Zone episode is much better and it isn't even a very good episode.
How this movie got such a high rating is beyond me and frankly, is the only reason I wrote this review.
Take all of the bad cinematography of Made for TV movies, add some
1970s corporate paranoia, throw in some unrelated techno babble,add an
evil scientist and cram in as many bad sound effects from Star Trek,
Willy Wonka, Lost in Space and every bad scifi movie from the 1960s and
viola, you have Futureworld.
Im not even mentioning the silly special effects because Im sure they were pretty whiz-bang back in 1976. But the truth is you can have great Scifi without dating yourself with special effects. 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a perfect example.
Horribly predictable. Tortuously slow, has almost no relation to Westworld other than they both take place in the future and have pleasure robots.
I love a bad movie, but this goes beyond bad.
Some of the dialog is so bad you will laugh out loud.
The Evil Corporate Executive with a gun discovers Peter Fonda on the phone. Evil Corporate Executive: "Put the phone down". Peter Fonda to Evil Corporate Executive: "You're a part of it?" Evil Corporate Executive: (LAUGHING) "Yes, of course I am!"
Someone on IMDb gave this movie a glowing review so I watched it. Ugh.
Logan's Run, made at the same time, has many flaws and has not aged very well, but it is still much better than this flick.
I am a serious Trekker. I watched TOS when it aired on NBC when I was 5
In every episode, the writer has 43 to 50 minutes to set up an adventure, show struggles and resolve it, that's all. Star Trek is famous for having everything work itself out in that time period (or a little more in a double episode).
There is ALWAYS a scientific explanation, even if they have to make up new words and new concepts to explain it.
But Life isn't always like that.
This episode takes a bold step and presents us with a situation where there appears to be no logical or scientific reason for the resolution. THIS DRIVES ATHEIST SCI-FI KNOW IT ALLS INSANE.
See, people who watch Star Trek tend to think they are smarter than most of the public. They embrace science, almost as much as a spiritual person embraces a religion and will lose their minds if anyone presents something different from their view of science as being the answer to every question Life presents. (so much for scientific detachment and open mindedness.)
Now, just because we don't understand something does not mean we should attribute a magical answer to it, but I believe there are many issues science cannot answer and will never answer. I do not believe this is totally a materialistic world. My point is, a lot of Atheists embrace Science as the answer to everything. These atheists do not want Star Trek to deviate from it's Science-Fiction roots. And the many low reviews and spirituality bashing of this episode bear testament to this. But I think this is a great episode. In the end of this episode, a usual champion of science is left humbled. She listens to the doctor hypothesize how Kes was cured, but the Captain, seems to know better. She seems to have been a witness to something that Science cannot explain. THAT my friends is a mature writer. That is someone who has seen something in Life. For when my fellow scientific and Atheist friends tell me I am a fool for not seeing things as they do, I can only smile and say, "Well, maybe I have seen some things in Life that you have not."
Wow. I had really high hopes. The makeup and art direction were
excellent. GREAT costuming.
The story, music and lyrics were atrocious, self indulgent and pedantic and the whole production screamed of low budget, gay, off Broadway theater.
Imagine if Tim Burton lost a bet and was forced to direct a movie written by a 15 year old with a circus clown fetish.
But the worst part of this story is that the libretto/Lyrics lacked any sort of meter or cohesiveness. The lyrics stubbornly refuse to rhyme or even stay relevant to the song. There is no sense of structure to the song. AND then the author repeats these mistakes as if to highlight them. My Imitation of the fault in the lyrics
"Reds are Red Violets are blue, no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water." no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water." no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water."
No meter, no rhyme, poor structure.
Very little to see here. Poor Paul Sorvino.
|Page 1 of 7:||      |