Reviews written by registered user

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

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
This Jungle Should Be Clear Cut, 2 September 2008

This must be one of the worst and most annoying mockumentaries ever made....Follow 4 pampered twenty nothings as they quest to find another well to do never was former twenty nothing from 1961 rumored to be in the jungles of New Guinea after crashing off its coast 35 years earlier (or so the premise goes). On their stereotypical shallow "mis"adventure, you have your gun toting towny bandits, your angry bitter meaninglessly antagonizable militia, your sacred burial grounds complete with skulls and dress up skeletons, your creepy random forest dwelling Aussie guy appearing from and disappearing to nowhere warning the characters about said skulls and skeletons, your loin clothed flesh hungry forest locals outfitted with spears, body paint, and bows, and, oh yeah, the best part, your make shift rafts materializing out of nowhere made with no supplies yet seaworthy enough to float them down a river (that looks like a creek in Montana).....Ultimately, the dialog makes no sense and was often difficult to hear (which was a good thing considering the parts you can hear). The "home" video camera stylings fall apart almost immediately and watching becomes a chore. It was understood that this was low low low budget movie, but this was an absolute horror to watch.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
The real spoiler is that this movie was made!!, 5 July 2008

You won't find any spoiler in my comments because there it would be pointless to describe this ridiculous movie which will spoil your desire to see any future installments by either Lucas or Spielberg. This is yet another example of how George Lucas' ego gets in the way of quality movie making. We all appreciate THX surround sound, but does the guy have an original thought when it comes to making a movie? George, stop writing and let talented creative people handle that...The ending of this movie is such a blatant rip off I am shocked there aren't lawsuits.

And Spielberg doesn't go without blame either. Come on! Do you think you are so much a part Hollywood royalty that people will watch whatever you direct? Perhaps...since this movie might prove that point but I ask how many of these stinkers will it take before people stop watching?! Didn't you learn your lessen for wrecking AI? No one doubts you are a good director, but this movie was terrible and why couldn't you see that? Stop believing in your own hype!

Overall, from the opening moments to the bitter end, this movie was laughable and manages to destroy all the goodness of the other three movies. Good actors, mostly in roles they should NOT be in, made to speak bad lines with awkward and distracting direction. It was a huge disappointment even with low expectations.

Don't say I didn't warn you!!!!

20 out of 39 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst sequels ever....terrible....., 3 May 2008

First, let me say I was a big fan of the first Harold and Kumar film.

This sequel has none of the witty elements of the first film. The movie seemed like a weak student film with novice acting, poor direction, and no continuity (forget about how bad the writing was for this movie - here is a tip to the writers; that thing about smoking weed to get creativity, it is a myth so you might want to put the bong down next time). If this was the writer directors first film, it would surely be their last because it was so bad. Luckily, I didn't pay to see this junk and even so I feel like I should ask for money back! Don't say I didn't warn you......

Cavite (2005)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Well thought out......except for the girlfriend, 26 March 2007

Gripping movie surrounding a world of religious beliefs, generational betrayals, and blackmail….Throughout, the movie chimes a powerful message as voiced by the main character Adam: "how many people have to die for you to make your point?" Follow Adam as he is guided through the darker sides of human nature while he tries to save his family, his unborn child, and his conviction.

The writers were outstanding in the backdrop motivations for the characters – even down to a little boy thief. They do a good job of helping the viewer wrap realism around the "why". The "voice" on the phone of the terrorist was mesmerizing as he instructed Adam on his journey through the Philippine squatter camps and towns. It was a good choice to not put a face with the voice of Adam's nemesis. The only real problem with the story is the "girlfriend" back story. The conversation between Adam and the girl about her not wanting a "Muslim" baby made no sense and was out of place considering their first conversation on the phone. It should have been left at that.

Over all, it was worth the watch so don't say I didn't tell ya!

0 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Leonard Good, Movie Bad, 18 February 2007


If your going to make a documentary about Leonard Cohen try making it about Leonard Cohen! This is filled with only enough Leonard to anger the viewer who will be left wondering why they are listening to all these other singers (some of them questionable) talk about themselves. Puleeze....sounds like them reliving their diary entries in junior high - who cares about you, what about Leonard? Guess what people, if you "do something" worthy maybe someone will make a documentary about you. I found particularly insulting the parading of U2's members as if that would add credibility to this movie - NOT. Leonard doesn't need Bono or the Edge talking about his spirituality. What would have been nice would have been for the filmmakers to embody some piece of his spirituality through the film. Gee, what a concept! I will give props to Rufus Wainwright and Jarvis Cocker for their covers of Cohen tunes - the rest of the performances were a bore and some were unbearable.

Cohen fans, don't say I didn't warn you!

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Customer one fifty poo!, 15 August 2006

Follow customer 152 through the resulting perils of rampant credit card spending gone wild and live his darkest nightmares of creepy collection agents that have a penchant for the shady side of settling things up.

Terrance, a mild mannered mildly challenged package handler, claims bankruptcy absolving himself of credit card debt. Soon after, he finds himself in a financial pinch and is unable to resist the temptation to apply secretly for a new credit card (which enlists him as customer 152). What follows next for him is a journey into paranoia, uncomfortable stares, and unfortunate events.

The best part of this movie is an interesting painting Terrance continually ogles (very nice!) Bravo to Don Lemmux's restrained and sinister performance as the bankruptcy lawyer (reminded me a lot of Daniel von Bargen). His time on the screen was an enjoyment to watch. Also, interesting performances by the elevated suited agents (although their names are horribly written, their interactions in the movie were worthy of note).

The movie is a decent enough for low budget and, for brief moments, borders on semi-good. However, if a rapid tempo story line is what is wanted, this movie should be avoided. It is protracted and persistently slow; even when it doesn't need to be. Nothing, though, compares to the annoyingly distracting facial antics of Terrance. It played out as just plain dumb which might have been the point, but......

In the end, it is a low budget movie and for those that do not mind the inconsistencies, acting, and production styling that go along with that, this one might be worth a watch. I stress "might".

Don't say I didn't tell you!

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Leave off without Off Season, 8 August 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Leave off without Off Season

After having driven to the Viking hotel in Portland (ME) from Manhattan during the off season, a playwright and his girlfriend settle in to their new home only to find strange things abound. They both begin to experience the strange things, yet neither seem interested in revealing those experiences to each other - for no good reason. The oddities soon take a toll on their relationship physically manifesting mainly against the girlfriend (probably because she doesn't walk around in the hotel room naked like any respectable B-Horror actress should). She suffers dearly getting the paranormal flu (who knew the afterlife was so unsanitary?!), booted from her job (as a part time librarian?), dumped by the boyfriend (for the company of the day drinking town hooligan; a guy that hangs out across the street from the hotel and flips off the manager when confronted - oooooh....scary), and a sweltering shiner (beware of the dangerous library book). No worries for her though because a dead relative that talks through the answering machine (only after the beep) to her will help guide her through the advances of dirty old men wielding small cactus, long haired freaky wet men cowering in the shower (don't get hopes up for any nudity!), and homicidal book smacking psycho chicks. Our heroine triumphs in the end writing her own best seller exposing the exploits of another best selling novelist that co-incidentally lived in the same hotel before she arrived.

Believe me when I say I am making this movie sound better than it is. It is an incredibly bad movie that attempts weakly to capture small town colloquialisms by spinning them into a yarn of mystery and horror (which it doesn't). The problem is the writing and the direction. The plot is almost impossible to follow (not in a good way) and is filled with a myriad of ridiculousness (would the makers of this movie please decide if it is cold or warm or what is the actual weather pattern in Portland during the off season! Sheez!). For the psychological thriller fan, the story is not tight and the characters hold no interest. For the B-horror fan, this movie is missing all the elements - no gratuitous nudity, no slashing, and no chasing.

The only screams are coming from the people that paid to see this movie.

Don't say I didn't warn you!!

15 out of 33 people found the following review useful:
subject two....too long., 3 July 2006

Here is what could have been an interesting movie for the Frankenstein/Re-animator fan.....Mad scientist living in the seclusion of a snowy mountain cabin seduces young, gifted, and rebellious medical student into his remote log cabin lair to work with him as apprentice to his experimentation on an unknowing test subject number "two". That is about the gist of it and number two is what this stinker of a movie is laced with from that point onward.... From the start to the end (if it can be called an end), it is too long, too slow, and filled with too much ridiculousness to maintain interest. Unlike Frankenstein's countless remakes each of (which could win an academy award compared with this movie), Subject 2 has no purpose.... oh, other than what the Professor states - "We have much more work to do"....???? What work? Vic's random note taking as he speaks into an miniature recorder? Unlike Re-animator, Subject 2 has no entertainment.....well, there is some minor laughter listening to the Professor scold his apprentice. The sad thing is that it wasn't meant to be a comedic scene. The shot of the subject wandering aimlessly through the mountains in hopelessness defines this movie...and is ultimately passed off to the viewer after watching - hopeless to get time or money back. Where, what, who, huh? At least it is over....

Don't say I didn't warn you.

SharkMan (2005) (TV)
2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Combed over with a Hammer, 30 May 2006

This low budget B horror's plot comes with all the amenities - mad scientist complete with sidekick, malicious corporate greed of pharmaceutical industry, eccentric and extreme genetic engineering, and information technology....can't leave that out.

Start with strange sequence of hot looking nameless boaters that foolishly decide to take a dip in the waters near an uncharted island and end up chum for swarming hammerhead sharks.....

Cut to weak back story implying the stock decline of a generic pharma corporation which motivates its wicked Shakespeare quoting CEO to entertain an un-solicited offer made by a former employee/scientist that was jilted out of his job as head of research and who also happens to be a nut...of course (total Herbert West wannabe). He is offering up a new stem cell technology that could make tons o' cash...or so it seems...This lures in several employees to his Moreau-ish island (must have been quite an impressive exit package from the company when he was let go for him to afford an island) to validate his scientific findings including the CEO and, co-incidentally, the ex-fiancé of the mad scientist's son now morphed sharkuman (how convenient)....

The plan, sort of, is to rekindle lost love between the former nuptials while exacting revenge on the former colleagues for his termination. (Sheez, how can this guy be bitter? He has his own friggen' island after all...).

Soon, everyone is on the run (from endless supply of security guards toting heavy weaponry, from mutant plants – can there be an uncharted island without man-eating plants?, from sharky son's appetite for carnage, from quack daddy's breeding plans, and from lack of a cell phone signal)...and they all must learn to work together to get off the island alive!

Will anyone escape? Will a new species be created? Watch it and find out.

There is some entertainment value in this movie, but don't expect much...for the true Combs fan, this is not to be missed.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
YOU might want to leave the building......, 25 May 2006

My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast – even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it – what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by….what else….extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.

When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade – when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.

It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one…… Don't say I didn't warn you!

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