Reviews written by registered user
|121 reviews in total|
IMDb calls this a "reimagining" (no such word in dictionary) instead of
a "remake." That's just plain silly.
IMDb also credits Stephen King as the author of the original novel which the actual film credits DO NOT!
Actually this is more of a retelling of the classic 1976 'Carrie' scene for scene line for line. "They're all going to laugh at you!" Begging the question why do we need a SIXTH (by my count) remake of a film which is already beloved?
Because, Carrie needs to unleash her new supernatural power, really sloppy CGI! Worst of all they mix in real fire with bad CGI Playstation fire which of course only highlights how fake the CGI looks! Come on guys. Cavemen had fire. You don't need to CGI it!
As negative as I'm being I actually did enjoy this film much more than I expected simply because it stayed about 95% true to the original. That's right, they actually recognized what a great screenplay the original was and stuck with it.
The remake also corrects the major major problem which I and many fans had with the original, the slow as sxxx pacing! It was dragged out way to long. The remake gets to the point a whole lot faster. For example, Carrie crashes the boy's bike about 20 minutes in in the remake. While the original took an hour and a half to get there.
The 5% change in the screenplay is mostly for the better and some things are spelled out more clearly. For example, the bully Sue Snell clearly does feel remorse for her actions in the beginning and clearly tries to save Carrie from the pig's blood in the climax while in the original it's implied that she set Carrie up to go to the prom with her boyfriend so she'd be voted prom queen and could be targeted with pig's blood.
There is also a further explanation for why they chose pig's blood and not paint or manure. In the remake a cell phone video of Carrie's opening menstruation scene is shown on a big screen TV during the climax, hence the blood connection.
The screenplay changes for the worse are really the rest of the climax. I cannot imagine the climax in the original going any better. I loved the way the doors just open for her and then close behind her locking EVERYONE to burn to death as the deserve to for laughing at her covered in pig's blood.
The remake goes overboard on CGI and silly levitation shots. Worse yet, there are survivors! There are fire trucks and ambulances and we see people being treated for injuries including Ms. Desjarin the gym teacher! WTF? The original was so much better! No one was able to call emergency services because everyone died!
The second biggest problem to the FX or rather lack there of is the casting of Chloe Grace Mortez. Not that she's a bad actress, but she's the prettiest girl in school and she's being bullied? Come on! Sissy Spacek was great at portraying Carrie as the ultra nerdy shy girl whom would be bullied. We're supposed to pity Carrie, but it's hard to pity the prettiest girl in school. The remake could have easily solved this by casting an overweight or simply unattractive actress. But no, Hollywood couldn't do that.
So all in all this REMAKE is worth a watch as it corrects the major pacing problem of the original and the production quality is strong except for the shoddy FX.
Also good to see a cameo by Hart Bochner playing a slime ball the way only he can.
Best of all, NO JOHN TRAVOLTA! That's a major improvement.
Just to clarify, the open title clearly reads 'Warnings' NOT 'Silent
Warnings' because IMDb can't get basic facts right.
I was bored last night. I went into this not knowing anything about 'Warnings.' But it becomes obvious by the opening credits that this is merely a 'Signs' rip off.
It honestly isn't that bad, it has likable... alright, not dislikable characters played by decent actors, and decent FX. Decent as in no horrible CGI. When something blows up the film makers actually... brace yourself, blow up a model rather than using fake CGI flames! It's truly sad that this has better FX than any Hollywood film I've seen in a long time.
The film opens with dangerous loner corn farmer Stephen Baldwin shooting at grey aliens in his corn fields. Stephen Baldwin has replaced Chris Mitchum in being the king of low low low budget films.
Baldwin dies within 120 seconds of screen time, not by the aliens but because he was shooting at the aliens while his truck was leaking gas. So the aliens aren't dangerous? Baldwin just dies by his own stupidity? Baldwin of course gets top billing with his name above the opening credits despite the fact that we just saw him die! Does he come back? Nope, that's the last we see of him.
Cut to six college friends going to fix up the late Baldwin's house so it can be sold. Just as guess but aren't corn farms usually valued by their farming land? Isn't the most likely buyer going to be another farmer looking to expand? He isn't going to care about fresh paint on the shack Baldwin was living in!
How are six college kids going to fix up a house? They don't have any experience! In fact we don't even see them buying supplies! Also unrealistic is that fact that a dangerous loner's hideout has six nice bedrooms with six beds for them to all sleep in. Why would a dangerous loner have five guest bedrooms?
Anyway, we go through most of the same build up as 'Signs' except with college kids. The characters honestly aren't that annoying. The weakest is by far the token black guy. He listens to rap because... he's black. That's his character.
Crops circles appear, there are nightly intruders in the corn fields, and local yokel sheriff Billy Zane says he'll investigate.
The kids also find video tapes Baldwin made warning of the aliens. Interesting, since we clearly saw him using a digital camcorder in the opening! How'd they end up on VHS?
Finally one of the girls goes missing in the fields. All they find is her bracelet and surgical hip pins. Talk about finding a needle in a hay stack.
This leads the teen to the startling conclusion that... the aliens' one weakness is... iron. No kidding, iron. Why? Because, they state, surgical hip pins are made of steel which comes from iron. So iron is the only way to protect from the aliens. So the aluminum foil hats really do work? After all, aluminum is also made from... iron.
In the climax Sheriff Zane and the kids are hold up in the house with aliens right outside. They're actually smarter than Mel Gibson's family as they realize the best way to defeat the aliens is... guns. Yeah, shoot the bastards! It worked in 'Aliens' than those things were a lot scarier.
They can't call for help because cell phones don't work out in the... wait. It was just then I realized that for 90 minutes NONE OF THE KIDS had used a cell phone. No horror movie trope about cell phones not working out in the country, they just don't have them. Seriously, this issue is never brought up! No one calls for help.
Zane sacrifices himself by setting the stove gas line on fire so the surviving three kids can escape. I hadn't seen an actual model house blow up in so long that I'd forgotten what it looked like. As I said, better FX than all recent Hollywood films which have yet to create a believable CGI explosion.
As the kids drive away they hear on the radio that alien invasions have been occurring all over the country.
At least the alien invasion was a surprise which explains the kids' being unprepared. Mel Gibson's family had major warnings from the news and they still failed to prepare by, stocking food and water, getting weapons, getting the asthmatic son's inhaler, or even bringing in the dog from outside, or simply leaving town!
As I said, fun for some laughs and not annoying. Just don't expect too much.
What is 'Gnaw Food of the Gods' about? Well it starts out very exciting
with grandmotherly scientist introducing our hero Dr. Hamilton to a ten
foot boy screaming out them to, "Get the fxxx out of my room!"
Wow! What a great scene! A super growth hormone has turned an innocent child into a monster and now a cure must be found. This movie really had me hooked. However, besides two other short scenes that's the LAST WE'LL SEE OF THAT STORYLINE!!!
Instead the movie quickly degenerates into a cheap giant killer rat movie. Not that we ever see the giant rats. No, instead we just get POV shots of people screaming. I'm reminded of 'Grizzly II The Concert.' The first rule of a monster movie is to have a monster!
If you're still having any thoughts of wasting your time on this snore fest I'll summarize the plot so you can see how horrible it is.
So Dr. Hamilton brings the growth hormone back to his cheap lab at a community college to find a cure.
Dr. Hamilton also just happens to be giving extra credit lessons to one of his students who's joined an animal rights group protesting the community college's animal experiments on... rats. Yes just rats. I had no idea there was a save the lap rats movement.
PETR People For the Ethical Treatment of Rats breaks into Dr. Hamilton's lab and frees his lab rats whom predictably get into the super growth hormone.
Giant killer rats on the loose at a community college. Oh the horror. The police are always on scene but they don't actually do anything until the end!
This is why giant killer rats aren't as scary as an actual swarm of rats. They're big, they're easier to kill! Just shoot them! No, the rats don't start breeding rapidly like real life rats. There are only a dozen of them. Shoot them! They're hard to miss.
Of course they're would be other easy ways to kill giant rats like... rat poison. Just use a large dose.
In the climax the rats attack the school's synchronized swimming event. The police arrive and... shoot them. Yes that's how you kill animals. Just shoot them. They could have done this days ago!
Dr. Hamilton protests this, pleading for the life of his beloved pet rat. When your pet is as big as a wolf it's time to put it down. If they're expecting anyone to feel emotions for the death of rat it won't work.
So what becomes of that poor little boy? The movie doesn't care. It's too focused on rats... oh wait there are no rats just POV shots!
Skip this whole mess of a movie. Even if you like giant killer rats you'll hate this movie because it doesn't even have giant killer rats just POV shots!
There's no mystery why this movie was shelved for four years. It's
So imagine the production quality of Chester Novell Turner with an actress best known as the bimbo from 'Love & A .45.'
The plot: Since the trailer can't seem to get anything right, this is actually a 2006 I mean 2010 version of 'The Bad Seed' with needless jump scares thrown in and laughable "action" sequences.
Renee Zellweger stars as the only attractive single English speaking social worker in America/Canada investigating a little girl Lilith (get it?) who's.... get read for the shocker.... falling asleep in class and getting bad grades! Oh the horror of her abusive home!
Officer Ian McShane is also along for the ride to put another nail in his career as a respected actor, once again doing a bad American accent. Why would they hire the most Irish actor in history to do an American accent? It's like casting James Earl Jones as a mime!
Anyway, Zelweger and McShane arrive just in time to save Lilith from being cooked alive by her parents.
After the parents are sent to prison Zellweger predictably becomes Lilith's foster mother.
Now enter Bradley Cooper who's... some shmuck Zelweger meets at a bar and exists only for Litlith to reveal her dark side and kill him via bad CGI hornets in his mouth. Officer McShane is predictably her second victim followed by Lilith's parents.
So based on Lilith being creepy and bratty Zelweger concludes she must be a demon and decides to kill her. Yup, despite the fact that all four of her victims have died via super natural means which Lilith wouldn't have been able to do Zelweger just decides to kill her with sleeping pills and then burns down her own house.
What a shock... it didn't work and Lilith is still alive to continue her horrible reign of... demanding ice cream.
So Lilith is some kind of demon? It's never explained! But Zellweger is finally able to kill her via driving her car into the water. So fire doesn't kill her but water does?
And Zellweger lives happily ever after without her job, house, or car. Since she destroyed these things all on her own her insurance won't pay. Oh, and she'll have to answer to the police for why she drowned her foster daughter after failing to burn her to death! The movie ends as if none of these things are going to be a problem for her.
So in conclusion, if you find bratty kids demanding ice cream scary and foster parents that simply presume kids are demons whom need to be killed noble then this is your movie.
Well what can be said about the conclusion to a trilogy of horribly
made dark comedies? It does stay true to the first two films as being
completely devoid of any entertainment value.
This time the production quality far worse! Worse than the first two films? How bad could it really be? I'll sum up the production quality this way, it's the worst I've ever seen for a Bree Olsen film! Yeah, that's bad!
I've actually heard some defense of Tom Six's film making as being "realistic" and "gritty." NO! It's just lazy. If the director doesn't care about the camera being in focus, the set being lit, off set noises remaining on the soundtrack, or actors missing their lines and not doing a second take it's just lazy. It shows the director doesn't care and the audience will respond in kind.
Dieter Laser returns in the lead as a Southern prison warden. A German actor doing a bad Southern accent fails for laughs on every level. NONE OF THE ATTEMPTED HUMOR works on any level!!! And this is 75% of the movie, Dieter Laser acting like Boss Hogg.
The other 25% are attempted gross out scenes of prisoners being raped in their kidney's and the cannibalization of human testicles. True to the first two films this gore is just plain silly rather than disgusting or morbidly humorous.
So what does any of this have to do with the human centipede? As the poster reveals, the warden concludes that the best way to maintain order in the prison is to create one giant human centipede. He gets his inspiration from watching.... 'The Human Centipede.' Because a movie within a movie worked so well in the second film.
Hence the few brief moments of the human centipede are only seen in the climax, which you could have gotten by just looking at the poster.
So if you're having any morbid curiosity of seeing this film. Don't!
I just wanted to clarify that this film WAS IN THEATERS!!! It was not
direct to video!!! IMDb IS WRONG!!! (as usual I have VHS of the TV ads
for this film!
It received a large amount of free media attention due to the current president's brother Roger Clinton appearing in the film.
Once again, this was in theaters, it was NOT direct to video.
As proof I can break out my complete VHS of 'All My Children' for 1993 and show you the ads for this film! It was in theaters!
This film is in fact a very poor follow up to Stan Winston's cult classic.
It does not contain any of the characters from the first film. The story is merely a rehash of the original. A woman in run over by city slicker teens and a witch conjures the demonic monster Pumpkinhead to kill them.
So it's just like the first film sans the good FX and photography.
Right of the bat I'd like to AGAIN question IMDb's rating for this
film! They list it as "R." Based on what? No sex violence or profanity!
Also my VHS copy clearly states "PG."
As far as B movies go the production quality isn't that bad.
This is one of those films with a decent set up and NO PAY OFF!
I've seen several killer snake movies that turn out that way like Oliver Reed's 'Venom.' The creepy set up consists of a priest (Fritz Weaver of 'Scanners') being told by a fortune teller that his ancestors in England persecuted the pagan Druids whom put a curse on his family.
Wait! I just checked his flexography and remember he wasn't in 'Scanners!' So what else do we know Fritz Weaver from? A few episodes of 'L&O.'
Fortunately the priest knows exactly how to deal with fortune tellers. "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortune-teller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." Leviticus 20:27
But no, Father Weaver doesn't kill her a few minutes later, she's killed by the curse.
Anyway snakes on a train kill the conductor and the train car comes into town. Pretty soon there are dozens of fatal snake bites.
Just like every killer animalxploitation film the smart lady reporter wants to call in the feds for help, but greedy businessmen want to stop her as a public scare could hurt the business at the town's center of commerce, a dog racing track. Yup that's the key plot point of this movie a dog racing track.
Here the businessmen are so evil they even hire someone to kill the reporter. WTF? Isn't this going a little too far.
The head businessman's daughter really stands out as being cuter than Shirley Temple. When predictably she too is bitten I realized whom she was, Christina Applegate! Yup, and the businessman's wife is Christina's real life mother Nancy Priddy.
Unlike most killer animal movies there are no epic scenes of swarms of animals. Even 'Dogs' had that. Almost all the snake attack scenes simply consist of an actor screaming in pain and then collapsing to the ground.
There are a few boring scenes of snakes cornering people. Now I'm no zoologist but all the snakes appear to be cobras (probably only one cobra was actually used for filming). Since cobras aren't American I kept waiting for the reporter and the scientist to uncover some kind of dark secret that a cobra from Asia was on the train and began breeding with local snakes thus creating a heard of killer snakes? No, this is never explained.
The climax is also a major let down. The reporter and scientist track the snakes' headquarters to a cave. So can't they just seal off the cave? How are these snakes traveling tens of miles all over town to bite people?
Father Weaver accepts his fate and has a final confrontation with a cobra leading it into a fire. But what about the hundreds of other snakes all over town? Even presuming this cobra is their leader, killing it isn't going to simply make all the other snakes go away.
The movie's good for a few laughs or if you want to see Christina Applegate's debut, and isn't horrible. It just suffers from the most back movie problem, boredom!
The question still remains, was this part of a bigger conspiracy? Just an excuse to beat up the Irish?
There's a lot to love about 'Siblings' great cast, great production
quality, and great premise. Just like 'Flowers In The Attic' the
forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. But somehow the whole thing
just never comes together. It we're teased with a recipe for a great
story but never get to taste a satisfying dish.
The plot: I've read many different synopsizes online and most of them are only half right. First off, I wouldn't describe this as a "dark comedy" at all. The movie never attempts to be comically. Also I wouldn't describe the parents' deaths as "murder."
What is accurate about the plot is that this revolves around four children in a Jerry Springer style family with so many marriages, stepparents, and half blood relatives that even the kids can't figure it out. This dysfunctional family just happens to be rich living in upper class Canada.
The film opens with the with their grandfather's funeral whom had been the head of the household and the only thing keeping their drunk, snobby, and nasty stepparents in check. The kids even say, "Things are going to suck from now on."
It's obvious that this draws heavily from 'Flowers In The Attic.' Four kids trapped in a big house by their abusive family, who end up forming their own family unit with the two teens as husband and wife playing parents to the two younger kids.
The stepparents end up accidentally driving off a cliff while taking the family dog to be abandoned because they're too cheap to actually put it down.
The kids obviously attempt to cover up their deaths so they can continue living together as a family.
The setting is very interesting. It all takes place around Christmas time, smart, since Christmas and snow go so well together. The lesson here is if you are going to make a movie in Canada in July have it take place on Christmas so the snow will seem more fitting. And take down all French language product placement. (hint hint 'Dawn of the Dead' 2004.)
The musical score is a real mixed bag. 50% of the score are rock or Danny Elfman style renditions of public domain Christmas songs which add a lot the to atmosphere. However the other 50% sounds like the annoying rock scores played during Lifetime movies. As I said, a mix bag.
So there's a lot to like about this movie, such as the growing sexual tension between teens Joe and Margaret. FACE IT that's the only reason anyone even saw this movie, the false promise of forbidden romance in the trailer. Unfortunately as I said before, much of this film is just as tease. Their relationship doesn't even evolve romantically.
We're also teased about Margaret being abused by her stepfather Nicholas Campbell ('DiVinci's Inquest.') She's afraid of being molested as only her grandfather could protect her. However, DiVinci doesn't actually do anything. Hence, there's no drama and no real hatred of DiVinci. All we needed was just one scene of him coming on to her.
The plot could be interesting in dealing with the practicalities of the kids continuing their lives without anyone in the community knowing about their parents' deaths. However... most of the time is wasted on boring movie tropes about how they must go back to the crash scene and do the typical stupid things characters in movies do.
The children are all straight out of a modeling agency but that doesn't make them likable characters. The two youngest kids seem like robots. When the little girl asks Joe to take her to her Christmas pageant he responds, "What? Forget it, we're not fxxxing going!" and she doesn't even act upset.
Likewise Joe and Margaret bicker more than they have any kind of sexual tension.
So this begs the question, why are the kids doing this? If they don't get along what's the point of fighting to stay together? There's no crime to be covered up and it's already established they're going to receive their grandfather's inheritance. So just tell the police their parents are missing. The police will eventually find the accident scene and the kids can go live with other relatives, or foster homes and still cash in on their grandfather's money.
This is the type of film which had so much promise but ends up falling into all the classic movie tropes of dumb characters.
Still, it's worth a watch. There are positive elements of good film making.
The emperor has no clothes. Or rather he does, they're just really
Behold the sexploitation film. The bottom of the barrel in exploitation sub genres. And it's a deep barrel! Sexploitation is just one step short of outright porn. Except sexploitation doesn't rate as high a porn. At least pornography gratifies its audience. But 'Fifty Shades' doesn't even rate as high sexploitation.
Behold the great American novel, the bottom of the barrel in print. Based on the recent successes of 'Twilight' and 'The DiVinci Code' and 'The Hunger Games' (the first novel to ever advertise itself as being plagiarized) the American reader is dumb as rocks. Raised on 'Sweet Valley High' and 'The Babysitters' Club' the American reader cannot be expected to comprehend any type plot, character development, or writing prose. It has to be dumbed down, mashed up, and spoon fed to them.
When I first heard about the 'Fifty Shades of Grey' novels I was just as much up for (no puns intended) some good erotic fiction as any other reader. I read the first twenty pages of a bootleg version before I fell asleep. To sum it up in a single word it was "juvenile." It read like stereo instructions, as if the words had merely been randomly assembled by a computer program rather than a typing monkey.
The mere names of the characters are laughable. Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele? Seriously? Were the names Hester Prynne and Seymour Butts already taken? How can any reader take this seriously after reading those names?
The setting is equally as cardboard. An office. Move over 'Claiming of Sleeping Beauty' this erotic novel takes place in an office.
So no matter what your personal tastes the last thing you want anything to be is boring. That's what 'Fifty Shades of Grey' is, boring and juvenile.
Then came the media sensation! The novels were plugged left and right as being "erotic" and "controversial." As I already stated they're as "erotic" as stereo instructions and the claim of controversy would be more convincing if these novels weren't SOLD AT THE CHECKOUT LINE IN GROCERY STORES!!! Come on! How "controversial" can it be?
Finally last night I chose to embrace the horror and get it over with and finally watch a bootleg version of this movie. How bad could it possibly be? I figured, if I could endure 'Cannibal Holocaust' 'Cannibal Ferox' 'Riki Oh' 'Salo' and ALL THREE 'ILSA' movies I could certainly survive this.
I braced myself (no puns intended) for this "controversial" "shocking" "erotic thriller" which barely got an R rating to see..... bare breasts. That's right! The most shocking scenes in the movie feature bare breasts. That's it!!! That's the big "shocker!" Bare breasts! Dakota Johnson's flat as a board bare breasts. I can name PG movies that feature bare breasts!
Staying true to the novel it was boring as sin. Well I guess I should have expected as much.
This only reinforces what I've said all along. Who is the target audience here? There's no shortage of actual porn. And porn fans will be bored to tears. The only way they'd enjoy this is if the role of Anastasia Steele was played by Tanner Mayes and the role of Christian Grey was played by ten black men.
At the same time other people won't be interested in seeing this trash. So who was the target audience to begin with?
'Fifty Shades' is pure hype built on nothing. The emperor has no clothes. Or rather he does, they're just really really dull.
I was very saddened to learn that this film was produced by Michael De Luca. The Michael De Luca? The same screen writer of one of the greatest films ever made 'In The Mouth of Madness'? Now I hate 'Fifty Shades of Grey' even more!
So this is a drama claiming to be "based on actual events" (yeah right)
where reporters document rape cases from all around the world to expose
the judicial system's mistreatment of rape victims but is really just a
rape revenge exploitation film? Wrong, it doesn't rate that high. It's
really just a soft core porn exploitation film.
The numerous graphic scenes of rape are in fact just soft core porn with all parties not only consenting but really getting into it. The jazz music sets the tone. They can't seriously be trying to convince anyone that these girls are being raped.
The version I saw was dubbed to English and the voice actors weren't even trying to take this seriously either. For example the prison guards in Chile all have fake Brooklyn accents.
The film is best known for the scenes of hard core porn legend Brigitte Lahaie getting "raped" and then enacting her own revenge. This segment certainly lived up to its reputation and makes the whole movie worth watching.
Lahaie is known for doing legitimate acting at the same time she was also starring in hard core porn films. This movie does not qualify for legitimate anything.
There are several other scenes which are laugh out loud riots. For example, when a reporter travels from France to Chile it goes totally Indiana Jones and actually shows us a map of France and Chile, only it's just a simple map book, no moving line. Why? What was the purpose of showing us this?
I suspect I saw the edited version of this film as some of the rape scenes have poor editing cuts. Perhaps the original version was hard core porn?
I really enjoyed this movie for several laugh out loud moments that someone would make a movie this truly sleazy. It's titled 'Rape' after all. As I said, none of the "rape" scenes even approach "rape."
|Page 1 of 13:||          |