Reviews written by registered user
chow913

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
139 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Side Splitting, 6 May 2016
7/10

I just saw this film and almost laughed myself to death! As you've probably guessed, the plot revolves around a girl named Rachel whose ex boyfriend Troy posts nude photos of her online.

Talk about "cutting to the chase." The slimy boyfriend takes the nude photos and the break up all within the first scene of the movie!

Within the same hour of the break up there are nude photos of her online and perverts are literally showing up at the coffee shop where Rachel works to harass her. And it just doesn't stop!

Her neighbors are stalking her, Rachel's mother is fired from her job, they're being followed by a black van, people are breaking into their house. HTF does this happen within a matter of hours?

Even the people at church are harassing her. This begs the question, aren't all of her friends, co workers, and neighbors admitting they're visiting revenge porn websites on an hourly basis? Doesn't this shame them?

The funniest scenes involve Rachel's mother. I haven't seen acting like this since the mom/aunt in 'Sleep Away Camp.' Seriously, we have to wonder what the rejected footage looked like if these are the line deliveries chosen for the final cut. I want to know!

The character of Rachel's mother is dumb as rocks to start with. When they're being followed by the black van she pulls into a dark alley and gets out of her car to confront their stalker. Great idea. That's like lighting a match to inspect a gas leak.

The second funniest scene is where Rachel tells her mother within an hour of her nude photos going online. As if her mother will find out sooner or later. So her mother visits revenge porn websites?

This is also the case when the sleazy ex boyfriend Troy is framed for child pornography. Rachel brings it up on her phone to show her parents. WTF would they be looking at child porn in the first place?

The stand out funniest scene is when we meet ex boyfriend Troy's mother played by real life porn star Amy Lindsay. Not kidding!!! That's like Ron Jeremy making an appearance in 'Ghostbusters.' Then, Rachel and Troy's mothers get into a knock down drag out catfight! Yes! More Lifetime Network movies need to feature scenes like this.

Also of worthy note is the scene where her next door neighbor apologizes to Rachel for making creepy faces at her in public. And she accepts his apology! Again, WTF? He's admitting to being a dirty old man and following revenge porn websites and stalking a teenage girl and she tells him, "It's alright"?

It's definitely worth a watch.

Apply Razor To Wrists and Repeat, 3 April 2016
1/10

I'd like to note I am currently writing this review from my padded cell.

How bad could a movie shot on VHS about masked homeless people humping piles of trash really be? It's directed by Harmony Korine, that's how bad it its.

What else is there to say about this movie that could possibly convey how horrible it is other than simply stating it's a Harmony Korine film (video) about masked homeless people humping piles of trash? WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO SAY?

Since I can't talk about the movie, I'll talk about the people giving this movie positive reviews. They're liars. They're lying to themselves when they say this film (video) has any value at all. They're lying when they say Harmony Korine proves the nothingness of being. Because Harmony Korine openly brags about being a drug addict, and his films (videos) really shows it.

'Trash Humpers' isn't even amusing the way 'The Room' or 'Troll 2' are. This is just plain bad. Not even Tom Servo and Crow T. Robot could make this film (video) watchable.

Now it's time for my electro shock therapy. I'll be needing a lot of it after watching 'Trash Humpers.'

"Make it make it don't fake it."

AAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

So Bad It's Good/Funny, 2 April 2016
7/10

This film is best known as being the basis for Steve Oedekerk's 'Kung Pow' where it was redubbed and reedited as a comedy.

I thought 'Kung Pow' was one of the most ingenious comedies I'd ever seen. The DVD contains a track with all the original audio from both Steve Oedekerk and the original film. I forced my father whom speaks Mandarin to watch it and translate what they were really saying. He said, they were actually saying exactly what was redubbed except not in funny voices.

I doubted my father's statement and watched the original in its dubbed English format. It's a laugh riot!!! My father was right, most of the dialogue is the same!

Just as in 'Kung Pow' many of the scenes are truly WTF? Like when the villain enters the city and his thugs just start beating up random people for absolutely no reason. Or when the villain orders his thugs to repeatedly hit him the groin with a wooden pole just to prove he can take it.

The biggest changes are that the actually sequence of events in 'Kung Pow' is very different.

So maybe Steve Oedekerk wasn't such a comic genius after all as this movie was funny enough on its own.

'War & Peace' Had Fewer Characters, 28 March 2016
8/10

Well I must give this film a positive review for being both entertaining and gutsy. How many 90 minutes movies have featured triple digit characters and 30+ ongoing plots? I mean successfully?

Those numbers are not exaggerations! That's the real number of characters and ongoing plots for this movie! Similar to 'These Are The Damned' and 'Scream and Scream Again' which featured three seemingly totally unrelated plots and characters which converge for the climax, this movie boldly has many many many many many many many more.

All these plots revolve around the small Californian town of Peyton Place. First we're introduced to a married couple running and hospital and then it expands to the lives of their multiple ex spouses, and their ex spouses' multiple ex spouses, and their multiple ex spouses' multiple ex spouses' siblings, parents, and kids and their friends and so forth.

That wasn't an exaggeration! That's the way it really goes. Almost every character over the age of 30 has at least two ex spouses! And some have more!

The main focus is on the fiery auto deaths of two characters we've lost track of in all the multiple ex spouses. Seriously! I've seen this movie twice and I still don't know whom died! But at least we know they're related to the other 98 characters. How couldn't they be? Everyone in Peyton Place changes spouses like socks.

Their deaths are ruled accidents until a deep cover up is exposed at the hospital. An evil corporation New Star is buying up the town and as a result every business including town hall is corrupt.

So investigating the murders and New Star's motive become the focal point. But the movie is STILL THROWING IN NEW CHARACTERS AND PLOTS! More lovers and ex lovers, a cop sleeping with an underage girl and someone trying to blackmail them, a hippie do gooder and his murder, a psycho stalker and his violent past and his mother trying to cover it up and being blackmailed for her cover up. Then Stella Stevens' and her flashbacks and her young murderous lover with the killer attack dogs and her motives for revenge by controlling the town water supply and cutting jobs at the mill and...

Alright, I could go on all day but seriously I did not make up any of these plot points. They're all real and they really all do come together at the end.

It's as if a someone took an entire year of 'All My Children' and turned it into a 90 minute movie so I really have to give the film makers credit for keeping the plot together.

The big question is why have so many on going characters and plots other than for the simple challenge of doing so. Like the novelists who write entire books without ever using the letter "T" just to prove it can be done.

If their intent was just to tell the story of a small town being bullied by a big corporation, about 80 of the 100 characters could have been eliminated. This formula might have worked better as a mystery the audience is dying to know the answer to like the two films I mentioned. Here, there is no mystery. We see Stella Stevens plotting and controlling everything from her hotel room.

Definitely worth a watch just to admire the fact that someone wrote a story with 100 characters and 30 ongoing plots for a 90 minute movie. That's talent.

I Sleep Through Your Movie, 17 March 2016
1/10

As a major fan of exploitation films I have to be honest and say, I didn't like the original 'I Spit On Your Grave.' It was a silly film with no redeeming entertainment value.

The remake? Was better. Far better acting and production quality (hard to be worse than the original) and some interesting revenge kills. Not a masterpiece but an improvement.

This rushed cash in sequel brings me back to my statement about the original.

The worst thing a movie can be is boring. 'I Spit On Your Grave II' is boring.

We go through the classic set up of an American in Eastern Europe who's abducted raped and tortured by snuff film makers. If this sounds like the exact same plot as 'A Serbian Film' that's BECAUSE IT IS!!!

Both films are painfully boring. Since we care nothing about the victim or the attackers we don't feel sorry for her or any hatred towards the villains.

NONE of the torture porn or torture revenge scenes are creative in the least.

The rape revenge exploitation genre is, let's face it, pretty boring. The audience already knows what's going to happen. We're just waiting for the movie to catch up.

In order for rape revenge to be entertaining they either need a gimmick like the arty directing in 'Ms. .45' or characters we actually care about like 'Thriller: A Cruel Picture' which is very rare.

Skip this one.

Catacombs (2007)
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Intriguing Premise Goes Nowhere, 9 March 2016
2/10

The catacombs of Paris, a lesser known historical marvel of how Paris' over populated cemeteries were cleaned out and 7,000,000 human skeletons were arranged in a macabre maze underground!

So in 2007 when I heard it was the setting for a new horror movie I just had to see it! There's no cheap CGI, it's filmed on location.

Victoria flies from Boston to Paris to visit her sister, a drugged out drunk party girl. It's the role Pink was born to play.

Pink takes Victoria to a rock concert in the catacombs. And by "concert" I mean an orgy of drugs and alcohol. Predictably Victoria gets lost and chased by a goat headed monster said to haunt the catacombs. This goes on for 80 minutes and it's more boring than words can describe.

At least the ending is a good one. SPOILER WARNING!!! Eventually Victoria kills one of her pursuers only to discover this was all a prank by Pink and her friends. Ha ha ha. What it's a joke is that Victoria really did kill one of the friends out of fear. As Pink is cursing her Victoria beats all of them to death! Amen. They all deserved it for the hell they put her and the audience through.

Can't really think of single reason to see this film as they don't make use of the on location filming in the catacombs. Come on! 7,000,000 human skeletons and they couldn't come up with anything scary?

Popcorn (1991)
Apply Razor To Wrists And Repeat, 6 March 2016
1/10

Good Lord, this is the horror version of 'The Room' where some scenes are so silly it can only be considered an unintentionally bad comedy.

5.7? This has a rating of 5.7 here? WTF?

Standard slasher plot: College professor Ray Waltson has his film students renovate an old movie theater to show 50's B horror films for a single night.

First off, WTF does film making have to with construction and renovation? Also, they're renovating a condemned building just for a one night show?

Also, we see no promotion for the theater, begging the question, how did they get a sold out show? They could have at least shown a montage of the students handing out fliers.

The first truly mind numbing scene is the montage of the students fixing up the theater. It looks like those legendarily bad European Mentos ads. Only worse!

So on the big night the killer emerges. He peels off the flesh of his victims and wears them like masks to disguise himself because apparently that's how human tissue works! Just stick someone else's face on your own and you'll look just like that person.

And WTF is the killer targeting the students?...... That's never answered! Oh, he explains why he's a deformed psycho. As a child his mother was cheating on his father so he burned down the theater killing her, but he was burned and his face disfigured. So WTF does this have to do with the students? His revenge motives are unclear.

This villain's motive explanation scene is the funniest as it goes on and on and on for about fifteen minutes! Also, the killer's voice and movements are like all of Jim Carrey's 'In Living Color' characters rolled into one! HTF are we supposed to take this seriously?

Like 'Shanghai Surprise' this movie is a special kind of intentional atomicity. It's not just the result of a low budget, bad actors, or poor film making. It's a deliberate well planned massacre of cinema. The fact that these scenes were written, acted, recorded, and edited together by dozens of people working together is truly disturbing.

This film is totally devoid of any entertainment value even for laughs. We seriously have to wonder what was happening behind the scenes that created.

The Crap Behind The Stars, 16 February 2016
1/10

Just like other reviewers of this film I must concur, "Huh?"

The film claims to be "based on a true story." Not only is this farcical but since all the characters die at the end who would be alive to tell it?

The paper thin plot revolves around a fashion shoot with catches a flying saucer in the background and the aliens are DEAD serious about recovering the negatives to cover up their existence.

The main characters then switch to a reporter investigating the disappearances of the photographer and model.

The reporters discover an elaborate cabal "The Silencers" men in black whom cover up the existence of aliens by killing all witnesses.

This begs the major question, if there is an international cabal already covering up alien existence why would the aliens give a damn about some blurry photos?

The production quality is shot on sxxtyo and the plot is just plain silly. I can't even think of a drinking game based around the film it's so devoid of any substance.

Rushed Rip Off Of Another Rushed Rip Off Of A Real Movie, 1 February 2016
3/10

What happens every time a highly anticipated movie is about to be released? The cuckoo effect! A rival studio rushing into production a similarly themed lesser film to cash in on the free publicity of the other film. It's been going on for decades and isn't going to stop.

In 1989 we got TWO cuckoo films trying to cash in on the release of James Cameron's much anticipated 'The Abyss.' One was 'Leviathan' and the other was 'Deep Star Six.'

While it would be impossible for either of the two to even be in the same league as 'The Abyss,' 'Leviathan' was an enjoyable cuckoo film. It had a fantastic A list cast, a scary build up, and quality FX. 'Deep Star Six' had... Miguel Ferrer.

That's the major problem with 'Deep Star Six,' it's doesn't fail because it never even tries on any level. For example, 'Leviathan's limited budget required them to film dry for wet for its underwater shots, which it did surprisingly well. 'Deep Star Six' ONLY HAS ONE 30 SECOND UNDER WATER SHOT! That's right, an under water sci-fi action film which only has one under water scene!

The plot, a deep ocean under water base... well, they never really explain WTF there is a giant under water base. They only mention something about it being a nuclear missile site for the Navy or something.

Unlike 'Leviathan' the characters are extremely forgettable and the cast is totally devoid of any namable stars, save Miguel Ferrer whom is terribly miscast in his role. The only other three actors I recognized were Greg Evigan ('My Two Dads' 'PSI Love You' 'Tek War') Matt McCoy (husband in 'Hand That Rocks The Cradle') and Elya Baskin (token Russian guy in EVERY MOVIE).

I looked up the filmographies of the other actors just in case I missed anyone. Nope. They've barley done any other work.

Their mini subs are attacked by a sea monster or so we're told. Remember, there's only one under water shot in the beginning so we never actually see the monster under water or the destruction its blamed for.

The monster eventually gets inside the base and this is another example of 'Deep Star Six' not even trying as Matt McCoy being cut in half is NEVER SHOWN! In one shot he's alive, in the next he's cut in half. Maybe the monster is innocent? So far we haven't seen it cause any of the deaths. In fact, we haven't even seen the deaths!

When we finally see the monster it's bigger than an elephant which begs the question, how the hell did it get inside and how does it later fit through airlocks the size of manhole covers?

The surviving crew members do the only sensible thing and close the airlock, thus trapping the monster inside the base! While the airlock was leaking water they'd already decided to abandon the base anyway so what would one flooded room matter?

Anyway, five crew members escape the room alive. Alright, so letter lock the door and NEVER go in that room ever again! At this point the film reminds us that they will decompress and evacuate the base in four hours. Good! Just leave the monster alone for four hours and they'll never have to see it ever again!!!

Of course they go back into the room!!! What's the worst that could happen? Thus the monster causes more death and destruction. Maybe it just wants out? Open the airlock and let it out!

As I said, there's nothing to hate about 'Deep Star Six' except how little it tries. It was a cuckoo project to begin with that really comes in a distant third behind 'The Abyss' and 'Leviathan.'

Looker (1981)
Good Ideas Go Nowhere Slowly, 15 January 2016
3/10

With a strong cast and intriguing premise 'Looker' .... looks impressive. But it's NOT!

By "strong cast" I mean Playmate Of The Year Terri Welles. She visits Beverly Hills plastic surgeon Albert Finney requesting some very specific changes down to .1 millimeters.

The movie's off to a great start with Welles getting topless within the first five minutes. However the scene is so brief I literally watched the movie THREE TIMES before I even noticed this scene! WTF? This is the money shot! That's like having the chariot race in 'Ben-Hur' last only three seconds!

Welles and other of Dr. Finney's patients turn up dead. The movie might as well be over! Terri Welles is dead within SIX MINUTES!!! WTF?

They've all been thrown off balconies by a killer whom looks like John Holmes or Chuck Norris from the cover of 'The Good Guys Wear Black.'

The only model not killed is Susan Dey. Susan Dey? Susan Day from 'L.A. Law' is our leading lady and trying desperately to be sexy? This is the final nail in the coffin for the film.

Not even villain James Coburn can save this wreck, and he wasn't even in the trailer.

The master plot revolves around an evil company developing an illegal super weapon... a ray gun which causes the victim to lose time. That's how they killed the girls.

This seems pretty far fetched for a petty weapon. If they wanted a silent non lethal weapon Thomas A. Swift already beat them to it. Or they could just use a tranquilizer gun. But since they killed the models anyway, and not silently, they could have just used a gun, knife, or blunt object! Their ray gun is pretty pathetic.

Why did this company kill its own models? That's never explained!

This whole movie is a waste of time. The trailer promised me a movie staring Terri Welles but she's dead by the time the credits end. Skip this mess at all costs.


Page 1 of 14:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]