Reviews written by registered user

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

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:
One of the worst endings I've ever seen, 3 April 2016

This was a movie that I really enjoyed watching. It has an intriguing plot, good characters, good character development, good pacing, a bit of well-placed and subtle humor, appropriate amounts of action, but best of all, it keeps you guessing. I was never bored for a second watching this. It's a great example of a psychological thriller that holds onto your attention by interest in the story alone. It was great.

So if I have all these good things to say about it, why the mediocre rating? The answer is the ending. I won't spoil it at all, I'll just give my opinion on it. I don't think I've ever seen a conclusion to a movie that was more disconnected from its earlier parts. It had virtually no relationship to the plot and abandoned every good aspect of the rest of the movie. It was as if the movie went insane. What happened here? Did they bring in a completely different writer for the last part? Did the studio suddenly call the writer up one day and inform him that he had exactly 5 minutes to finish the script? It's really something that you have to see for yourself to appreciate. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

I would have given this movie an 8 probably, had it not been for the ending. That's how atrocious it was. Is that unfair? Well, the ending is a very important part of a movie. In fact I might say it's the most important part, depending on the case. You can't create a great movie and then destroy it with the last few minutes, and expect it to still be considered good.

I only realized after looking at this page that this movie is partially a sequel to Cloverfield. I've never seen the first one. Perhaps if I had, this atrocity would make more sense, I don't know. All I know is that taking this movie on its own, as it was marketed, it's probably the biggest waste of a potentially great movie that I've ever seen. Such a shame.

8 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
For the most part garbage, but the ending redeems it somewhat, 29 December 2013

The first point to make is that this is neither a horror or a comedy. In fact, I don't see any comedy aspect to it at all. I don't even see any attempts at comedy. I think what happened here is that IMDb accidentally listed it as a comedy, and so everyone who saw the movie managed to find something funny in it just because they felt they were supposed to. Typical non-thinking drone behavior.

Besides the comedy, the trailer makes it seems like it's gonna be a good, scary home invasion movie like The Strangers or Funny Games. Unfortunately though, there isn't anything scary about this. Every kill can be seen a mile away. Naturally there are also a few jump scenes which are once again extremely predictable. All of the "suspenseful" moments are cliché as can be.

The entire middle of the movie is boring beyond belief. It's hard to give an example of something not being scary for obvious reasons. Just imagine masked guys running around this house doing some stuff that causes no reaction or emotion in you at all, and the people inside the house are screaming a lot. That's what the majority of the movie consists of.

The only thing not making it a truly terrible movie is what happens towards the end. This part is good for two reasons. The first is that the movie is ending. The second reason is because there are two nice twists that I didn't see coming at all. It was nice also because I was tired of predicting everything else that happened before.

I would probably put this in the drama, crime, and thriller genres. The only thing possibly qualifying it as horror is gore.

Obviously I wouldn't recommend watching this, but if you'll be wasting any time on it at all it should be spent briefly reading about the ending somewhere. Other than that, avoid it.

Thirteen (2003)
0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
See Visitor Q instead, 24 August 2013

I've seen this movie twice. It's one of those films that's very entertaining, but not for its intended reasons. It's one of these teen "awareness" movies that tries to scare parents into getting irrational ideas about their own children. However, it fails miserably on account of the story and the characters being completely unrealistic.

The story goes that there's a thirteen-year-old girl who does well in school and apparently has a good, moral upbringing despite her family being comically dysfunctional even from the beginning. However, she meets another seventh grader who happens to be the exact representation of what parents don't want their daughters to become. She falls into peer pressure (of course) and starts shoplifting, cursing (oh my), and of course doing drugs. Yes, it's quite cliché when it comes to her downfall. The interesting part comes while she's in this stage, which is when the comedy really begins. I think a huge problem is that it seems very implausible for a seventh grader to be doing most of what she does in this movie. I won't even bother listing everything, but I'll just say it would have been a completely different experience if the girls were maybe, 16.

I mentioned the dysfunctional family, which is really an understatement. The girl's mother is possibly the worst mother I've ever seen, and the entire family is really just completely insane it seems. The family is another huge blow the film's realism. It actually reminded me a bit of Visitor Q, hence the title. It's definitely a major exaggeration, but the fact that this would even bring that movie to my mind shows what I'm talking about.

Still though, it's entertaining to watch just because of how ridiculous everything is. There's certainly nothing to get out of its message, but watching the family deal with all this stuff at once is mildly entertaining. I'd recommend watching it as a comedy-drama. But actually, Visitor Q is probably even better for that, so just see that instead.

Iron Doors (2010)
2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Bad...but kept me interested, 8 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

'Iron Doors' is a low-budget film obviously based on other claustrophobic survival horror movies, but with its own twist.

In general, the plot isn't especially original, but as the movie progresses you will find aspects which haven't been seen in similar films. The originality it has however, isn't quite enough to save the film from the rest of it's flaws.

Let's start with the acting. It's pretty bad. It's not the worst acting you've ever seen, but the performances are definitely nothing special.

The main character is incredibly annoying, unlikeable, and uninteresting. Not only that, but he doesn't even seem to care about the predicament he's in. Almost throughout the entire film he's making ridiculous jokes and comments to himself. Also, he's an idiot. Even after the fourth day in the cell, he still thinks it might be a practical joke. The African woman on the other hand, is at least an interesting character. The language barrier between the two is funny at first, but eventually gets old.

The film leaves WAY to many unanswered questions. Who imprisoned them, and why? Were there any other people besides them? (I'm assuming there were more people because it wouldn't be possible for whoever imprisoned him to anticipate which wall he would try to break out of.) How is the method by which the doors would open explained? The most absurd part would have to be the ending. I can't comment on what that was supposed to mean. I also don't care. I'm usually all for 'interpreting' films like this, but in this case I really just don't care at all.

Despite all of these flaws, I was still interested throughout the whole movie, mainly because I thought a lot of the questions would be answered. It's not just that though. Watching those two try to figure out how to get out, and watching their chemistry despite their language barrier is pretty entertaining. Somehow, I never felt bored watching it. Maybe I'm just a sucker for movies remotely similar to 'Cube' or 'Saw'. Anyway, I'd probably recommend giving it a watch, because while it's certainly not a masterpiece, it is entertaining. And like I said, I really think it's unique in many areas.

Unimaginably boring, 26 February 2012

I'd like to start off by saying something positive. I really like the filming style of this movie. It has a certain 'touch' that makes it seem quite real.

Now that that's out of the way...this is a truly awful movie. I watched it basically knowing it would be crap, but everyone was talking about how disturbing it was. So just for that reason I watched it, and it was incredibly disappointing.

What's wrong with it? Well, it lacks almost all elements of a film...literally. The acting is non-existent, there's no plot, there's not even any real directing. I basically don't consider this this to be a movie. So, what could ever save such a non-film from being completely deplorable? If you guessed blood and gore, you're partially correct.

Although shock value might be able to save such an atrocious movie from being unwatchable to horror fans, there's a right and wrong way to do it. While there are some very original and incredibly disturbing scenes, they drag on for an eternity and actually begin to lose their shock value as the scene continues.

Much of the 'movie' is actually just completely random stuff. I'm not even sure how to explain it. The formula goes like this:

1). Random scene of the killers doing everyday things 2). An incredibly long scene of the killers torturing some unnamed character. 3). Repeat

That's the entire movie. Now the question is, are the torture scenes any good? Well, there are some original moments. We've got necrophilia, pedophilia, infanticide, intestines being ripped out, sexual deviancy, vomit, and more. But very little of the movie actually consists of any violence, it's mostly that everyday footage. And again, the scenes with violence seemingly never end, which just makes them boring. The atrocious acting doesn't exactly help either. These killers have worst "insane laugh" I've ever heard, and it really takes something away from its realism.


12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Not worth your 77 minutes, 24 February 2012

Let's see...where do I start? Let's start with what you're craving throughout the entire length of the film, character development. This is a basically non-existent element of the movie. The protagonist is unlikeable, a judgment which I base only on the first thing she says. The main reason why is because I actually have nothing else to go by. Her first impression is never redeemed, because her character never develops in the slightest. The only purpose of her existence is to be tormented and scream. And no, most horror protagonists are not necessarily like that. As far as the antagonists go, they do get more and more insane throughout, so at least something's happening.

There's no shortage of plot holes. I won't spoil anything (not that you'd care). But, I will say that even the motives of the kidnappers I feel were not fully explained.

Of course there's endless horror cliché's, but you're already expecting that. There are however some very creepy and original moments near the beginning.

I've heard people claim this is similar to Timber Falls (???). I honestly don't understand that at all. There's two scenes which bare a very slight resemblance to it, everything else is totally different. Those two scenes are not enough to accuse it of ripping off Timber Falls. Also, let's remember that Timber Falls is a much better film.

Ending on a positive note, the acting is pretty good actually. It has Bill Mosley of course. The other performers are quite good as well though.


Hostel: Part III (2011) (V)
0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Not too bad, but not too good either, 17 December 2011

"Hostel: Part III" is a somewhat entertaining movie about a few guys who go to Las Vegas and accidentally become the victims of a sadistic game where rich people gamble on various aspects of torture, such as how long it will take for the victim to die, and the victims reaction as they're being tortured.

If you've seen the first two Hostel's, you'll notice that this is a lot different (for the worse).

The first problem is that it's incredibly unrealistic, which might sound stupid, but the other movies seemed at least remotely plausible. This one is completely ridiculous. Speaking of unrealistic, the ending has a twist which ruins the entire movie. As the ending was approaching, I was thinking "this is the greatest ending". I guess I jinxed it or something, because about a minute later it became the worst ending I've ever seen.

This edition focuses more on the plot than the other movies did, but it ends up falling flat because each twist just makes it worse and worse. It reminds me more of a comedy than a horror movie. I'd give it a better grade if it was a partial comedy, but it's not listed under comedy on here or any other movie sites. So I have to assume that it's just not a very good film.

It was still sort of entertaining though. It's got some gruesome scenes just like the other ones. And I think that if I was able to separate it from the other Hostel movies I might like it better.

So in conclusion, not too terrible on its own. But I have trouble getting into it considering its incredible decline in quality from the first movies.

5 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, especially in comparison to the first, 29 October 2011

This movie is absolutely awful. As a fan of the first one I find this movie to be one of the worst I've ever seen. I don't even know where to start. There's no character development at all, there's not really any protagonist(s), there are no twists or sub plots, and I might even say there isn't a plot at all. The only thing that's making me give this movie 2 out of 10 instead of 1 is the acting, which is honestly not too bad.

For those that are gonna say it's an exploitation film, so it's supposed to be like that, all I have to say is watch the first one. The first movie was interesting and had a plot. It didn't make you fall asleep. If the first one wasn't an exploitation film I don't know what is. So that's not an excuse.

Also this might be the worst/most rushed ending I've EVER seen in a movie.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Kind of interesting, but not all that scary, 27 October 2011

I decided to watch this movie because I've heard a lot about it. I figured it must be a pretty good movie, even though I knew it would be a little cheesy (also, I always love getting my hands on rare stuff). I wasn't expecting anything close to a masterpiece, but at the same time I feel like it fell a little short of my expectations.

To start off, give this movie the award for scariest title of all time. If the title alone doesn't make you curious about this movie, then I don't know what planet you're on. The opening scene is also pretty great. The movie is basically about a small group of young adults who go up to an isolated cabin for some time while they take turns telling pretty lame scary stories to each other. At the same time, the very area that they're staying at has quite a frightening legend of its own.

There isn't anything scary in the slightest about the stories they tell. It's really quite boring actually. The bit that I found to be pretty chilling is the atmosphere when they're telling them. You can just tell that something isn't right, so kudos to the director for being able to create that vibe. Unfortunately, that's the only scary part of the entire movie. The rest of it is interesting (I guess), but fails to accomplish the task of scaring you.

The end is pretty bizarre, which makes me wonder if there's more than meets the eye with this movie. Is there some kind of point, or message that they're trying to get across here? Is this supposed to be some kind of representation of how people can turn stories or ideas into a bigger deal than they need to be (especially since that's kind of a recurring theme throughout the film), or is it really as pointless as it seems? I honestly don't know. Either way I'd give it 4/10 because its scary moments did legitimately spook me, but the majority of the movie falls a bit short in my view.

Also to be fair, it truly appears they had NO budget to work with on this film. I think they did okay with what they had.

The Collector (2009/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Pretty good, but has its flaws, 21 October 2011

I thought this movie was pretty good, and even if it was terrible, the plot was at least somewhat original (unlike 80% of horror movies). Just for that it would get an OK rating from me. I

The action scenes were very nice, and it had some pretty exciting moments (especially in the beginning). The acting is really good, The traps are very interesting, in general it's somewhat realistic, and most of all, it's really thrilling.

Now there are some pretty bad things about it too. First of all, I'm not sure what they were trying to do with the collector character, but whatever it was it didn't work very well. I have some trouble trying to accept a "spider-human" going around torturing people. It's actually a little bit comical. Second, MANY of the things that occurred near the end are incredibly unrealistic. Third, a lot of this movie is dependent on ALL of the characters being extremely dumb (including the collector himself). Fourth, it has possibly the worst ending I've ever seen in a movie.

Another minor complaint, could they have possibly picked worse music to play in this movie? I mean wow, I dare anyone to think of a worse set of songs to put in any movie period.

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