Reviews written by registered user
|47 reviews in total|
I'm shocked to see it's still holding a 5 rating on IMDb, what a travesty in ratings. Hellraiser 3 is a poorly acted, poorly scripted, plodding craptastic insult to special effects and slap in the face to the first 2 classics in the franchise. This is a steaming pile of cinematic garbage served with freaking puns...PUNS NOW...on the side. Some reviewers on here are giving it 5 or 6 stars...why? Why in the name of all that's Clive Barker would you give this movie an average or better than average grade? What have you been watching to think this is an average movie people? And...8's? 9's? 10's? TENS EVEN!?! People...you're being bamboozled I tell you. A 10 in the horror genre is perhaps...The Shining, The Exorcist, Alien, you know...something with a strong screenplay, suspenseful cinematography, interesting and strong visuals...something that gets under our skin. How could you idiots rate this a 6 much less a 10, unless you have some sort of bad movie fetish, I just don't get it. I give this a 3. The acting was atrocious, the F/X were pitiful, the cinematography was hackish, and the plot was boring. The cenobites were oafish and pathetic....just a mess all around and if you like this movie then...well whatever. It gets a 3 from me because sadly there's even worse movies like this out there and I give Doug Bradly props for repping Pinhead...the other stars are for doing the credits the right way I guess...whatever, don't even watch this crud.
"Big Bad Wolves" had topped a lot of 2013's best of lists and it's really far from the worst films of 2013, realistically it falls somewhere in the middle. Stylistic, charming, and great character acting highlight a sort of "who-dun-it" for dummies and I say that in the least offensive way possible. It doesn't take an Agent Starling to figure out who the culprit is though for some reason...many people didn't seem to figure it out...though the movie all but spells it out for you. So not being much, if any of a mystery, what genre does this movie fall in too? A comedy-revenge- lightweight thriller? Sure, I'll go with that. For such a brutal subject (child killer/pedophile) the characters are very charming and though we do know who did what...the actor playing the scumbag gives a convincing performance in the role he portrays. With such a small cast and not much drama, after the charm burns off in the first hour or so, I found myself wondering when this is going to wrap up...never a good sign. The movie ends sort of flat and uneven and I felt it was rather anti-climatic. Good for a rental I suppose and could make your top ten list of 2013 if you've seen very few movies that year. Tarentino really thought this was 2013's best movie though? That's probably the biggest surprise of all with this movie.
I wasn't a big fan of the "The Last Exorcism"; for myself it was an average scare flick, not a really a gem of the genre. The creatively titled "The Last Exorcism II" however is an inspired and creepy journey towards one woman's and perhaps humanities doom. The low score you'll see on the home page is due to a lack of imagination in today's average movie goer. A great deal of suspense built into this movie is visceral...it's what your NOT seeing that is disturbing. And that is what ticks me off about the low scores. Okay...so there's no monster chopping off heads or people being physically tortured or women showing their breasts. So it burns a little slow...so it uses atmosphere and environment to build tension, is this a reason to rate it low? If you have no imagination and can't focus on a movie for more then 10 minutes if there's no blood or CGI monsters to be found then yes....I guess it is. The director's behind this little gem hopefully are off to make even better movies and I look forward to what they can do in the future. Well done! Fans of demonic movies with a little bit of intelligence...this flick is for you...fans of gore and sex ONLY...steer clear.
"Evil Dead, Evil Dead, Evil Dead"; got it, it's a Swedish reboot of Evil Dead. Is it any good though? Depends on your tastes. I don't know many people that haven't seen Evil Dead and enjoyed it, but...slap subtitles on it,inject with MORE gore, release it in 2013 and what do you have? Well, you have "Wither" and that ain't a bad thing. A group of young adults head to a cabin in the woods where something "demonic" went down earlier prior to their knowledge. Some questionable character choices later and we have possession on a wide scale and a demonic bloodbath of violence. The protagonist and his girlfriend must escape this cabin as their friends succumb to some demonic/evil/mythological virus/curse/thingy...and that's pretty much it. There is a high diet of mostly cheap gore mixed with sometimes absurd and groan inducing character motivations from start to finish, which may be a continuation of it's tribute to it's 80's idol. Personally, I enjoyed it more then the Hollywood remake of "Evil Dead", which I also enjoyed. That being said I recommend this fun fast ride but like 80's giants of the past check your brain at the door and if gore isn't your thing...pass altogether.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I went in knowing very little about this. It was sitting around a few weeks and I forgot it's premise. That was a good thing because in a day and age where we know so much about a movie, through trailers and article upon article of a flick we sort of go in knowing too much, in my opinion. Though there's a lot of rubbish in the found footage genre, A LOT, and even more in the vampire genre this little gem excels in both fields. It gives a fresh perspective on the vampire legend and it recharges the found footage category by imitating the superhero found footage movie "Chronicle". So it's not terribly "original", sometimes I can deal with that if the effort is genuine and the perspective is fresh. This delivers on both accounts. It's a top ten vampire movie in the last 5 years EASILY and it's a top ten found footage perhaps all time. Highly recommended. See it at Redbox, grab it and enjoy. See it for $10 or under on DVD buy with no concern. If you don't love it...it won't be hard finding someone who will.
You'll watch Zeitgeist and be like..."oh wow man! dang it, I knew all this stuff was connected" and you'll be all amped and ready to go research these "facts" the film so professionally presents. Problem is...after you research these "facts" you'll find they're pretty much all wrong...and I mean like all of them. The truth is nudged ever so slightly in fractions to align a train of thought that the conspiracy is very real and you're slipping if you don't "wake up!!!!" Sigh. Fact check people. The dates are wrong, the religions are wrong, the players are wrong and the people behind this movement are associated with anti-Semites. It's a polished turd...very polished but a turd is a turd nonetheless.
The Rambler isn't for everyone,and I'm not sure it's for anyone. There's fragments of something more profound within it but it's not an easy movie to enjoy. It is very Lynch-esque...layered and at times beautiful as it strides a limbo length of highway in search of...well, that's the problem for many. What is this movie saying??? Reviewers who trash it because they don't get it are short-changing the metaphorical depth and visceral experience of the movie...and much like a Lynch movie this is a visceral journey. The cinematography is very good, the acting is what it needs to be for this type of movie. It's all very dream like. I admit I don't quite understand "The Rambler" and that subtracts points for me perhaps unfairly. I'm sure a few metaphor champions will crack the code and see the brilliance but for the rest of us there's probably a feeling of confusion. I saw this listed on some best of horror lists for 2013 but it's not a horror movie, not in the conventional at least. It's more of a ramble through subconsciousness and a desire to be free from the "logic" of society. A quest to stay within oneself and live without meaning. Or...maybe not. The meaning might be ambiguous and if that type of thing drives you crazy then stay away. If your feeling adventurous and want something that escapes the typical Hollywood polished package type movie take it for a spin.
It's awful. There are many...MANY people here defending the films of Fulci as horror masterpieces. Many people on here will try to tell you either you get it or you don't. That's akin to a Tromaville movie in the sense that either you have a taste for something or you don't. If you like Gothic inspired, cheesy gore 70's Italian films, great. If you don't like slow plodding, poor dialog, hammish acting, "atmospheric" horror, then avoid Fulci. The film makes little sense...but the defenders will tell you that's not the point. It's visceral. Well...for something to be visceral then we must feel something from something. The only visceral feeling is boredom. I'm sure they're speaking of the underlying dread from the position the young lady who inherits a hotel stationed above one of the 7 portals of evil must feel when in said position but the problem is the woman is a terrible actress. I didn't feel dread...what I felt was when will this movie pick it's arse off the floor and start spooking me. Alas, that never happens. Instead we get artificial tarantulas feasting on rubber heads, zombies sleeping in bathtubs, guns that fire too many bullets and are loaded through the barrel? (elevator scene). We get the slowest zombies that ever existed. We get acid in the face..a couple of times. We get a woman who is blind but runs out of someones house yet trips in her own and yeah...okay I'm picking, but you guys so in love with Fulci and Italian "horror" are fooling yourselves. Some of you say he's better then Craven or even Roth, what a joke. Fulci is no classic horror director. "The Beyond" is no classic horror movie. It's a 3 all day every day to people that are more impressed with what they're actually watching as opposed to who's name is directing the thing. In the end...some pretty good zombie makeup, an interesting idea for a movie, but poor cinematography (mostly), bad acting, an AWFUL soundtrack, slow pacing, and a total lack of logic create what is essentially a cult-classic for snobbish horror film buffs. Avoid at all cost.
Spawn was way ahead of it's time. I remember watching the original in the 90's on HBO and loving it. Here we are in 2014 and I'm rewatching it and just loving it...just loving it. Adult all the way, Spawn isn't for the kids. It's, of course, a Faustian tale and a superhero title but at it's core this is horror. The cartoon is very dark, chilling, and gritty. It's ultra-violent, suspenseful, animated beautifully, the voice-acting is precise and quietly subdued. It's as if all it's characters are speaking as shadows. Brilliant stuff here that outshines anything DC is doing currently and DC is the only one really doing anything worth a crud for American comic-book animation. Love Marvel but their animation is pathetic. If you're over 18 and want a good super-hero animation that lives and breathes in the dark...go buy Spawn. Mr. McFarland....please bring this back!
This is a snore fest. If you loved the Blair Witch (I didn't) then you'll probably be pretty mad that the guys who saw this said..."Say, let's remake the Blair Witch but rename it Blackwater Vampire or whatever the sodding title is. Chick decides to do a documentary about a murder she thinks is fishy, blah, blah, blah, blah, and then blah. The vampire was a pretty good design. The vampire screaming was okay but needed to be toned down a bit. The rest is rubbish. A slow, trek through a woodlands in search of an answer to something troubling the filmmaker...but this time with SNOW! The ending...oh my dear god...was just STUPID. There I said it. I'm sorry...but guys you gotta do better. Where's the originality?
|Page 1 of 5:||    |