Reviews written by registered user
mastershaman

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

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

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Awful, bad, vomit, 26 March 2012

Absolutely awful, horrendous, vomitous tidal wave of putrid garbage! I know how this guy Dito Montiel gets to make these amateurish indulgent films, maybe he knows and you-know-what the right people. What I hate about this is that he gives a bad name to all independent filmmakers. He should not be engaging anything in this industry at all, not write, not direct. Just go away. Puhlease! This movie was such a waste it made me really upset. Considering the cast and the money this was an absolute crime on the part of the writer-director.

The film is really badly constructed, super indulgent, in places really badly acted (Tatum) and just simply boring and not interesting at all, filled with repetitious pretentious images of depressing, dark, putrid stuff that just relentlessly drives a message home which is that we were supposed to somehow feel for this character who as a child (Channing Tatum) grew up in the projects and shot 2 people. OK, now that's a 10 min short film. Now he's a police officer at NYPD and is carrying around this bottled up guilt, anger, frustration. This whole premise can only go so far, the problem is, it's stretched out over a feature film in a really rubbish way. I kept thinking to myself while watching this movie, if I see Tatum one more time appear on the screen being silent and "emoting" I'm going to stick my head in the freezer and slam the door on it a dozen times! I simply hated this film and got me really angry. This film did not deserve to be made and all the producers, executive producers and whoever else was involved in getting this film made (Trudy Styler are you listening?), last but not least the so-called "writer-director", should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for putting such garbage out into the world and giving independent filmmaking a bad name.

6 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
What? Are all people here the filmmaker's friends? This totally blew, 23 February 2011

Shame they got 3 mil to get this film made. No wonder this is the director's first film. I have no idea what the other reviewers are on! "Warm" "Authentic"? So many other films 5 times as good could have been made for that kind of money. Totally boring "woo-hoo, watch me I'm witty, indie, and I have actor friends in high places"! I couldn't watch this at all. Full of lengthy pretentious "so-called-smart/witty/ funny" dialog interspersed with the prerequisite Sundance indie feel piano track and indie alt-rock band interludes while I'm watching Joe Fiennes swim in the water. Exhilarating entertainment! NOT! Turned it off half-way through screaming in pain!

3 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Totally Overrated Bore, 9 November 2009

I have no idea what these other reviewers are talking about. Usually these types of glowing reviews are sneaked in by people associated with the film to "prop it up" on the web. This is a painfully slow, bleak looking amateurish "student film" grade bore, topped with an implausible feeling. Forced, pretentious performances especially on the part of the girl played by the amateurish Tracey Heggins. I couldn't keep watching it after the first 10 minutes. I've seen too many of these where you're hoping against all hope that the film will get better - it doesn't 99% of the time so give it up now. I really can't understand what the fuss was about regarding this film on the festival circuit.

Streets of Blood (2009) (V)
17 out of 26 people found the following review useful:
A total piece of crap - can't believe this thing gets made today, 3 September 2009

I think this piece of crap pretty much ranks down there as the worst film in the history of cinema. Can't believe they had Sharon Stone and Val Kilmer participate in this for a paycheck. I guess they needed the money. Val Kilmer acting opposite a gangster rapper now there's a washed up actor!

The so-called "director" is worse than a 1st yr NYU student at film-making. How do these people get the financing and get to "direct" movies just blows my mind... It's shot with this totally wanking documentary style which looks cheap and I find really distracting. Millennium Films sucks gas.

Meet Bill (2007)
8 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
God awful, 8 August 2008

I don't know how these people get the money and the green light to go ahead and make a glorified multi-million dollar STUDENT FILM. That's what this was a student film with some names in it shot as a H'wood type film. Bad bland unfunny writing and bad execution. The whole time I'm watching this flick I'm wondering with my jaws dropped how these people get away with this? I guess they got the go ahead because somehow they managed to convince Aaron Eckhardt to do it. It may have been some thing he saw in the script that made him think he wants to do this. Instead in the final analysis this just turned out to be bad. A substandard fare with bad execution and pathetically straining to be funny. A complete waste of your time.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Predictable boring un-funny fare, 11 August 2006

What a waste. An obnoxious, arrogant rendering of an otherwise potentially funny and engaging comedy. The whole thing is so predictable I was calling out the next shot before we got to it and whoop there it was! To think that Benderspink, a Hollywood prod co. worked on this for years and squeezed the begeesus out of it via rear propelled, exerted efforts employing cross-continental phone calls to the writer - I simply cannot believe this piece of cr..p is the best they could muster. (How do I know this? - watched the equally boring and predictable DVD featurette!) The director even proudly announces in the "behind-the-scenes" featurette that he just goes for it and tries every imaginable scenario and possibility for the scene shooting miles and miles of expensive film - and then hopes to piece something together in the editing suite that works. That is a fantastic strategy! Doode, this is also known in the industry as "not having any idea what you're doing."

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Full of intrigue and suspense, really entertaining, 25 May 2006

The film has a very polished, professional look to it. The story is intriguing and maintains a sense of mystery throughout. I feel it needed more than a short film permits...

Great concept, amazing suspense, I was left wanting much more. This short feels like it could be developed into a feature film...

I liked this film based on a short story "Paradox of Order." It was well done, kept my attention, and well acted...

==== All comments above are from 3 film selection committee members of the Cleveland International Film Festival. The film has been selected by the Boston International Film Festival (2006); Sonoma Valley Film Festival (2006); Oxford International Festival of Films (UK)(2006).

5 out of 14 people found the following review useful:
Can you say "pathetique"?, 11 February 2006

Another prime example of marquee names having a good ol' time collecting paychecks and having a ball making a film at the audience's expense, and the fact that these marquee names do NOT mean a thing when it comes to entertainment. I'm sure they had fun making it. The film however, is chock-full-o-cliché boring, abysmal stuff. The script is awful, the performances are third grade. The rip-offs are blatant. The plausibility of action is in the dumps. The comic stuff is strained and absolutely not funny, more like sad. Seeing aged actors trying to be funny is probably one of the worst things you could do with your precious time. Five minutes into this film I already knew what I was in for, but I stayed with it, because "it's so bad, it's good." Like for example, when a scene is set up to have the 5 Parisian low-lifer bad guys land in a super-rough Chicago hood and face a band of black thugs. The black guys only had knives (right!) and the French dudes had the guns. HAHAHA-funny! Paleeese!

The producer and director obviously has the right connections to the money and the stars. If they would've attempted to make this film with unknown actors by an unknown director it probably wouldn't have made it past the script stage. It looks and feels like a generally amateurishly constructed low-budget independent fare, except with big name actors and a big budget.

How do big names like Gerard Depardieu and Harvey Keitel get involved in this kind of turd totally escapes me. One would think they had better taste and a sort of responsibility to deliver to audiences worldwide who based on their attachment might just check out this worthless pieces of you-know-what. Is it the old thing about "well, on paper it looked good…"?

How do "directors" like this get work in Hollywood? How do these movies get made? Who do you sleep with or lunch with in order to get such an amateurish, pathetic, awful, boring film made in the 21st century?

I'm a filmmaker and what really fraggin pees me off in this equation is that fact that it probably cost 60 mil to make and you could have made 6 really good movies for that. At least.

Avoid this film unless you want to study HOW not to make a film.

5 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
god awful amateurish waste of a w...nk, 4 August 2005

Subject matter: old and tired. Execution: a film student or my Grannie could have done better! In the hands of a skilled director and some actors, not models (!) to play the leading roles, this could have been something interesting. This is one of those things that will be looked upon with some curiosity and interest in some backwater village in a hut on a bootleg DVD somewhere in Siberia: ahem! so this is how people live in corrupt LA?

How do these people get to make films? ASH. Now that's an artistic name... the director that is, basically who has no idea about how to create drama and story thrust. How does he get to make this film with all that money and people involved? Pretty girls in a film dealing with adult biz in and around LA - how numbingly boring! How do these people get to have James Woods (who was the only person worth watching in this film, playing a man with Parkinson's), Rosario Dawson in this film? It's the usual march of the models, who can't act and really wear on you with their seductive, prerehearsed, phony, pouting lips, self-conscious moves, trying to be serious actors crap. Give me a break! Shot on HD (read: digital video) which is not a bad thing in itself, but in the hands of an unskilled DP it looks like something ripped from a bad cable reality show.

Story? What story? This girl's life. Who gives a beep! A humongous w..nk for all involved.

There is really not much to say for this film except, avoid it and watch something else worthwhile watching.

Primer (2004)
10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:
potentially good, execution baaaaad, 4 May 2005

I cannot believe this film got the media and reputation it got ( I suspect it was hyped out of proportion by sales agents) and I surely CANNOT BELIEVE it got the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance 2004. It's a very interesting concept with irritating and amateurish execution. Falls into that well known category of "great potential, sorry execution" therefore not enjoyable. Lacks basic dramaturgy. Very talky with no interest to hold my attention or to care "what happens next", also known as "what's at stake" in drama. I didn't believe half of the 10th of the films characters, they were all fake and actorish. Visually interesting but it doesn't make up for the lack of dramatic thrust.


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