Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Resident Evil in Space
This movie is about a video game.
Which video game? I have no clue.
It definitely isn't Doom.
Doom is about an invasion from Hell. This movie is about genetic experiments. A simple enough plot but Hollywood managed to screw it up. Can't say that its a surprise, just a real disappointment. The Doom movie came and went leaving fans empty handed.
This pile of crap should've never been made. I hope and wish they will eventually redo the movie the correct way.
This is just Resident Evil in space. An incredible letdown to us true Doom fans.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
Wonderful Under Certain Conditions
PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is THE most popular movie of the year and will ultimately be regarded as one of the best horror movies of all time. Therefore, PA has warranted a HUGE debate on whether it sucks or not.
Under this pretense, I have divided this review into 3 sections: 1 for the things in the movie that work, 1 for the things that don't, and 1 for the summation.
1. Originality - not a cheap knockoff or a member of Hollywood's non-stop horror remake/reboot wave. That is a game winner right there! Comparable to the Blair Witch Project, PA has received a lot of flack as being a rip off of BWP. Taken into consideration, the film's only real similarity to BWP is the use of home camera/1st person footage, and non-professionals inducing reactions from the supernatural world. That said, you have to answer yourself a question: Would you rather see another Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, or a completely original off-BWP type film?
2. Suspense and Tension - the film does not rely on cheap scares and loud noises deafening you to induce the desire reaction of fear. Nor does it have the smallest fraction of gore/sex/exploitation compared to most of today's horror movies. If you prefer horror movies that usually don't stick with you and follow you out of the theater, then skip it by all means. The film gives you a few inches, and leaves your imagination to finish the mile.
A suggestion on viewing the film: If you want to get the most out of Paranormal Activity, then DO NOT see it in the local theater on a Friday night. We all know what happens when you are in a theater with middle and high school kids during a horror movie. To fully immerse yourself in the movie, see it with your significant other, by yourself, or with just a couple of friends at a time when the theater is the least crowded. Try to see it at night, or at home in the dark. This film invades the sanctity of one's bedroom, and the old tactic of pulling the covers over your head doesn't work.
3. Special Effects - even on a small budget, the film provides some very impacting scenery. Some effects are blatantly obvious, and some of the best effects are actually the most subtle.
4. Acting - the movie is well acted considering it is full of unknowns. The characters are not obnoxious like most horror movie protagonists. They appear genuine and very convincing in most of the film. But in some scenes, not so much. More below.
5. Plot - there is a pleasant (oxymoron) surprise with the direction the film went regarding the source of the phenomena. It's not your typical ghost or haunted house story. I will not embellish on this as it will spoil the movie for those who haven't or are deciding to see the movie.
******THE NOT SO GOOD***********************
1. Writing - this is actually a 50/50 split. The 'supernatural' scenes are very convincing considering the subject matter, whether scripted or improvised. However, the dialog and character motivation/action during the 'down time' is unrealistic at times. This is a large complaint by those who didn't like the movie. Although the film is a large departure from teen filled slasher movies, the characters at times seem to be just as brainless as the teens getting whacked by Jason. There is a lot of "WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST....?" scenes in the movie.
2. Acting - like the writing, the acting seems to suffer in the 'down time'. Fortunately, during the important (scary) scenes, the acting is spot-on, and very convincing. However, you might be taken out of the movie when the protagonists are interacting with each other during the in-between scenes, and the authenticity of their relationship is questionable in some parts.
3. Scenery - granted that the whole movie is filmed in or on the characters' house, the static viewpoint of the camera gets a little boring. With all the phenomena going on, it would have been refreshing to see things from a different angle, especially in the bedroom. Fortunately, this doesn't hinder the movie, just a minor complaint.
******AS A HORROR FAN***********************
Follow the suggestions above regarding with who, where and how to watch the movie. Seen under the right circumstances, and with the right state of mind, the film can be very effective, and having you looking over your shoulder when you turn out all the lights in the house, and crawl into bed. For this reason, I fully endorse this movie as a new member of the horror family. Fresh and original, the movie deserves all of the attention it is getting.
Let this be a glaring message to Hollywood that originality is still the craved for in the movie industry. Horror fans have grown tired of having their favorite classics butchered and pointlessly remade. Directors and producers do not deserve revenue for just upping the violence and sexual gratification of old horror movies.
The film's success is also a great indication that as a population, movie goers respond better to thought provocative subjects than mindless in-your-face cannon fodder. It relieves me to some degree to see that tension-fear based horror movies still have the chance to take the cake. Especially on such a small budget.
Well Done, producers, directors, and actors. 8/10
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
This movie was the most fun I've had at the movies in a really long time.
Mr Raimi has definitely redeemed himself from Spider-Man 3 in my eyes. I had a premonition that this movie was going to be good, but it was nowhere near what I expected.
It's not profound on any level, so you better leave those notions at the door. It's crude, revolting, and loud.
As a big fan of Army of Darkness, I was pleasantly surprised and had a blast. This film is not a true horror, but a fun one. It really is a popcorn movie. Take a bf or gf, or better yet, go with a big group.
There's not much else that can be said about this film without spoiling it.
Suggestions to the public: Don't decide whether or not to see this movie based on reviews. Don't read any threads about the film's subject matter. Don't eat anything really heavy prior to seeing it.
Again, don't expect anything profound, or even serious. Plenty of ridiculous and disgusting images and scenes await you! We went to see it early and there were only a handful of other people in the theater, but everyone was screaming and throwing their hands up in disgust and shock!
The best spent $30 in a long time.
For a different generation
I knew the reviews on this flick were going to be split 50/50 love/hate. So I'll try to stick one in the middle.
For lovers of the original, do not go into this movie expecting the Wilder version. You WILL be disappointed. The similarities will make you expect the same warm feelings, but for some reason, you might leave the theater cold, and maybe angry.
It was a colorful film, and there was some good acting, but the menacing, mysterious Wonka is definitely missing. Maybe it wasn't Depp's fault, but with the combination of makeup, script, and character development, we end up with what everyone else is calling a androgynous Jacko-Wonka. Depp doesn't have that semi-psychotic explosiveness that Wilder's Wonka had. Depp's character is more true to the book, but let's face it, Wilder's Wonka makes the audience fear and love him at the same time. With Depp, you have a non threatening wise cracking, high pitched Wonka. Adults will make the connection to Michael Jackson, but it is doubtful that the kiddies will. Highmore does an excellent job with Charlie, and isn't as annoying as the original Charlie. His family also has more interaction. As far as the kids: Augustus was improved, much funnier; Veruca,..well, honestly the original Veruca definitely seemed more like a spoiled little brat, so you were happier to see her go; Mike TV is annoying in both films, however, I kinda liked the original's Jay Leno-ish lisp. The implementation of video games for the new Mike will probably connect better with kids though; Violet was definitely improved, and her mom was just creepy, but thats good.
The beloved familiar songs are gone, and while the lyrics of the new soundtrack might be clever and humorous, the accompanying music is too loud and cluttered to hear it. While I was watching, I noticed that most songs ended without a chuckle from the audience, and I attribute that to them being inaudible. The effects were well done, a nice surprise in this era of crap CGI laziness in Hollywood. The Oompas are all the same character, which honestly doesn't really bug me that much. The music is what let me down. I like the background on the Oompas, it added a little fresh air to the movie, and gave you something new, and not redone.
You definitely get a little more knowledge of Wonka's background as well as Charlie's family, including a dad that was not present in the first flick. I thought the background story was good, however, it was not presented in a timely fashion. It's hard for this film to compete with the original, just on nostalgic value alone. The original is a bona fide classic, and even though technology has changed, it is not the most important factor. Especially in a movie that is supposed to tug at your heart strings, as well as dazzle your eyes.
Children will love it, and maybe cherish it when they are older, as the older generations now cherish the '71 version. But us older folks might leave the theater disappointed, noticing Hollywood's greedy hands as they stick their hands in our pockets while trying to distract us with 'amazing' CGI. Don't get me wrong, like I said before, the CGI was good, and the sets were great, but there was something missing, something needed to draw you in and captivate your imagination. I went into this with a solid confidence that if anyone could or should redo the original, the Burton/Elfman/Depp crew were the ones to do it. I've been a huge fan of the trio since I can remember, and have had, and will continue to have faith in their creativity and vision. Corpse Bride looks awesome, and I'm sure Burton will redeem himself with that one.
This is a delicate anomaly of a movie to review, so I'll end with this: Don't see it if you want to see a new, improved original. See it if you are taking your kids and family. The joy that they will get from it might stir up the joy you got from the original, just in case the new one doesn't tickle your fancy.
The Devil's Rejects (2005)
What the genre needed..but....
I saw House, and loved it because of the sick humor mixed with crazy demonic imagery. It was what I would expect from Rob Zombie. It has it's corny moments, it's scary moments, it's brutal moments, it's sexy (slutty, actually) moments..etc. Just like the cheap B movies that we know Rob is so fond of.
But Devil's Rejects wasn't like it's predecessor. It is a scary, unnerving, nauseating, sadistic, mind **** from beginning to end. Now, I knew it would be more 'realistic', I guess, because of the environment. The actual house in "House" was creepy, with Baby's room with the dolls, and Tiny's room, with the people locked up in the cages of dirty laundry. Especially in Dr. Satan's lair, lined with skulls, zombie-like experiments and dead bodies. Devil's rejects lacks that extra color, but makes up for it with extremely bothersome imagery. There is no restraint, or mercy in this movie. There is nothing cartoonish about it either.
There is another review on this site that says the same things I am saying, but since I agree, I will reiterate.
I've been complaining that all the recent horror movies have stunk, and are just cheap thrill fests. I went to Devil's Rejects and expected to see campy Zombie evil/fun, but instead got that scary movie I've been looking for. The characters were very well developed, however I do think good IL' Wydell was a bit over the top, especially during the little get together with the film expert, and a fight almost ensues for Elvis not being appreciated. Other than that, the character acting was great. And don't get me wrong, it has it's humor and funny moments, however sadistic they may be. They were all pretty funny.
To sum up, the movie was superb. A good step for Zombie, while switching it up, and possibly losing a couple fans, he has struck a nerve in a genre that needed it, so hopefully this movie goes over well in the Box Office, and Zombie gets some funding for some more gorefests.
Too bad Grandpa couldn't be in this one :-( he was pretty funny.
Batman Begins (2005)
Just like Burton's Batmans, a great ensemble cast led this film to triumph. Nothing can be said that wasn't said previously in these comments. It seems to be unanimous, it was a complete and ultimate success. Bale is phenomenal, as usual, and Freeman, Oldman, and Neeson give great performances with no one showboating and stealing the spotlight. Very descriptive take on the forming of our caped crusader, with all your questions answered and then some.
Katie Holmes sucks.....sorry. She is the only thing the movie could have done without. But then we would have a movie without breasts, and even though it worked in Master and Commander,....Batman movies need breasts.
Great movie, take the kids,...just don't sniff any psychotropic hallucinogens before you go. Although, dropping a hit of acid would probably be cool in some parts.
Land of the Dead (2005)
I guess I'm alone here
Now I know that this will anger some of the rave reviewers, but I am speaking honestly, and not bashing.
First off, I am an avid Romero fan, having seen every 'Of the Dead' movie from the black and white original NIGHT, Dawn, and Day, the remade 'Night' and the remade 'Dawn'. I love zombie movies for the disturbing factors involved with trying to survive through the crisis.
I'm talking about having to kill loved ones that turned, shooting neighbors, and old friends that you might come across,...shooting little children zombies (which I might add, there were NONE that I can remember seeing in this film...I might be mistaken). The thought of the dead returning to life and feeding off the living is a fear (although irrational) that a lot of people couldn't deal with.
Now for the review: I will try to hold the spoilers to a minimum, because they are aggravating, I know. First, I like the idea of zombies learning to rationalize and communicate. It picks up where DAY left off,..I'll give GAR that much. As far as the lead zombie..I agree w/ a previous comment that they overused him. I didn't like the fact that only 1 was able to start thinking, instead of all of them at the same time. He remained a leader, and showed sorrow and anger when his fellow dead-ites were killed or injured. I don't like zombies w/ emotion. It doesn't work for me.
I went into the theater KNOWING that this was going to be more of an action film than a horror film...anything with as much firepower as dead reckoning and tons of machine guns is self proclaiming. I was praying it wouldn't be Resident Evil 3.
It wasn't a complete waste, seeing as how I got the ticket for free,...but the element of fear and horror from the other movies from GAR's series just wasn't prevalent enough for me.
I'm glad it is doing so well...so hopefully GAR might get an inkling to make something else...but as far as this one goes, it just wasn't for me. I think HORROR when I go see a zombie movie. I went into this one...saw some good gore, and had a couple of chuckles, but I didn't go home with that good IL' zombie feeling that I get when I watch NOTLD or DOTD at night by myself in a dark room with the sound cranked.
Go see the movie for yourself, you won't be angry when you leave,...you might be happy.
I'm just a weird person with a weird ass perspective. Or maybe everyone else is a mindless zombie that is distracted by big noises and funny one-liners and bright lights (for those who have seen it, I'm referring to SKYFLOWERS) and doesn't know what a zombie movie is supposed to be.
Just for the record...the scene where dead reckoning goes up to the gates of whatever that fancy hotel was and sees a big mass of zombies tearing up all the rich people, and you hear screaming and bloodletting.....that was the best part of the movie for me.
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
----------You coulda' been a contender----------
(nothing to spoil)
Of course this movie is not going to live up to the original, but the producers didn't even TRY!
In the original, they took the time to make a dummy for the head turning scene, and had Linda Blair, or a stunt double tied to wires for the spider walk. The producers got fricking lazy and cheap, and had pathetic CGI scenes done instead. Every time I saw something CGI, it pulled me out of the movie, killed the mood, and made me angry at first, then chuckle with disbelief.
This movie HAD potential, there is a few freaky scenes (the end of the tunnel at the end, for those who've seen it) was a scene that could scare the crap out of someone. But I wasn't captivated enough and wasn't really IN the movie, if you know what I mean. The acting, in my opinion, was fine.
The story was there, even though some more character development could have helped, it didn't bother me either.
In this day and age, nasty profanities, and nudity don't really render shocks of amazement. But for it's day, the original Exorcist's crucifix masturbation scene was horrendous. It would be horrendous today. The new film should have pushed new boundaries, and made people incredibly uncomfortable, and make them get the urge to go to confession right after they got out of the theatre.
But I didn't get remotely bothered. Except the fact that I wasted money seeing it in the theaters.
Do yourself a favor, wait 9 months, and make it a blockbuster night. You're not missing much
Dude, Where's My Car? (2000)
I'm utterly disgusted
I am honestly shocked on the amount of good reviews left for this movie. I'm 21, and I don't think I'm old, but my goodness... I am scared to actually think that this movie appealed to ANYONE. Considering most of the people leaving good reviews for this movie probably also watch Yu-Gi-Oh, and pokemon, etc, I can't really say I'm surprised. This movie tries to hard to be stupidly funny, and only succeeds in the former. I tried to find comedy in this, but honestly couldn't. I think that Sean William Scott has a great personality, but not in this movie. Ashton Kutcher, to me, is just a talentless hack, who should go back to his runway shoot, and leave comedic performances to people who understand the definition of comedy. This movie wouldn't have been funny to me, even if I was as high as a kite, and tripping on mushrooms. I never write negative reviews for movies, but I had to for this one. I'm sure curiosity will lead a lot of people into watching this flick, but for Chrissakes, PLEASE don't spend any money on this. This has to be honestly, the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. I was so angry at the amount of time watching this movie wasted in my life, that I would've smashed the VHS against the wall, if it wasn't my friend's rental from Blockbuster. I am really surprised that this made it with check marks through the producer's hands, and ended up a movie. GOD FORBID IF THIS BECOMES A TREND. If this generation looks to this and smiles, I think we need some new role models really friggin quickly. This is the same reason that SNL has unfunny morons like Jimmy Fallon laughing at his own jokes every Saturday Night. There must really be a shortage of funny comedians, or maybe America is just getting STUPIDER?!? So anyway, see the movie if you must, but have someone you really don't care for rent it, and bring it to your house to watch. You don't want the $4 rental for this movie on your conscience.
Edward Scissorhands (1990)
Nothing that hasn't been said
There are too many reviews for this wonderful movie to try to add anything new, or different. All I can say is this,...I am a 21 year old man. I have a son of my own. I've been in the Marines, I've been a boxer, a football player, a lacrosse player, a partier, etc (you know, you're average tuff guy). This movie made me cry when I was like 8 or 9, or however old I was when it came out. I am 21, and I STILL have to fight the tears back. I usually lose. I'm not one to get emotional during movies, but this whole production is put together to put your heart on a roller-coaster. Never have I seen more beauty and perfection into a movie by any actor, director, composer, etc. If you have not seen this movie (I can't imagine anyone over 8 to have never seen it), the see it now. You have denied yourself of something amazing. This movie earns a place in your hearts, and cannot be forgotten. How it didn't win more awards is beyond me. It kind of makes me mad just thinking about it. After all, if I just hear Elfman's composition for the movie, I start getting emotional. How many movies do that for YOU?