Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
I am also someone who hopes to direct a real film one day (and hopefully make a career out of it) and I have started editing tributes on youtube...its not much but its SOME sort of a start, right? Besides that, I am taught at school the rest. One of my many idols for "art films" is Werner Herzog. Even his "boring" or "silly" films are great.
I have an opinion that I will voice but I AM respectful of other peoples opinions because I have changed mine on a number of occasions.
Oh and I'm disqualifying internet movies considering if I didn't, over half the list would have them in it.
The way I'm going to make this list is that the first paragraph will be a brief summary of the plot, the second paragraph, why I like it, the third paragraph what I didn't like about it (because no film is without flaw). The fourth, anything extra about the film that I feel needs to be addressed.
The Nostalgia Chick (2008)
Honestly, I think this is a good example of internet reviewing.
The Nostalgia Critic is by far one of the most famous of internet critics, however in 2008, Doug Walker decided to have a spin off show that would look at Nostalgic movies that were targeted at a female audience. From that, we got Lindsay Ellis as the Nostalgia Chick. A very different breed of animal from her male counterpart.
For one thing, I don't actually think her reviews are that funny. Sometimes they are but for the most part she delivers her reviews in a serious light. So as a spin off to a satire review show, you'd probably think its awful but for the jokes that are there, they're delivered in a dry, witty way that its actually a welcome change of pace from the "scream" reviews that Doug Walker throws out, its almost like The Cinema Snob at some points.
I also admit that out of anyone on Channel Awesome, if I want a review that would not only be the most informative but also the one that could "sell" the movie, I watch Lindsay's review. Even though I don't agree with everything she says about movies (example, I actually liked Labyrinth and The Fifth Element, I don't like Wall-E) but I at least know that with each movie she reviews she has a well thought out argument that justifies why she feels the movie is crap or if she likes it.
So overall, this isn't the same style of comedy that you'd normally find on Channel Awesome but in all fairness, Lindsay does explain her thoughts on movies rather well, to a point where it never feels like she's just blindly hating. If you're into web critics, go check this show out.
Thor: The Dark World (2013)
Now before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear of 2 things; 1. I liked the original Thor movie, it wasn't great but I'd call it entertaining enough that, if anyone wanted me to sit through it again, I wouldn't object. 2. I know that this might sound like "Oh, Morbius is just going on with the same old thing, he didn't like The Avengers so he obviously will just blindly hate on every Marvel film" no, I can assure you, in this review I have measured up each pro and con as fairly as I can.
The plot is basically the same thing you've seen in a ton of these films; bad guy tries to take over the world, hero tries to stop them and get a love interest into the mix. There isn't that much else besides that. Its been done to death in these films and for the most part, done better.
However, I do have to defend other aspects of this film before I get to the complaints. Firstly, the CGI is amazingly well done. The acting is from just about every player, pretty solid, the action scenes are all really well done and I'll at least say, its watchable.
Now onto the complaints, now you would've probably seen the first film. Assemble in your mind each and every single complaint; the love relationship is underdeveloped, the humor is bad, the writing is bare bones simplicity and it under uses the movie's best talent. This film has all of those things but to a worse off degree than the first. As if, instead of saying "How do we improve this over the original?" they said "How do we make more flaws in writing than the original?"
First off, the movie's talent is just, as I've said twice, under used so much that its pretty much ridiculous. Stellan Skarsgard is the worst one because as much as Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Eccleston are under played, at least they don't have this god awful humor. What passes off as a joke in this film? Skarsgard running around Stonehenge naked, Skarsgard not wearing pants, and the oh so funny antics of Kat Dennings, even though the Jar Jar Binks comparisons are a little harsh, she's still pretty bad.
The love relationship is just terrible in this movie. Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth have little to no chemistry and most of that, I blame on the writing. Now, okay, when it comes to other blockbusters where Portman played the love interest, it had worse writing (STAR WARS EPISODE 2) but in this, they share little to no scenes together, they barely talk to each other alone (and wouldn't she question "hey, what was up with that alien army I saw you fighting on TV?") and they don't even say goodbye to each other when the film ends. However, to their credit, both actors are trying, good god are they trying, but nothing works and after reading that, how can it? Apparently the Bifrost Bridge is repaired...out of nowhere, so what is keeping them apart? In the first one, it was made clear, in this one, its like Thor has ADD and can't decide whether he wants to be with her or not. But, oh, that would ruin Marvel's formula. Um...f#ck formula! The Marvel formula has been in use since 2008 and its getting tired! Captain America 2 had the "f#ck formula!" attitude and its by far the best Phase 2 movie.
So, overall, I don't hate this film, there are certainly good things about it but enough for me to like it? No. While its not the worst I've ever seen, it is an annoying film with the "playing it safe" bland formula Marvel has decided on what works. Hello. Can just one Hollywood movie take a risk? That's what makes people remember it.
Vampire Academy (2014)
One of the most wretched movies of the year and considering my views on current movies THAT IS A NEW LOW!
Okay, I am a fan of vampire books (not the ones this film was based on but to its credit, it can't be worse than this) and movies. I went in with the mentality "it can't be worse than Twilight", no offense to fans of the books but...it very nearly is.
I will start with my vote for the worst thing about the film. It fails to explain one thing about the new mythology of Vampires nor what this "Vampire Academy" is even really meant to be about. Okay, they try within the first 5 minutes of the film but let me just tell you what else they throw in and expect you to try and remember this;
-2 fight scenes
-A kidnapping storyline
-A "dual feeding" storyline and why thats a bad thing
-A telekinetic connection between the two leads explained over a plot point
You are expected to remember all of this and follow the story when all that sh!t happens IN UNDER 5 MINUTES! If you want audiences to take your mythology seriously, SPEND TIME DEVELOPING IT! Even Twilight did this better. Okay, Twilight f!cked over the vampire mythos and everything about it but at least they spent time on it so the audience isn't thinking "what the f#ck is going on?!" I never thought I'd live to see the day when Vampire Academy becomes complicated.
Okay, so the story is that a vampire princess and her wannabe guardian (for her character, think Kenzi from Lost Girl minus the humor and anything else that would make her enjoyable) are fighting off a threat to the Princesses life. And a majority of the film is "they think its this one guy or girl but it isn't". Also throw in 2 love relationships, an "outcast nerd" subplot, a vampire dying of...vampire degenerative disease and a plot point about the Princess trying to climb up the popularity ladder again. Is it just the theme for modern Hollywood to just throw in a ton of plot and just hope it all holds weight? First The Amazing Spiderman 2, now this. And for those that think because I think its complicated I don't get it, watch The Man Who Fell To Earth, Don't Look Now, 2001 A Space Odyssey, Fata Morgana and Wings Of Desire. All of these films I consider confusing at least at one point or another but I like them.
Now okay, if the plot isn't worth it at least the characters can be right? Wrong! These leads are SO ANNOYING! Mostly what they do is try to get back at the worst written bully I've ever seen in a movie (no joke) and figure out "do I like this boy?" and, as I said earlier, trying to regain popularity. Um...hello? Threats have been made on your life! Why don't you use your title as Princess to, I don't know, BUILD A SECURITY SYSTEM FOR YOUR SCHOOL OF VAMPIRES SO YOU CAN FIND OUT WHOSE WRITING BLOOD MESSAGES ON YOUR BEDROOM WALL! Oh, I'm sorry for using my head. You go focus all your energy on regaining popularity while this psycho stalker kills your cat (no joke, thats in the movie) and hangs a bloody corpse above your front door...THINK!
Oh and the characters try to throw in a moral at the end, because after reading THAT paragraph above you'd just LOVE that for your teenage girl. Its that popularity and bullying are meaningless...when I said this had worse writing than The Worst Witch did you really think I was kidding?
When it comes to vampire films, I'm a fan, really. However the writing of this film makes The Worst Witch look like Lord Of The Rings. I mean a German vampire film I saw called We Are The Night was brilliant. It took its time for the mythology to set, the stupidity level of the main characters is only as far as "not doing a good job of cleaning up blood" and the characters were interesting. And I know most people are like "oh I can't watch subtitled films" well you can read can't you? So whats wrong with looking at a screen that has both action and text over it? And if you REALLY can't do that, go watch the English dub.
Overall, this film is one of the worst films I've seen in a while. Its not because its a "chick flick" or something like that. But its because its a stupid movie with even dumber characters and even worse, it tries to throw in a moral. I've never read the books, all this film did was turn me off to an even greater extent.
The Spoony Experiment (2008)
My favourite web critic
When it comes to internet critics I'll watch you'll probably see a very short list; Nostalgia Critic, Nostalgia Chick, Brad Jones (as The Cinema Snob or not), Oancitizen, The AVGN and occasionally Angry Joe. However, my absolute favourite critic is The Spoony One.
Now I should mention my one and only complaint with his videos, for most internet critics they usually have videos that last for 20 minutes or so. 50 at the max. This guy? His review for Final Fantasy X rakes it in at a 110 minute runtime and thats not the only video with that runtime, I mean his review for Ultima IX is, again, nearly 2 hours long. Now not all his videos are that long, its just most of them are and for anyone who wants to sit through his videos in one sitting, that can be a problem.
However if you asked me to edit these videos down to a 20 minute runtime, I'd tell you to play Ultima IX followed by Highlander The Source. These rants against why sound doesn't carry in a vacuum in the Wing Commander movie is all justified for one simple reason. Sure, his reviews are as funny as an internet review can get but there are other times when I take his reviews seriously. Why? His long run times for reviews are all him complaining about things that he feels passionately about. Things that basically destroyed his childhood and betrayed it.
So overall I really like this guy because, yes, he reviews some really funny things and he does, rightfully trash these things to death. He is a representation of a betrayed fan base getting back at creatively selling out and he does have a really great wit about him. If you're already on the internet, chances are you've already heard of him somehow, if not, check his videos out.
The Avengers (2012)
Disappointment that still catches up with me.
Anyone that has seen my activity on The Avengers boards know my opinions of the film aren't all that high. To fully explain how disappointed I was, I have written up 4 reviews on IMDb and yet none of them, I feel, have fully captivated what I felt among leaving the theater. I saw IMDb reviews, I saw the ticket line that went out the cinema, through the food court and out the door, I saw the name of a man I idolized creatively tied onto this, Joss Whedon, and I saw that this would be what my childhood went into (because, believe it or not, Marvel, in part, was my childhood). To say I came out disappointed is like saying people got hurt at Hiroshima, understatement of the millennium.
Before I start, I will name some good things about the film. The cinematography did get the lighting and framing right that looks like an actual comic book come to life, the acting, for what they're given, is okay, and for the most part the CGI is actually pretty well done in terms of making things like the Helicarrier, the alien army and The Hulk come to life.
So with that in mind, what would be my complaints? Okay, have you ever seen a Joss Whedon TV show? Then you'll know the formula of "they argue and a tragedy strikes to make them band together", have you seen an alien invasion film? Then you'll know the routine of "the world is in danger, we need the best we can get". Have you ever seen a comic book film? Then you'll know the routine of "the hero(es) face a threat, they stop it and yet come out victorious". I don't know, I was expecting more from this film especially considering at the time I saw it, it had the IMDb rating of 9.1/10.
When it comes to a fun film, of course you don't need to make it dark, serious and as depressing as all hell but when it comes to the greats; Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Die Hard, Batman 1989, Superman 1 and 2, you get the idea, they all had elements that did make people say "something is at stake". In Superman 2, we had this all mighty and strong hero reduce himself to a weakling while others who are like him take over the world. In Star Wars (Empire and Return), that film tested the hero morally in the sense that he couldn't kill his own father for obvious reasons but it was brought back with the humor (which, unlike this film, didn't go too overboard). In this film, the only one that dies is someone who is brought back to life later so not only did that rule out the thought of "there's something at stake" but it made the motivation for the team to band together, eventually, entirely pointless.
However, I need to address something else, the humor. Oh God, the humor. Now, I'm not against humor in films but this film threw every joke it could in the way of the audience to get any giggle it could but keep in mind the best joke is "I am a God you dull creature, I will not be bullied by-" *beats the crap out of him*. That joke got an applause in the theater I was in, that gives you an idea of what the humor of this film is like.
Another problem is that Loki is too weak to be matched with The Avengers, sure, he has his army but before they invaded he was beaten in combat 3 times, once in an earlier film. Not exactly feeling the weight of him as a villain if the heroes have demonstrated that they can defeat him at every turn they've encountered him! Oh and Thor is in this film, if you remember the first film you'll see that the only means of teleportation between worlds was destroyed, they made a sequel to Thor and do they explain in the sequel or this film how he managed to get back to earth for the events in The Avengers? Establishment, whats that?
Essentially, the major problem with this film is that it plays way too safely and its predictable. Nothing happens in this film that makes you feel like "I care for these characters, I want them to make it out okay" nor "this villain is way too powerful for any of them to take on alone, I hope they make it out okay". If you want your audience member to be invested, you NEED these things to be going through the mind of the viewer. This is not on the basis of a Werner Herzog, Wim Wenders or Stanley Kubrick film, this is on the basis of Star Wars, Superman 1 and 2, Die Hard etc. Basic films that had these elements in them that made them classics.
Overall, I have bitched and moaned about this film for ages but nothing can really capture how disappointed I was with this film. It basically turned me into a cynical bastard that was aware of all the tricks and manipulative tools used to make this film have so much hype. To be fair, it could be okay for any die hard comic book fan but for those that expect this to be anything more than "another comic book film" or "another Joss Whedon film" or "another blockbuster"...you're better off not seeing this.
Okay, I generally don't do reviews on IMDb unless I actually feel as though I could contribute something as a point of view towards the film or TV show. This is not an exception. I was hooked into the show from the first episode onward.
The plot is that a student named Sakakibara Kouichi enrolls in Yomiyama High School, Grade 9, Class 3. It turns out that the particular class he enrolled in has its own urban legend; 26 years ago, a student named Misaki, who was really popular, died during the mid year break. A student eventually said that Misaki wasn't dead and Misaki was in the class, still learning. Back in present day, however, Kouichi meets a girl at Yomiyama high called Misaki and the other students deny she ever exists.
That is all I will reveal about the plot in this review. This is actually one of those horror/mystery genre titles where if you have little to no exposure about the plot, you will be guessing everything. It also is one of those mystery shows where the final twist isn't a letdown. I have seen way too many mystery films where the build up was really good but the reveal as to what was really doing all the damage just ruined everything and made it stupid. The same goes for a TV show. And to see a show where they don't only keep the mystery well hidden but the reveal isn't a letdown, that is just great.
I also have to admit, this show does portray a creepy tone throughout the entire run. It never gets to the stage of truly being terrifying but I have to admit, with some of the things that went on, I was actually creeped out by some of the stuff that happened. Kudos to them for also making the first horror title in years that actually, you know, was creepy.
Now when it comes to things like the animation of this show...it looks fantastic. Okay, if you aren't really into the anime style of drawing then you probably won't like the style of the characters sometimes but the texture of some of the setting and the Gothic anime style makes it seem so rich in atmosphere that it works really well to the shows advantage.
The other thing is that the voice acting (at least in the Japanese version) is spot on. The way they act makes me want to know more about these characters, for example a lot is left in mystery as to Misaki's character and with all the gruesome deaths that happen in the show (none of which are caused by her...I won't say anything else) she mainly keeps to a calm voice throughout all of the show. Some might say thats bad voice acting but it makes the character more interesting. The English dub...well, the animation was nice.
So overall, I loved watching this show. I completed it in 3 days flat and I enjoyed every second of watching it. I will definitely put it on my "Top 10 TV Shows" list. So if you're into the idea of a horror and/or mystery premise which is surprisingly well put together, check it out.
I went into this film knowing nothing about it. I didn't know who Barbara Hutton was nor what kind of lifestyle she led. I sat through the entire near 4 hour run of this film and every second is worth it.
I will be honest, this movie packs a lot of plot in so I will keep it as short as I can. Barbara Hutton inherited her Grandfather's fortune, who was F. W. Woolworth, but her mother committed suicide when she was young and every person she meets either wants to get control of her money or acts like she can buy off her happiness, which includes the many men she marries.
Now the acting is fantastic. While Farrah Fawcett doesn't look like how Barbara did in real life (I looked up her photo), through the emotion she portrayed of just loosing a son, it was amazing, and that was only in the last third of the film, the rest packed with more situations equally as tragic and Fawcett puts in exactly the right amount of emotion. You get emotionally drawn into the situation and characters because the actors were emotionally drawn into the situation and their characters. And from what I have read about her life, this miniseries is pretty accurate towards what happened. If you also take a look almost none of the actors look like the real people they're portraying but in the end, that doesn't matter, every single one of them puts in the amount of effort required for their role.
Now the one thing I have to complain about is that the version of the film I have is not fully restored as in, it looks like an 80's TV miniseries and of something that is legit, there are numerous shots where the boom mic is seen at the top of the shot. I don't know if they didn't think it was worth another take or if they thought they could get away with it but, either way, its pretty distracting. There is one more thing, the makeup for the actors is almost, for the first half of the movie, non existent in increased age. I mean Barbara's father lived until he was 63 and they cast a man who was nearly at that age for the entirety of the film and they don't even try to hide it. Maybe it was a limitation of the network but again, its still distracting.
Overall this film is a well made dramatic retelling of the life of a woman who, sadly, had a pretty bad life and this movie does everything it can to tell her side of the story and it does so incredibly well. I suggest if you hold even the remotest of interest in this film, see it.
Cruel Intentions 3 (2004)
The worst of the series.
Okay, I am not the biggest fan of the Cruel Intentions movies, in fact the only reason why I watched all 3 of them is because I really like the Dangerous Liaisons storyline and I want to see how they could possibly carry it on. The original Cruel Intentions film was basically a retelling of a story about sexual deviency, originally set with adults of the French Aristocracy, set in High School and the way they try to make this work...Its pretty clear why this isn't everyone's cup of tea. Not because its shocking, but because it doesn't work. The second one, I will give credit, actually entertained me but because that movie assaults its audience with so much stupidity that its hard not to laugh at it. Its damn near one of the funniest movie ever made.
Now when it comes to this film, its the worst of the series.
The plot of this movie is split up into thirds. As in, one plot will take up one third of this movie, its that confused as to what the Cruel Intentions should be. The first plot is a bet that Merteuil has with Jason that she can sleep with a nerd named Patrick and then some bland guy who is in touch with royalty but that goes belly side up because during the date with the English guy (I'm sorry, I don't know his name) Patrick comes over with flowers and proves to him that she had sex with him. Patrick then reveals to her that this was his doing the entire time and he and Patrick were in cahoots with each other the entire time, which leads to the one biggest question, what the hell did either of the two guys get out of it?
So the guys then decide to compete with each other for sexual "points" as such. One of them has sex with a girl who is engaged and a girl who is happily with a boyfriend. This plot starts 20 minutes in and ends by the hour mark. The THIRD story is that because they both succeeded in their quest on the exact same night, they decide to make a bet that they can bed Merteuil. It turns out that Patrick is being played the entire time and he ends up going to prison for raping Merteuil.
I will give the acting of this movie credit, it does try to pull something off but considering they needed to split up the character of Valmont into two people to show the two faces to his personality instead of just having the one actor, that should tell you what the writing is like. Oversimplified, even for a Cruel Intentions movie. There isn't any character at all in this that has any depth; Merteuil is evil, Jason is a player, as is Patrick. There, the main characters and the height of their depth, all described as a list.
I will give it credit in one area that this was pulled off. Instead of High School, its set in College and that is one area where I have to give it credit for. It tries to update it to an older age while keeping the "look" of a Cruel Intentions cast. Does it work? Even here, no.
Overall, there is a slightly variant degree as to why this one is worse than the first one but its like measuring the pain of being stabbed in the chest or being shot in the chest, either way, its gonna hurt. If your a fan and you are a completionist, go check it out but I'm not sure that you'll enjoy it but if the filmmakers of this didn't put any effort into making the movie, why should I in my review of said movie?
Murder, skin tights and all that Jazz.
Before anyone gets up me, I'll confess, I'm not really a Broadway fan. I haven't even seen any other rendition of this musical. However I do feel as though an adaptation should be good REGARDLESS of whether you've seen the original or not. And even though I respect a few elements of this movie, I did not like this film.
So the plot goes along the lines of Roxie Hart (Rene Zellwegger) wants to be a big star but when a guy she's having an affair with (Dominic West) tells her all their relationship was was "a bit of fun" and he never really had connections to make her a big star, she shoots him for being "a liar". Yet, did you know that back then if you killed someone that would be the way to make a star out of you? Thats the impression I got from this movie. Zellwegger then tries to get Richard Gere as a lawyer because he's the best in the business and people who work with him are "guaranteed" to be successes. However Catherine Zeta Jones also has him as a lawyer and she tries to work with her or even sabotage her to get her way.
Now, first off, the compliments. I respect that this musical to be adapted to the screen would've been hard and I do respect that in some cases it did work, however there are a few things that brought the movie down.
The problem I have with this movie is the characters. Okay so Zellwegger is so obsessed with her big dream of being a "star" and the lengths she goes to to get there are insane. She makes up an oppressive back-story with this lawyer to give herself sympathy in the press, whenever anyone else tries to take the spotlight away even for a second, she lies about having a baby and doesn't even tell her husband. There is even a scene where she does say she wants out but then witnesses an innocent Hungarian woman hang by the neck for her "crime". Does that get her to question the morality of what she's doing? Of course not. In fact, she goes right back to Richard Gere and goes along with his charade. This character is the one that we, as an audience, are supposed to like!
The way this movie plays out is also dumb as hell. I mentioned before that the "nice character" lied about having a baby. Now let me tell you how the Husband goes through this story arc and how bat sh#t crazy it is. He finds out and then gets depressed that she didn't even acknowledge him while the press tried to get every photo they possibly could of her. Then he goes to Richard Gere who tells him its not his, he doesn't even talk to his wife before filing for divorce (dumb move on its own, this movie also TRIES to sell him off as a loving all- supportive husband). In the trial Gere says the baby is his and everything is okay. When Roxie is out of the spotlight again for 2 minutes she tells him in rage that there never really was a baby and he leaves the movie on that scene without saying a word.
When it comes to songs in themselves, I'm sorry but these were as forgettable as a Hans Zimmer score without a "bwaum" in it. Most of the time they're forgettable yet harmless enough in the story that goes on. However I love one song in this soundtrack purely because it makes the writer look like he had ADD. Richard Gere's opening song is him singing about how he doesn't care about money, all that expensive stuff and all he really wants is love...interesting spin on a lawyer but literally one scene later, he's negotiating with Roxie's Husband as to what fee to pay and how he wont take any less than $5000. Then literally less than 20 seconds later Gere's character says he'll do it anyway. Huh? So you go from "I don't care about money" to "I'm not taking a penny less than $5000" to "okay, I'll do the case anyway" Come on, you gotta have some logic!
I'm not here to blindly hate against the movie, there are some well choreographed scenes and well shot scenes but I'm sorry, the story and characters were horribly written. Okay, the kind of musicals I do kinda like are Sweeney Todd, The Wizard Of Oz and Hair. Those were clever. Those, despite having characters that did worse, knew where they stood in terms of how to balance everything out. Sweeney Todd tries to kill the Judge because he sent him to Australia and killed his wife only to try and rape his daughter years later. If Roxie had those kinds of motivations, I'd understand but she just wants to be famous so all these horrid things she does is completely without merit.
Overall I wont judge against anyone who related to this...somehow and I wont completely, blindly hate on it but this is just not for me.
Immortally Yours (2009)
The same year this movie came out a vampire film also came out with better effects, story, characters and screen writing. That film was Twilight: New Moon.
Okay, I love vampire movies. Among my favourites are We Are The Night, Nosferatu, Blade and the Lugossi Dracula. My expectations of this film were actually already on a low set and yet, somehow, it got worse.
Now before I go down the plot, there are about 3 or 4 of them in this movie so please tell me if this gets too much.
PLOT 1: A vampire named Alex falls in love with a girl named Estelle. You know, the basic Twilight bullshit although, to be fair, Twilight was a more believable romance with these two only ever seen having a date once and the guy saying "I want to be your knight in shining armor."
PLOT 2: A group called the Illuminati are trying to achieve ultimate power and control all the crime in the city and have more influence than the President who are also working on a way to make someone immortal.
PLOT 3: A vampire hunter is called in by the cops because he was highly recommended (thats a taste of the writing there, people) to help take down the vampires after seeing them at a club but they all got away via teleportation.
PLOT 4: A man who works for the Illuminati tries to handle a shipment of cocaine and its up to the police to stop him.
Now onto my complaints about this movie, it has way too much story! Do I even need to explain why thats the case with this movie? The writing is beyond pathetic. I mean listen to this scenario, a full grown woman tells her father, who is trying to find a way to become immortal, that her boyfriend who she's madly in love with is a vampire and wishes to help him if he gives the vampire a normal life. If anyone seriously said that story to you, you'd send them to a mental ward. This father? He believes her after just 3 seconds.
How about something as simple as the vampire's powers? In a far superior action vampire movie, Underworld, do you think that the vampires would be able to take down a squad of police? Not in this movie! All they do is roar and stand there while the police shoot them. That makes the enemy AI from Assassin's Creed look like Albert Einstein!
Well despite those flaws with others such as horrible acting and "its boring" being thrown into the mix, perhaps the scale of this indie film can show some light. Nope. The editing in this film is the worst I've ever seen in my life. The opening sequence goes like this; a man runs away from an invisible opponent and is attacked, cut to a rich family going to the opera, cut to the guy running away pulling himself over a wall with a bloody face and is only pulled back again, cut to the opera where the vampire and the woman first meet, cut to a guy who chases after a woman (who you never see again) he shoots guys who try to protect her and he supposedly attacks her and cut to the opera again when it just ends. Did any of that flow in an organic rhythm? Thats the editing that plays in the first few minutes of this film and mostly the same style throughout the entire film. How about cinematography? Lighting? etc. These are the only things I come even close to praising; it looks like something out of a porno.
Do I recommend this? Yes. To the governments of the world. This film should be used as an interrogation device against enemies. I guarantee you'll have a confession within 20 minutes. If you're a dictator that wants to uphold balance, play this movie as a punishment. If you are a scientist, study this film for me. What made it? If you are a priest of any religion, exorcise the demons inside it from the world. Have I made it clear I don't like this film yet?