Reviews written by registered user

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

3 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Bad movies are still bad even with an "Indie" label smacked on. (light spoilers, nothing important), 10 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

"Indie Comedy Campy Horror" is one adjective too much for any movie to be good. This is an annoying movie that tries far too hard to cash in on being "indie & ironic".

The following "bad movie sins" were committed by this stupid and trite film:

1) Intelligent zombies. I don't care how often the mysterious drifter says "They're not zombies", this movie uses walking corpses that want to kill and eat victims and then resurrect them into the shambling horde. They're zombies, and the writer should quit pretending otherwise. And zombies that crack jokes, do song and dance numbers, and babble and hackle the survivors are not scary or funny... they're just annoying and can be replaced by any other number badly scripted monsters/psychos.

2) Song narration First off, song narration is a difficult cinematic element to use when done well. This is once again just annoying. The wandering Indie- country minstrel plays badly, has annoying lyrics, and adds nothing but more crude jokes that do absolutely nothing but fill time. And in fact, the entire character and concept makes me think of a 6th grader that writes a 2 page paper by increasing font size seven times and adjusting the font constantly.

3) Stereotypes, not characters. The people in charge of this movie must have thought that "campy" means that there are no actually believable characters. "Shallow sorority sister", "Cute shy girl", "Arrogant jock", "Bitter nerd", "Hick", and "Fat stupid violent hick" are the full and complete concepts of most of the people you will meet in this movie. And you will not care one bit about what happens to any of them, which makes it boring.

I don't blame the actors for cheesy dialog and bad story. Most of these guys have gone on to much much better stuff. But I do blame the writers for stitching together so many elements that did not work instead of trying to work on a few elements that might have been good.

35 out of 72 people found the following review useful:
I Understand the premise, but poor execution, 11 February 2007

Plenty of times I have watched and enjoyed movies and TV shows that where more about the script than the production budget. Saul of the Mole Men tries to act as parody and farce of shows like Land of the Lost, but falls short in the following area: It's not funny.

There are no discernible jokes, just an attempt to make people laugh because of how absurd it is that a show is made this bad. Long shots with bad special effects of an actor obviously running in place, acting that would embarrass a middle-school musical production, and idiotic decisions on the part of main characters are what the writers HOPE will amuse the audience.

Unlike shows such as Sealab 2021 and Venture Brothers who also take jabs at their source material, I have to assume that SotMM is hoping that it's viewing demographic is either high or VERY easily amused.

There are better things to watch on a late Sunday night, and I hope other people realize that also.

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Thinly disguised propaganda, 29 November 2004

National Treasure was the kind of movie that didn't make me feel ashamed to have watched, but I certainly would have rather waited for this to make it to the cheep seats or cable.

So, what sucked? 1) The entire movie revolves around the Masons as an organization of infinite wisdom formed from the Knights Templar, who then go on to be heroes fighting against ignorance and injustice. While I find this fictitious backstory to be better movie material than the truth, I still would have had a better time if this urban legend hadn't received yet another retelling (I also wouldn't want to see the Illuminati either). 2) All of the clues and most of the action scenes were either a thinly disguised history lesson of the American revolution, with enough non-wounding gunshots thrown in to keep the attention of those with the patience of an 8 year old. 3) The dopey sidekick routine was overdone, and was created so the audience didn't feel so bad about not knowing all the tidbits of knowledge about the founding of their own country and culture.

What was OK? 1) There were enough moments when I thought the movie was going to go one way, and it decided to go in another logical route. One of my biggest pet peeves in movies is when a scene's outcome is going to be painfully obvious. 2) There were a few clever jokes and lines that I was able to laugh and relax. 3) Neither the villains nor the government agents were overly stupid, dopey, or stereotypical. 4) The sidekick was not annoyingly dopey, just obviously put in mostly as a plot device.

This is a family friendly action movie that I will never recommend to friends, but I will not condemn it as a travesty against cinema just because it wasn't what I look for in a movie. If you have kids between 10 and 13, this might be a movie to go to as a family. If your idea of a good action flick is James Bond, you are better off spending your money on a rental or waiting for Oceans 12.