Reviews written by

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

Hallowed Ground (2007) (V)
15 out of 30 people found the following review useful:
Awful, 13 December 2007

Bad acting ("We've seen these people before..." We have? Where?), bad direction and bad CGI abound this waste of a DVD. There's nothing original about this garbage and I'm mad that I wasted money on it.

What's even more annoying is the couple rave reviews I read here in the comments section. Please note, the people who are claiming this is an "amazing movie" have only one comment on a film in their history: this one.

Guess what that means? They worked on the movie. There really needs to be some sort of rule that people who worked on a film CANNOT comment or rate it here in the IMDb. This is ridiculous. Can these people be any more obvious. I would have given the movie a 3, but because crew members are giving this a rave review, I give it a one to even things out.

0 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Good story - TERRIBLE DIRECTION, 14 May 2007

This could have been a great movie with a different director but this particular buffoon is absolutely awful. He took a good script and made it almost unwatchable. I'm talking about two things: the constantly zig zagging camera ANYTIME a zombie on on film. If someone asked you to describe one zombie in the movie you couldn't simply because we never see one. Anytime the zombies are on screen, the camera goes all over the place like the cameraman is having an epileptic seizure. It's unbelievably annoying. And the "hand held camera thing" is done throughout so we get a lot of that TV-styled camera moving during a stationary scene throughout.

The other annoying thing was the constant close-ups through out. I just wanted to grab the camera man and pull him back throughout half the film. It's just terrible. Apparently the director doesn't understand the term "establishing shot." The story itself was great and any other director in the world could have made this a great film. As it is, I won't see it again, I don't want to get seasick.

What's annoying is all the fan-boy raving going on in here. I guess if there's a zombie and people getting eaten and they move fast, it doesn't matter how poorly it was directed. At least to the people who write a lot of the comments here.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
It is as bad as it looks, 26 December 2006

I was talked into watching this and I regret wasting the time. It is seriously as bad as it looks. Sham has just gotten worse as a filmmaker in every film since 6th Sense and this one is the bottom of the barrel. As a guy who is at the point of his career where he can do anything he wants, he makes this garbage. When you hear "it was a bedtime story for my kids (so I thought I'd bore the whole world with it too)" you have to cringe (that has only worked for one writer, William Goldman).

Sadly, the worlds most overrated director/writer will still have the power to do anything he wants and we're going to get more boring trash like this. Of course, I will never see another film of his. Between this and "The Village" he should be prevented from making movies anymore. And what's worse, he CASTS HIMSELF IN MAJOR ROLES proving he has the ego the size of the sun. He is not that good of an actor (or writer or director).

I'm starting to think this wasn't the guy who wrote "6th Sense." That was someone else and this guy ripped off the script and got the credit. It can't be the same guy.

12 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Not remotely funny, 14 December 2006

Sad that there is a think like Punk'd now, which is just candid camera by unfunny people because now everyone thinks they can do it. Outside of Jamie Kennedy, this genre has never been done well and this version is the absolute worst.

One segment has a female security guard at a supermarket telling unsuspecting women patrons that they will have to leave their purse at the door and she will have to inspect them because of shoplifters. This goes on for a while until she finally tells them they've been "pranked" (compared to "punked" or "x'd"). Where's the JOKE????? What's funny about that? I watched with my jaw open in completely amazement at how amazingly unfunny it was.

Another running gag is a lady on a hospital bed in the street talks to people who walk by. Amazingly UNFUNNY.

Pretty much every segment is like this, as if it was written by high school students who watched the Jamie Kennedy show and wanted to do their own version. It's amazingly bad and the fact ANY network ever paid to have this show is a mystery and shows you the state of TV today.

Mixed, 1 December 2006

When I find myself fast forwarding through some of the movie, it's probably not a good sign. My main problem with this film is the utterly amazing miscasting of Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. At no point do you believe this woman is the mother of a five year old, let alone a PULITZER PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST! She looks like a high school cheerleader. If this movie is supposed to be sequel to Superman II, why have Lane, Superman and Jimmy Olson gotten much younger? There are lots of dumb things and it's been mentioned before, but the lifting of a large island made of Kryptonite is pretty stupid, but no more stupid than Superman having the power to make the earth go backwards and reverse time (as shown in Superman I). The other thing that I haven't seen mentioned is Luthor's plan to make a new continent out of spiky crystals. Why would anyone want to live on what appears to be the comet from Armaggeden, including himself? The one thing I did like a lot, was the casting of Routh as Superman. I thought they did a great job and compared to some of the other actors who were rumored to be up for the part, they made the best choice. But the casting of a girl who looks like she can't wait to get to the mall to buy clothes as Lane almost nullifies it.

Accepted (2006)
3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
bafflingly awful, 29 November 2006

I can't believe what I'm reading here. People claiming this was "original?" "funny" "great" This movie uses the same cookie cutter outline every other high school-college "comedy" uses. A goofy guy has to achieve some amazing goal that he ordinarily would never get to and his main roadblock is the cool guy and the mean dean.

The predictability factor is at ten in this movie, if you couldn't see what was coming, you have never been to movies or you're just easily impressed. The characters were ALL clichés and nary a funny thing was said or done here and worst of all, is the lead actor, a guy who overacts and was "walking into walls" and falling down and other slapstick that wasn't remotely funny (and man, he is unbearable in those Apple commercials).

Somehow the guy has gotten the lease to a building that would normally cost hundreds of thousands (I must have missed that scene because I never actually saw it in the movie but somehow later they mention he has the lease), he gets all this amazing stuff done in a very short period and if you can't see the ending coming you should avoid movies forever, it was beyond obvious. The parents end up being thrilled that their kids are at a "school" where nothing is taught and kid's party 24/7 and the real owner of the building never shows up to question why all this stuff is happening on his property. And never do they address the insurance factor or other issues that would prop up for something like this and how it was paid for (certainly not covered in the million dollars total raised by tuition).

It's baffling to read some of the comments about this film in here. This movie was terrible

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly awful, 28 November 2005

I'm totally baffled at how many good comments I'm reading about this movie here. I appears simply showing people brutally murdered garners great reviews on this site.

When you've got a movie where everyone is a bad guy, they then have to be interesting and no one in this film was interesting in the least. Like Goodfellas, no good guys, but all terribly interesting. This was basically a manson-like family killing people. When they are on the other end of the brutality, they laugh and think it's a joke. So where's the entertainment? I realized at the end that Zombie wanted us to pull for these scumbags. People who kill and rape for no reason. They're our heroes in this crappy movie. Honestly, Zombie should not be allowed to do any more films. This movie had no plot. It honestly seems like they were making it up as they were going, as if there was a rough outline for the actors to follow and everyone improvised as if it was a horror-Curb your Enthusiasm, without the creativity or skill.

It would be like watching Charles Manson on a road trip, doing what he does best, and getting away, expecting the audience to applaud. Terrible.

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Watered down "remake" of first one, 7 November 2005

This movie was practically just a remake of the first one, only a watered-down version with even more cardboard cutout-like characters you couldn't care less about and want all to die. It's predictable and even the climax was so anti-climatic, I was shocked when the end credits started rolling. "That was it?" I thought.

And the wig the bad girl wears for the first part of the movie was unforgivable. I couldn't figure out why she was wearing the wig, only to find out it made it easier to do the repetitious "I changed my hair color to match yours" sequence. I don't know, couldn't they have just colored her hair dark in the beginning instead of that awful wig? I haven't seen a rug that bad since the one worn in flashback sequences in "Lost."

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Just awful, 14 June 2005

What an awful film. I mean, you've heard it before, Spacey is way too old for the part and that is really a major hindrance in the movie. He is just not believable as a guy in his 20s. But that's just for starters. The script is awful, I mean, just terrible. I reminds me of Wired, it can't decide what kind of film it wants to be; a bio, a musical, a fantasy, or what? It's all over the place and just too annoying to be entertaining.

I think 90% of the American public doesn't even know who Bobby Darin is in the first place, so if you're going to do a bio on him, do a good one. Get people interested. The only people who would be interested in this movie are most likely the fans of Bobby Darin, which in this day and age, are probably few and far between.

And Spacey's singing...he's not bad. But do I believe he can pass as a famous singer that people go crazy for? Not in a New York minute. He's supremely average in that sense. I have to go look up Darin's singing now because if Spacey is close to that, than Bobby Darin must have been the most overrated singer ever.

I have to go now, there's a big dance number breaking out on my street for no reason. I need to go get in the middle of it. You know, it's an ego thing.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Disjointed, 24 May 2005

Good performance by Rush but the script was awful. Yeah, we get the whole Peter Sellers playing all the characters thing but all it does is remind us we're watching a really mediocre movie. Every time you start to get into the movie, Rush is dressed as another character and it takes a minute before you realize what's going on. It's more annoying than anything.

I would have liked to see this done without the stupid little "sellers as the others" interludes and directed by a better director. I bet it could have been a lot better. Rush, by the way, from the side, is a dead on ringer for Sellers.

And the Blake Edwardesque opening was good.

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