Reviews written by registered user
iarepacman

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

Are You Scared? (2006) (V)
11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
Saw 2 Anyone? Everyone?, 15 September 2006
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, the movie itself, removed from anything isn't bad at all. Good production values, decent fx work enhanced with some (budget) cg work, nice camera work, good sound and score, etc. The characters are contrived and two dimensional, but thats not the actor's fault. They don't write their own lines. For the most part, they do as much as they can with what was given to them, and at no point distract from the story. Ah the story. What if Mason Verger from "Hannibal" watched Saw 2, and decided to copy it nearly scene for scene, character for character? Well that would give you this little flick. Generally these copycat movies take a premise and at least alter it (the asylum's under cutter films immediately come to mind: The Hillside Cannibals, The Paossesion of Gail Bowers, When a Stalker Comes, Snakes on a Train, etc) This one however just blatantly rips off Saw 2. Right down to the surgically implanted key, and the Dina Meyer character. Copying a theme is bad enough, but going so far as too copy specific scenes in hugely successful films, and then having them released a year later is just pathetic. I mean had this film been released before, or concurrently with Saw 2, it would be something, but a year later? Come on now. At any rate, if you can put aside the blatant lack of originality, or if you are a horror fan who hasn't seen the Saw franchise, you will probably enjoy this, but if you have seen it, then pass this one.

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Bloody awful, 5 August 2006
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watch a lot of horror, I watch a lot of bad horror. Even in bad horror there is usually something of note, or something decent to latch onto and say "at least this part was good". not here. from the opening sequences which contained 2 of the worst performances ever captured on camera, I guess I knew what level of crap i was in for. On a technical level, it was amateur at best. the audio is atrocious fading in and out with different scenes. The special effects were sad and lacking, the plot full of so many unnecessary and just plain ridiculous twists and turns, and once again, some of the worst acting I have -EVER- seen. The plot tries to go for that "Scream" vibe where you suspect everyone, but it does so with no rhyme or reason, and definitely no clarity. Funniest of all, someone attached to the project seems to be voting nothing but 10's on here, but it still only has a score of 3. nice try. Avoid this one at all costs.

6 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Great creature, week story, 20 May 2006
7/10

Take Jaws, replace the beach with the woods, and the shark with a bigfoot, mix with a bit of "Pumpkinhead" and there's your movie. VERY run of the mill storyline, with nothing new in terms of plot to edge it out over any other creature movies. That being said, the acting is decent, not the best, but certainly better than most direct to video genre fare, the movie is shot well enough, with a nice moody atmosphere, and the creature suit and make-up is wonderful. You never really get a feel for any menace with the creature, as he just kind of lumbers around, and all his major action is shot pov through its eyes, but thats okay. Fun movie to catch on cable, but unless you are a die hard monster fan who likes to see a well executed monster, save your money.

Mr. Hell (2006)
8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
The Poor SFX Guy..., 22 April 2006
2/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I feel bad for the special effects artist on this one, as they are the only person who should feel like they accomplished anything. The acting may or may not be terrible, its hard to tell when the dialogue is that atrocious. I don't mean c level horror movie bad where its fun, I mean just awful. The plot makes absolutely no sense, and the killer is resurrected with a plot device lifted directly from the killer snowman: Jack Frost of all things. The main plot device involving the eyes is hokey through the film, then all of a sudden absolutely ridiculous with the final fleeting moments. The sex scene is among the silliest I have ever witnessed, I have seen better rationale for sex in porn flicks. Heres two people outside! Now they're banging! Nowthe killer is there! Watching! Wow! The cg effects however are considerably better than found in most direct to video films, and are the ONLY thing this movie has going for it.

Satanic (2006)
4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Better than most direct to video, but still shaky, 20 April 2006
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This one was better than most of the dreck going direct to video these days, decent actors with a few nice genre cameos, some good one-liners, interesting story, above average make-up fx, and two very hot naked women. The problem, is the gaping plot holes the movie uses to establish its major and predictable twist. I thought the film was going to be along the lines of "Stay", but it was more like a sloppily rendered Fight Club. The primary twist that would make even M Knight Shymalan wretch is based on the fact that apparently we live in a world where medical and police staff don't take fingerprints of unrecognizable patients with no ID, and also that a magical technology to rebuild a skull from scratch, lay skin and muscle over it, and not have a single scar exists. If you can get past these two ENORMOUS plot holes, then the movie is enjoyable.

27 out of 37 people found the following review useful:
Flashy images, hot women, and NOTHING else, 7 March 2006
4/10

If Tool were playing during this movie, and about 92 of the 97 run time cut, this would make a really cool music video. As it stands though, its just what the subject line says. A bunch of flashy 9though admittedly well shot) images. Its like the "writers" sat down and though of some things which creeped them out, then scribbled down a script that allowed those images to be seen. I say script and not story, because there really is no discernible story or plot going on. It jumps all over the place from a mother/daughter tale, to a rich snotty girl, all tangled up in "the white plague". If asked to write a summary for the plot, I would be left clueless, as i truly have no idea. The fx, minimal as they are are all decent enough, but the person who really stands out (the films only real saving grace) is the production design. that person should be proud, as the look of the film is definitely disturbing and creepy. Honestly though, despite the often nude very attractive women, this movie was a struggle to get through.

Joshua (2006)
1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Much better than I expected, 3 March 2006
9/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was very pleasantly surprised by this little gem. I was expecting another super low budget attempt at horror with a camcorder in place and fake blood splattered against the wall every 5 minutes. Not at all what i got. Instead, I watched a very creepy little film, with a very interesting, and for once original (aside from the resemblance to Frankenstein)indie film. On a technical level, the film was shot well, very different, and interesting camera choices, but only once or twice do those odd choices detract from the film. The special effects are decent enough (the face ripping scenes were achieved very nicely) but the make-up on our stories heroine was a bit too "make-upy". I couldn't quite understand how this guy could make a small girl look like that in a realistic mannor, but thats the only failing. A more naturalistic approach to her look may have been more believable. The skin suit as well was a bit cheesy looking, but again, it never detracted from the film. All in all, I picked this one up for some entertaining background noise, but wound up rather immersed in the movie. A very nice surprise, and I highly recommend it to any and all genre fans out there!

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Surprisingly Good, 26 October 2005
9/10

Mean to cash in on the use of the "Project Greenlight" name on the DVD, I picked up an apparent re-release of this thriller under the name "The Girl in the Basement". I was quite impressed, a very solid if not simple story line, couple with some great performances by unknowns, and a truly disturbing back story (the antagonist's past is truly disturbing). I do hope that the folks who actually made the film get to profit off of the films re-release, as it is quite evident that this was a labor of love, and made in 1996 when indie horror wasn't something that every joe with a camcorder could get into the video stores. They really stretched the meager budget of 35,000, based on the locations, I honestly would have had no idea the film was shot so inexpensively. And the "adopt a roll" method of raising funds was brilliant! Well done, I love to see successful independent film-making!

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Pathetic and Souless, 9 October 2005
1/10

I can get past bad film making on a low budget, it happens, but the way this film blatantly tried to horn in on other film's commercial success' is astounding. The film itself, is a college level attempt at absolute best, the acting is sub par, and the zombie make-ups are atrocious. So much so, that on the back of the DVD box cover, there is a darkened image from the film Return of the Living Dead 2!!! Hows that for a blatant rip off! There is no lucid plot, and the attempts at humour are so bad, that I'm not even sure if they -were- attempting to be funny. Its not even funny on a "so bad its good" level. Its just plain bad all around. Avoid this hackey piece of trash at all costs!

Ice Queen (2005) (V)
10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
Pass, 29 September 2005
1/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Okay, so first things first, the prosthetic make-up provided by Optic Nerve was great (except for the scene where the costume had big gaping holes in the leg, and the skin underneath wasn't blue like the rest of the character). The problem, was that the actress underneath the make-up was atrocious. All of the actors in fact were just god awful. The film itself isn't half bad, with a very impressive scope given its budget. The plot though, is hacky and takes nonsensical twists and turns (we see the main character fooling around with the blonde bimbo in the hot tub, then later she tells the girlfriend nothing happened, its just silly). Any why didn't the guy on the outside of the avalanche just call someone else? Or ya know, call back over and over? The last battle is perhaps one of the most awful things I have ever seen. A wonderful make-up throughout the movie, is reduced to the sum of its parts. Literally. The "melted" ice queen, amounts to nothing more than the actual foam latex prosthetics floating in some water. For a film that had some impressive (albiet budget) fx up until that point, this climax was just sad to no end. In short, great make-up fx on the antagonist (and nowhere else unfortunately), but thats about all this movie has on the plus side.


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