Reviews written by registered user

Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
106 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

42 out of 48 people found the following review useful:
A fair review of Hotel Inferno, 10 July 2014

As it stands right now, all of the reviews from this movie are 1 star or 8-10 stars. All of these people are wrong.

For starters, this movie plays out exactly like a fist person shooter video game. The tropes, the dialog, and obviously the camera angle and movement. There's little doubt what this movie is supposed to be and, in all honesty, it does it rather well. The whole first person thing has been tried to a much more limited extent in some movies. House Of The Dead and Doom come to mind. But in these movies it was more for the movie's denouement...a final showdown. In Hotel Inferno it's done throughout and it's kind of enjoyable.

This isn't without it's drawbacks. The camera is jumpy, the dialog is on-par with a video game, and it lacks a bit of continuity. You'll find a 10 minute action sequence ended just to have some exposition on what happened and what will happen next. Again, exactly as you would in a video game. It's like finishing a mission and waiting for a cut scene to tell you what you did and what to do next, except it's a movie. This gets a bit old even if you follow the premise.

For a movie with this budget the special effects are actually quite well done. Gore fans will undoubtedly appreciate the over-the-top violence and gore and others will probably just laugh at the preposterousness of it all. Either way, the special effects team absolutely did the most with what they had.

All in all it's a relatively enjoyable movie if you know what you're in for (and have a six pack of your preferred adult beverage available). It's something a little new but absolutely not without it's flaws. Is it perfect? No. Is it a bit of fun to watch with some friends? Absolutely.

The Taking (2013)
2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Beating you over the head with suck, 11 December 2013

A lot of people on IMDb like to throw out hyperbole like "worst film I've ever seen". I've said it before, but if you can point to just one movie as the worst, you're clearly not watching enough crap. So what does that mean for The Taking? Well, it's not the worst, but it's probably in my top 20.

You're no doubt asking yourself "Can it really be that bad?" and surprised that you're concerned what a stranger on the internet thinks. It's not the wooden and unpleasant acting that does it. It's not the painfully bad "special effects". It isn't the complete lack of any comprehensible story. It's not the fact that the movie tries to come off as surreal by using horribly juxtaposed images and grating sound in an attempt to create a tense atmosphere. These things are all certainly true, but it's the way the movie combines these aspects into such a colossal pile of failure that almost has to be seen to be believe. Think I've overstating this? About halfway through the movie I caught myself thinking about what I had to do at work the next day. I was watching a movie, a medium that only exists to take your mind off of your own existence and live vicariously through a character or set of characters, and was thinking about something as mundane as work. I'm not even sure how bad a movie has to be before that takes place because it's never happened to me before.

Seriously, this is garbage.

Riot (2012/II)
33 out of 61 people found the following review useful:
Really, IMDb?, 9 October 2012

As of this writing, this film is sitting at a sub-3 star rating. Seriously? Sure the film's got it's problems, but it's pretty well written, pretty well acted, and solidly put together. Maybe England is going through a rash of hooligan films that I'm not aware of and this was the straw that broke the camel's back? That...or people are just kind of idiots.

OK, maybe idiots is a harsh term as there's no accounting for taste, but this film actually works pretty well on most levels. It moves along at a good clip, the characters develop well, and the story is though out. My only real gripe is the way the film jumps around between certain scenes. There's a bit of that "three weeks earlier" crap that makes it a bit hard to follow at times. But on the whole I'd say it's at least worth a watch.

27 out of 90 people found the following review useful:
Trite in the worst way, 27 December 2011

I can't help but think back to the Billy Connoly movie "The Man Who Sued God" based on title alone. But then I realize that his movie was funny and engaging. This is not. There's something innate about taking any form of media and making it "Christian" that seems to automatically make it unpalatable to everyone else. Sure, Christians love it, but everyone else just sort of laughs or rolls their eyes...often with good reason. Look no further than Christian rock for examples of this.

But I'm not faulting the movie for that reason. Well, not entirely anyway. The acting is beyond bad and there's nothing worse than having a message crammed down your throat. That is to say I have no problem with movies that contain a message, but make the message subtle...otherwise you just end up with propaganda. Yes yes, I understand the point is to confirm what is already confirmation bias, but do you have to be so blatant about it?

I honestly think this movie fails in 3 ways. First of all, it fails as a source of entertainment that is accessible to a wide variety of people, thereby seriously limiting it's appeal. Second of all it fails as a film promoting a Christian message because all it's doing is pandering to people who already believe, not trying to answer any questions non-believers may have. Third and finally, it just plain fails as a movie. Complain all you want about how everyone giving a bad review is an atheist or "Christian-hater" (whatever the hell that is), but it doesn't change the fact that the movie had a bad script, ridiculous plot, and seriously sub par acting. You do realize that at some point the filmmakers have to take some responsibility for making a bad movie, right?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
So, so bad, 27 December 2011
1/10's been a long time since I gave something a single star, but believe me, I'd give this movie less were I given the option. There is quite literally nothing redeeming about this movie. Let me repeat that: there is absolutely nothing worthwhile about this movie whatsoever.

I'm not going to complain about the budget. A lot of movies get by on low budgets and do rather well. But this...this movie can't blame the budget. The actors are horribly ill-equipped. The story is garbage. The plot itself jumps around to the point that it becomes laughable.

I try to avoid the hyperbole that so often plagues IMDb reviews. if you can point to one single movie and say "Yep, that's the worst thing I've ever seen", then you clearly haven't seen enough crap. I will say that this would go in my top 5 of crap movies. I was actually mad at myself about halfway through that I was still watching it. Learn from my fail...

Chillerama (2011)
15 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Everything you want from a horror-comedy, 12 December 2011

As my rating would suggest, I am very nearly in love with this movie. Horror-comedies can be quite fickle...very often having too many elements of one and not nearly enough of the other. Sure, you have movies like Shaun Of The Dead that get it just right, but for every one of "Shaun" there's about 15 that just don't get it. And now we have Chillerama.

From start to finish you get the impression that someone was trying to get the aforementioned mixture just right. It interweaves 3 different movies (essentially hilarious mockeries of the old grindhouse/midnight drive-in genre) with a story of what takes place in between at the drive-in where they're being shown (think of it as the play within a play from Hamlet). Mocking these types of films is certainly nothing new, but few have gone so over the top while still somehow staying true to the source material. I have to say my favorite segment has to be "The Diary Of Anne Frankenstein" if for no other reason that Joel David Moore's portrayal of Hitler. Watching him make up gibberish that was subtitled as legitimate German had me laughing my ass off.

Gripes? Only minor ones. The movie runs a bit long for this genre. Two solid hours is typically a bit more than you'd expect, but then again it doesn't feel stretched or wasted. I also kind of wished they had put a little more effort into the story of what happens at the drive-in. All in all I would (and already have) recommend it to just about anyone who enjoys a good, albeit sometimes crude, laugh.

Thor (2011)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Trying far too hard, 12 September 2011

I'm really trying to figure out why this movie is currently rated at 7.2. I's OK. Even as comic book movies go, this is just silly. I think what floors me the most is that Natalie Portman signed on to do this. Not that she's above making questionable movies, I typically see her as a more serious actress. And it's directed by Kenneth Branagh? Anyone who's seen a Shakespeare movie in the last 20 years has likely seen Branagh's work, so to see him stoop to this level is pretty disappointing.

While the movie is a bit of fun, I just can't see the point to the whole thing. Yes, I know they have to make it so they can put an Avengers movie together eventually. But the movie just essentially puts Thor on Earth with no powers and...well...that's it. He just sort of hangs out while the main story plays out in Asgard (in what appears to be a giant pipe organ). Worst of all, instead of the movie providing any type of satisfactory ending and giving you the setup for the aforementioned Avengers movie, it sets up a clear sequel. And that to me is just a waste of time since nothing happened here. I don't's a bit of fun in some cases, but overall it's just over the top, silly, and kind of pointless.

Creature (2011)
8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
Full of meh, 12 September 2011

While I'm not sure what I expected going into this, I didn't really get what I was looking for. I think I was hoping for something a bit more like Hatchet which was a ton of fun and had quite a bit of gore. This movie feels like it's just a step above a Syfy channel movie. If you've ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon one of those without expecting it, you'll know what I mean.

I liked the slight throwback to 80's era movies what with the camping, one-by-one killing, and somewhat gratuitous nudity. Everything else was pretty bland. The creature effects are OK, but not fantastic. The effects in general, really, are just OK. Then there's the suspension of disbelief which is just a bit more than I can handle (aside from the monster stalking the swaps of Louisiana). I won't go into why exactly, but it's just a mess. The movie isn't terrible, but it's certainly not anything that's going on your favorites list.

34 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
Proof that one can be redeemed, 18 August 2011

I full admit I watched this movie for two reasons. First of all, the last thing I saw Van Damme in was JCVD, and I have to say that I was more than a bit surprised by the weight and depth of his performance. Second, I'm a fan of Scott Adkins ever since the last two Undisputed and Ninja films where he showed that westerners could screen fight just as well as anyone in martial arts flicks. How does all of that translate to this movie? Read on.

Assassination Games probably isn't what you expect. It's not a knock down, drag out action movie. In fact the action sequences, while well done, aren't very plentiful. I actually think this may be a good thing. I'm starting to think that if Van Damme would take himself more seriously and stop doing all of the hacky crap he did in the 80s and 90s that he could very well be a well respected actor who just happens to know action movies. While I grew up with movies like Bloodsport and Kickboxer, watching someone mature and actually convey an actual sense of a character is quite rewarding. Here's to hoping that the man can stick with movies that have substance rather than just being some guy who can kick stuff and do the splits.

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
So close, 18 August 2011

Man, I hate to parrot what everyone else has said about this movie, but it's so patently obvious. This film starts so well. It really is very interesting and holds your attention pretty well. The about two-thirds of the way in it just totally falls apart. I don't mean the ending is just kind of weak and gives you the same feeling as when you watched "Signs"...I mean that it utterly and completely fails to provide any kind of storyline progress and might as well have just happened in a different movie.

Now you may be asking yourself, if you were so inclined, "Can it really be that bad?". You wouldn't think so, but it is. I literally cannot put explain to you how awful this ending ruins the film without giving anything away. A friend of mine actually inquired about the movie, and I gave him my two cents. He decided to watch it anyway, and I got a text later telling me what part of the movie he was at and he had no idea what I was talking about. About 20 minutes later I got another text full of swear words. Yes, it's that bad.

Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]