Greyhound Attack (2019) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
16 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Stage play on film?
koningszoon2 April 2019
One of the most awkward movies(?) I saw in the last 25 years must be Greyhound Attack.

This "movie" is is actually more a stage play which the director tried to get on film on an absolutely shoestring budget! And I am not exaggerating: the movie budget must have been absolutely TINY.

The budget must have been so ridiculously low that they could not even afford any real or convincing actors, props, costumes or anything else a serious movie requires.

95% of the acting and actions scenes are actually shot against a green screen and are SO obviously fake and off set that it gets totally ridiculous to be honest!

The actual script and dialogs are also beyond anything I've ever seen or heard before.

Skip all the problems related to the budget and you end up with an unbelievably bad attempt in every creative, commercial or technical way possible to create a movie or stage play.

Perhaps somebody else can tell me what this movie actually is: an April' fools joke?
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Such a shame that '-' stars cannot be given!
adambolton-472913 April 2019
Absolute dross! I don't normally rate, or comment on movies, but this is soooooooooooooooooooo bad, it's only fair to warn people before they watch it!

Story: If one existed, I failed to notice it!

Acting: Failed to see any!

Cinematography: Non-existent!

CGI: Meh!
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Absolutely Horrible
bobsarsfield1 April 2019
I was hoping to read a review before I watched Greyhound Attack. No reviews. If I am the first to review, I recommend that you avoid wasting a second of your life watching any part of this movie. It is horrible from every aspect. I cannot believe that 1.5M was spent/wasted.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If this movie released on April 1st, it would make sense, if you know what I mean
hughhemington1 April 2019
I only watched about half. It's all I could stand. If you want to argue I missed the totally Casablanca-quality parts, fine.

Imagine you had access to a few vintage planes in a static display, now write a movie around that. And this is it. There is literally nothing I saw in this movie that wasn't awful.

The act... the people moving and speaking in front of, what I'm assuming was a cell phone seemed to have never done it before, and shouldn't ever again. The sets were flat and bad to distraction, but I found them more engaging than the talking people who were standing in front of them, or green screens.

The "action" was so badly faked, in a computer, I looked forward to the next scene back on the ground. I won't go on with this too long. Suffice to say, if you want to re-calibrate BAD in your movie lexicon (likely forever), and you won't be trapped in a room through this entire dismal mess, and it won't cost you anything but the minutes of your life you'll never get back, spend as few minutes as possible watching... some of it.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Very Very Bad
bjackson-739-4505522 April 2019
At the time of writing this the story/plot is still wrong. I submitted a correction several days ago and still no updated(corrected) plot. It has absolutely nothing to do with ships or U-boats. It's about American pilots helping the Brits. Extremely low budget ($1,500,000) movie and it shows. It seems that they could not even afford to rent time on a cheap flight simulator for filming the cockpit scenes. Starts out with an idea for a story and goes down hill from there. Poorly delivered dialogue combined with amateur grade school level acting and no action sequences to speak of, made for a real snoozefest. Even the aerial flyby scenes barely made this corpse of a movie twitch in its' grave. If the budget was not a government grant or even if it was, then it was money not even well wasted.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Probably the worst movie ever !!!
andrewuna1 April 2019
People like these shouldn't be allowed to make movies, they should just use their cameras to shoot wedding videos. They probably used most of their budget for that poster which is certainly meant to deceive people into watching this soulless low budget movie, then the rest of their budget went to hiring costumes and paying for stock footage of flying planes. I don't think they spent more than 50 dollars in the little special effects used in this movie, 1940s movies has better special effects. When the pilots are flying the planes or even standing beside it, it's quite obvious that they ain't flying planes and the planes aren't in the background when they are standing beside it.

The acting is quite poor most times with awful german accents. Some movies are not supposed to be made if you don't have enough budget, you will end up ruining the whole project. That's exactly what happend with Greyhound Attack. It's better you watch wind blowing trees or watch a clear blue sky because it certainly has more colour and is also more interesting than watching this movie. Please stay away from this!!!
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Ghastly waste of time
oldvinyl4 April 2019
The supposed plot of this movie has little or nothing to do with what appears on screen, and the title has nothing to do with the movie either. The whole thing appears to be a rather pathetic attempt by a bunch of students to make a movie; with zero success. It is so pathetic it's not even funny. If you would like to watch a "WW2 fighter pilot" be played by some juvie wearing a smoke respirator and no actual real background or effects or anything, really, then go ahead and waste your life.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I would give it -10 if possible
anastakiyudin2 April 2019
They got $1.5 million and came out with this??? Absolute worst
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
It is not a movie, it is a joke
albertfels6 April 2019
10 seconds into this excuse for a movie already demonstrated the worthlessness of it all. The CGI planes were so unrealistic that they were ridiculous. The pong game I played thirty years ago was more interesting than this garbage. The actors are not worthy of that name. It looked like someone asked uncle Bob and some guys from the pub to join this enterprise. The only positive comment I can give is that pushing the stop button makes you feel better.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Laughably awful!
Starbuck22213 April 2019
I love a war film, particularly a WW2 flying themed one. Curious when I spotted this, I set off into viewing it. Within 10 seconds of it starting I was pretty much gobsmacked at how dreadful it was. Filmed in a series of echoy rooms in front of a greenscreen with the ocassional blowup of an airfix model behind...I just fell about laughing. I'm so surprised seeing that this had a budget of 1.5 Mill as it looks like no money was spent at all and a lot of it looked to be filmed in a shed! Do not waste any of your time on this. Possibly the worst film I have ever stumbled upon!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rocket planes
nogodnomasters9 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The film takes place in Nov 1944, minus the flashback. Two brothers fly attack planes and are hounded by superior German planes made at the V-2 rocket factory.

Christopher Forbes wrote, directed, and produced the film which failed in all three areas. The backdrop was very fake looking as was the sky in their airplane settings. The acting and dialogue were pathetic. Looks more like a failed film school project. Worth a double punch on the hacker's card if you can make it through it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Typo?
murphy_6-15 April 2019
I did not buy this when I read the story info on the back of the DVD. It states that the Germans had a new weapon. The Me 252, yep, the new jet in the sky was the Me 252. I figured this must be a really bad DVD if they got the box info wrong.. Geeeeee, it was a Me 262, a Me 262.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Did I honestly waste £7 on this!!
howellclark18 April 2019
Unfortunately I had never seen any reviews of this movie before I saw a copy for sale in my local Tesco. Bought it and tonight settled down to watch it. To say I was unimpressed is the least. The static shots of planes are close up views of those cheap plastic toys that even a plastic modeler would shun. The aerial views look like and probably are those foam r/c models you see on youtube, except where you see fight or bomber streams which have the appearance of those old fashioned scrolling things like in the olden days westerns. Costumes reminded me of poor quality pvc - I think a lot of poor quality sofa's bit the dust to make them. The budget was apparently $1.5m - I'm not sure whether they were USD or Zimbabwean dollars. I would say the latter. I ought to know as I bought Zimbabwean to the value of 185 trillion from eBay a while back and they might buy me one stick of gum (not a packet, just a stick), This film is so bad I wouldn't waste the electricity to even pirate it!! Unfortunately I bought it. The most fun I had was watching my kitten trying to bat the planes off the screen - Go Callie!! hit the planes!!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Home video with non-actors standing against walls stone-faced mouthing words
HeathCliff-216 April 2019
I watched a bit of this because I was curious at the comments by people unanimously calling it the worst movie ever made.

It's actually much more - or less - than that. It's not really a movie as in "motion picture." It's like someone's home movie in which they had Aunt Gladys and Uncle Sid and the neighbors and signees from a sign-up sheet in the local Piggly-Wiggly play parts in a "movie" shot on video with no lighting equipment, no sound equipment, no backdrops, no make-up, no hair.

The actors are clearly non-actors who mouth the lines with little to no emoting.

The panorama establishing location shots are panned internet screensavers.

In the pilot deck, there is no ambient noise, no shaking against blue screen of a sky with clouds.

Shot almost always in close-up to obscure lack of sets, Clearly no cinematographer.

I am reminded of early television childrens' programming in the early 50s with basic lighting and minimal sets, but even then acting far exceeded amateur.

I don't want to make fun of Christopher Forbes. He has done what many dream of: "making a movie." But it displays a complete lack of artistry in making a movie, without even the basic rudiments of moviemaking skills or sensibilities. By contrast, Planet 9 from Outer Space or The Room shine with passion, dramatic vision and flair and creative juices.

You have to try to watch a few minutes to be utterly flabberghasted by the total absence of movie-making skill.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Never seen anything like it...... Hope i never do again.
djdec113 April 2019
My advice? Keep this as the worst movie you've never seen. I took one for the team here and i watched it so you don't have to.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unintentionally Hillarious
tkrotchko12 April 2019
It could be the "Planet 9" of the 21st century.

1) The backdrops for planes are large posters the actors "emote" in front of. Or maybe its CGI. Nah. I'm going with the poster of airplanes.

2) Although it does its best to convince you that the actors are outside in front of the posters of the airplanes, you can still hear an bathroom echo when the actors speak

3) The budget looked to be about $25K, but that probably includes catering from the local in-and-out burger.

4) The interior shots in the airplanes are literally two guys sitting in chairs with a poster of a plane window in back of them.

5) Speaking of the actors, they really are just random guys who have never acted in front of a camera or audience before.

In short, this production may be a real-life version of "The Producers". Try to see it before it disappears.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed