Reviews

30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Star Trek (2009)
9/10
Let the Nitpicking Begin!!!
10 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This entire review/commentary might contain spoilers.

First of all, I am a die-hard Trekkie. I have seen all the movies many times (even the ones that suck), and I even watched 'Enterprise' out of some misguided sense of obligation. Having said all that, I LOVED this movie. I have NO problem that they went with an alternate time line theory. In fact, I think it was a very clever way to both honor what had come before, and to start something new.

To all the people who are saying "Oh my God! What have they done? How dare they tinker with our beloved Star Trek time line and canon!" I have this to say. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, if your emotional well-being is tied to a TV/movie franchise, then it's time to rearrange your priorities.

Why is it so impossible for some people to simultaneously love what came before, and embrace something new? It's just unbelievable how some people just want to conjure up the same tired old retreads that bogged down the movies and the TV shows after a while. What were they supposed to do, somehow resurrect Khan for another go around? Throw Sisko and Janeway on the same ship, just to see what happens? I thought this movie had the perfect respect for all of the elements that made us love Trek in the first place, while refreshing it for a new generation.

One last thing, let's not forget that when Star Trek premiered 40+ years ago, the ratings sucked, no one liked it, and it lasted only three seasons. If it were not for a die hard fan base to keep it going, it would have ended in 1969 and that would have been it.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cloverfield (2008)
8/10
Go See For Yourself - It's Worth It!
21 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
****Possible spoilers in this review**** You know, I honestly do not know what people are looking for in a movie anymore. I also think that some people come on this site and post negative reviews just for some odd sense of self-satisfaction. How can someone say that "This was the worst movie I ever saw?" Have they never seen "Ernest Scared Stupid"? I think that a lot of people say they didn't like it because they didn't like the style it was filmed in. It's not traditional film-making and the story does not unfold with a traditional beginning, middle and end. I also think that today's audiences are expecting Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger to swoop in at the end and take care of the monster.

Yes, the camera is shaky, but that is precisely the point!!! Also, as far as the character development is concerned, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A BUNCH OF VAPID, SELF-ABSORBED TWENTY SOMETHINGS!!! It's very clear to me that most of the people who gave the movie a negative review simply did not get that.

I think this is an excellent monster movie with a few flaws, and that everyone should just go see it, as it's definitely worth it. It's just not a "traditional" action movie.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lake Dead (2007)
2/10
Can I Please Have These 90 Minutes Back?
12 November 2007
I look forward to Horrorfest each year, and I always expect a few clunkers in the group, but this one was truly awful. You can see the plot points coming a mile away, and it clearly plays to the teenage T&A crowd. While I don't mind a dose of that in a movie, the horror elements also have to be there for me to enjoy the flick, and in this case, there is just nothing there.

The deaths are a bit creative but, again, nothing that hasn't been done 100 time already. Also, there are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, and a few of the scenes and lines had the audience laughing out loud.

Wait for them to show it on TNT.
40 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Eli Roth is good, but he's no visionary
19 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie definitely delivers on the gore, and for that, I enjoyed it. However, everyone needs to stop talking about Eli Roth as if he's some sort of horror genius or visionary. Killing people on screen, even in inventive ways, does not make you special.

I admire him for having the guts to make his movies his way, without giving in to "the suits", but much of the plot of this movie is very derivative. You can see the plot twists coming a mile away, and none of them is very surprising.

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

1-You could figure out all along that the 'killer' who was gung ho for the whole thing would end up wimping out at the end, and that the 'meek' partner would turn out to be the really screwed up one.

2-The setup of the rich girl being able to buy her way out of the whole thing was set up way in advance, and was very obvious.

3-The ending of the film is very banal.

***MAJOR SPOILER BELOW!!****

Instead of having one of the victims track down the women who lured her there and simply cutting her head off, a much more awesome ending would be to have the rich 'victim' take over the whole operation, and have the closing scene be that of the 'lure' stuck in one of the chairs, about to be tortured.

All in all, Eli Roth has made three films that I enjoyed, but let's not rush to put him up there with Argento just yet.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Unrest (I) (2006)
2/10
I want my money back!
18 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to the people who rated this movie highly, I want to make sure we saw the same film.

I say this on the first night of Horrorfest, and it was a LETDOWN! The entire audience was laughing through most of the film, and then we all booed at the end! It started out promising, and the scenes with actual cadavers was pretty cool. There are some genuinely 'icky' moments, but otherwise, the film is NOT scary and is overall terrible.

The acting was sub-par, which I would ordinarily forgive in a group of unknowns, but with the script that had to work with, it was hopeless.

Basically, it's a retread of every 'angry spirit' movie I've ever scene.

Don't waste your time.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
It's a Horror Movie People!!!
13 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I am not quite sure what people were expecting when they go to see a movie this like. So many people are complaining about the gore and violence, and I find that amazing. Before you go to see a horror movie, check IMDb and find out what everyone is saying! Or go on-line and find a trailer and watch it, but don't go to see a movie like this and then complain that it was violent and gory.

As far as the movie itself...let's just add it to the 'Unnecessary Remake Department.' The original was 50 times better.

This one had better violence and gore, and was more disturbing, which I actually like in a movie, but the original was better because of the implied depravity.

*****Possible Spoilers Ahead***** The thing I hated most about this movie is that they decided it had to carry a message: 'Government Nulcear Testing Was Bad!!!' In fact, one of the mutants even makes a speech about it! Does anyone else see how lame this is??? Why can't it just be a group of freaks out in the desert that decides to attack and torment other people who come along? Why does the director feel the need to neatly explain everything to us? Other than that, it was OK as horror movies go, just not necessary.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
King Kong (2005)
9/10
This Is A Great Movie
16 December 2005
I know everyone is entitled to their opinion, and some people have posted some valid criticisms of the movie, but I honestly don't know what some people are looking for in a movie.

I really do believe that there are people who post negative comments about every movie because they just want to have something to complain about. These are people who only enjoy small art-house films that are seen by a few dozen pretentious wanna-be directors.

King Kong shows us why we go to the movies. SPECTACLE! This is pure, three hours of escapism.

OK, so maybe a few of the scenes could have been trimmed. Fair enough. If they trim too much, these same people will be complaining that they spent $10 on a movie that was too short! To the people who are complaining that certain scenes are 'not believable'. THIS IS A FANTASY MOVIE! Of couse there's no such thing as a 20 foot gorilla. Of course T-Rex's probably were not capable of swinging from vines. LET IT GO! The special effects are amazing. I don't care what any of the other people posted. It's very difficult to tell when you are watching a CGI effect. Again, some of these people just want to prove how smart they are by 'spotting' all of the special effects.

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Just Go See The Movie!!!
18 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Why oh why do people insist on comparing this movie to the 1971 version? I realize everyone is entitled to their opinion, but why can't this movie just stand on it's own? I am tried of hearing "You can't help but compare it to the original." YES YOU CAN! The 1971 version was a fantastic movie, and we all loved it as kids and most of us still love it today, but let's face it folks, it's not a truly great movie! For it's time, the effects were great and the set pieces were all really cool, but the acting was not exactly Oscar worthy!

***SPOILER ALERT - IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE, SKIP THIS SECTION*** The only

thing I will say is that I could have done without the backstory about Willy and his father. To me, that's just dumbing down the audience. The screenwriter should have just left Willy as an enigma. We do not need to be told why he is the way he is.

I am glad they left in the scene from the book where Charlie sees the other children as they are leaving the factory at the end.

I also do not care that they changed the Golden Geese to trained squirrles or that they left out the Fizzy Lifting Drinks.

***SPOILERS OVER***

My advice is to just go see the movie. The sets are amazing and the story is closer to the book than the original version. Of course they changed a few things.

By the way, that's another pet peeve of mine, when people complain that they change things from the book or leave things out. People need to understand that it's incredibly difficult, most times, to be 100% faithful when adapting a book to the screen. When people read a book, they read at their own pace. They put the book down, walk away, re-read certain passages, etc. When you adapt for the screen, you have to pace the movie so that the average person can keep up. Also, you have to trim some stuff or, for the most part, all movies would be 4-6 hours long! Go see this movie and enjoy it on it's own merits. If you don't like it, fine, but don't hate it because it's different than the first one or because it's different from the book.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Enjoy This Movie
3 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OK. I just have to put my two cents in here.

***WARNING, THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*** Too many people are complaining about the differences between the stage musical and the movie version. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is a totally unfair comparison.

Remember, you are seeing this in a movie theatre, not a music hall designed for optimum acoustics. The voices are not going to soar as they would on stage. In addition, certain elements of the story telling have to be adapted to the stage. When people see a stage musical, they don't expect to hear a lot of talking. In a movie version, you can get away with a lot more dialogue, which helps the story.

The thing I liked about the movie version is that they have access to a lot more "movie magic." The opening scene, where they transform the decrepit opera house into the opulent building from the past, as the chandelier goes up, is the coolest thing I have ever seen. The dust and decay is literally "wiped away".

As far as the vocal talents are concerned.... I have seen the stage show five times. I was lucky enough to see it with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, who were amazing. I have also seen it with singers who were not quite as amazing. Remember, this is a movie, not a stage production, so the way you interpret the vocals is going to be different.

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and I don't see what's not to like.

If you have seen the stage production, go into the movie version understanding that it is going to be different and you will enjoy it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Open Water (2003)
See This Movie
19 August 2004
I respect everyone's right to an opinion. However, reading the reviews on this site and other sites leads me to believe that too many moviegoers have been brainwashed by the big-budget Hollywood blockbusters.

It seems that if a movie does not have 1000 CGI shots, tons of stunts, and costs less than $100 million to make, people seem to think it sucks.

Remember "Last Action Hero"? It cost $80 million to make and is reviled as one of the worst movies of all time.

One of the big complaints about "Open Water" is that it "looks like it was shot on video"......IT WAS!!

It has the feel of someone's terrifying experience that was caught on film. There is a lot of suspense and a lot of unexpected twists and turns.

See this movie and you will see what good writing and minimal direction can do for a film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Catwoman (2004)
2/10
Waste of time and money
23 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I had free passes to this movie, courtesy of a friend at the theatre. I am glad I did. Otherwise, I would have been extremely upset that I had spent money on this. As it is, I am annoyed that I lost two hours of my life. I am a huge movie buff, and it's hard for me to hate a movie, but this one is just too much.

The only reason for anyone to go to this movie is for teenage boys to see Halle Berry in a revealing costume.

Let me make sure I understand this. Halle Berry turned down X-Men 3 because, "she is an oscar winning actress, and now has to choose her roles more carefully...", but she decides to be in this? At least the X-men movies had good scripts and good direction.

I am not going to go into a lot of detail, but this movie is bad on way too many levels. The dialogue is inane and the acting is sub-par. The direction is not terrible, but the CGI shots are way too obvious. It's like they didn't even care.



***SPOILER ALERT***

Note to the filmmaker: If you are going to try to distance yourself from the Batman universe, then don't make your major plot point about a villain trying to poison people through cosmetics, which was already done in the first Batman movie.

***END OF SPOILER ALERT***
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Great Movie
7 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I honestly sometimes do not know what people are looking for in a movie. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I really just do not get it.

People are complaining that there is not enough action. Yet if it was all action, all the time, they would be complaining that there is no plot or story.

*****POSSIBLE SPOILERS*****

People are also complaining that Doctor Octopus is not in the movie enough. The name of the movie is 'Spider-Man 2' not 'Doctor Octopus Invades Manhattan'. Doc Ock is supposed to be a threat that is there, lurking in the background. The thrust of this story is the internal conflict that Peter Parker has between what he wants in his personal life and the demands of being s superhero.

Read the comics people. The Spider-Man comics were not and are not all about action. They are about an everyday kid who suddenly has super powers and must learn to deal with that.

Is this movie absolutely perfect? Of course not. No movie is.

What this movie is, is a great story about sacrifice, heroism and doing what's right.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Enjoy It For What It Is
5 June 2004
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I wonder what people are thinking when they get angry that things from the book were left out of the film. These are probably the same people who were complaining that things were left out of 'The Lord of the Rings'.

If they tried to film the third book the way it was written, it would be a five hour movie!

All I can say is, get used to it people, because as the books get longer and longer, they are going to have to cut more and more to make the movies.

Just enjoy the books and the movies seperately and you will be fine.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simply put, a great movie.
22 December 2003
I am going to keep my comments very brief.

Simply put, this movie caps off what might go down as the greatest movie trilogy of all time. Some might say The Godfather, but Godfather III was too weak and it brings down the trilogy.

This movie had everything, spectacular action, great acting and emotional impact.

One thing I have to say, please, please, please stop complaining about all the scenes from the book that were left out or changed. Books and movies are different!! If the movies were filmed exactly as the book unfolds, each movie would be six hours long!

The movies and the book can stand on their own. You can still love the book and not let the movies diminish your enjoyment of it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Smallville (2001–2011)
Very good, but could be great!
28 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
POSSIBLE SPOILERS

This is a great series that explores the origins of Superman in a realistic way. The way they are developing the story is excellent, most of the time.

I have a few comments/complaints about the way this show is going.

When are they going to get over the "villain of the week" storylines and work on Clark developing his powers and abilities?

Enough with the "tortured teenager" crap already. It's time for Clark to start embracing his powers and developing them.

If I hear Lana say "Clark, why won't you open up to me?" I am going to smash my television. What is this, Dawson's Creek? Great, we get to see Clark swooning over Lana, week after week after week.

When is Lex going to grow a brain cell and figure out that Clark is not human? This guy can read books written by obscure philosophers, he can run a billion dollar company and he can survive alone on an island, but he can't figure out that Clark has superhuman abilities.

This show has so much potential and they are wasting it by making it a teen romance drama.

Let's see Superman already!!!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Didn't Live Up To Potential
20 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that when I heard they were going to remake this film, I was dead set against it. For a horror fan, this was like they were going to remake Casablanca or Citizen Kane.

Then the early buzz came in and it was mostly positive, so I decided to go see it.

I must say, I was very pleasantly surprised.

It was not a direct remake, but more of a retelling. There were some scenes directly from the movie, but most of it was new.

*** SPOILERS AHEAD ***

There were a few things that I did not like.

1. Why oh why did they have to show Leatherface's actual face AND give him something of a backstory? There is no need for this. In the original, he was simply a maniac and that was it.

2. They could not help themselves but fall into typical "teen slasher" mode. They take Jessica Biel, make her run around in a tank top for the whole movie. Then they drop her in water so you can see through the t-shirt and then they top it off by putting her in a cold slaughterhouse! I did not mind seeing Jessica Biel in a tank top, but if I want to see that sort of thing, I don't look for it in what is supposed to be a terrifying movie!

*** END OF SPOILERS ***

Overall, it was much better than I thought it would be. Just keep it seperate from the original and you will enjoy it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Core (2003)
OK as an action movie
6 October 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The only way to enjoy this movie is to watch it as nothing more than just an action/adventure flick. If you get too wrapped up into the "science" of the movie, you will get frustrated and you will not enjoy it at all.

*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****SPOILERS AHEAD*****

I understand that you have to suspend disbelief for a lot of movies, but this one takes the cake.

The number one thing I want to know it, how do they get the images of the earth's core? Is there some sort of camera down there that can withstand immense heat? If so, how did it get there?

How do they communicate with the ship? I can't go to the top of a hill without losing the signal on my cell phone, but they can communicate with a ship 150 miles inside the earth?

There are way to many scientific impossibilities to go on here.

*****END OF SPOILERS*****

As I said, if you watch this movie as just an action/adventure flick with some decent effects, then you will be OK. Otherwise, don't even watch the first five minutes!!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not that bad
11 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is not as horribly bad as a lot of people say it is. It has its problems, but then again, how many truly "perfect" movies are out there?

WARNING-POTENTIAL SPOILERS AHEAD!!! YOU WERE WARNED!!

There are some things that people are complaining about that are not really mistakes.

If you have read "Bram Stoker's Dracula," you would know that vampires can move about in the daylight. There are tons of different versions of the vampire legends out there, but the Mina Harker character from this film is based on Stoker's book.

Captain Nemo is never stated to be an Englishman in Jules Verne's novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. The Asian/Indian character from the movie is much more true to form.

The reason that the Invisible Man character was changed to the thief Rodney Skinner, is because the rights to the original character's name could not be secured.

The only complaints I have about the film are that the filmmakers did not pay enough attention to integrating the effects into the live action.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Solid entry, but you have to overlook some things.
16 December 2002
I learned a long time ago that if I watched a movie and then spent all my attention crying about every little plot hole or inconsistency, then I would never enjoy another movie again in my entire life. This is especially important when dealing with a "franchise" film, such as Star Trek, or Star Wars or James Bond.

Yes, there are some annoying plot holes and inconsistencies in this movie. I will not detail them here, since everyone else feels the need to continually rehash them. All I will say is that, when making a film that is part of a huge franchise, like Star Trek, it is impossible to take into account every plot point from every past movie and every past TV episode. The producers have to appeal to the widest possible audience, not just the trekkies who have memorized every line from every movie and every television episode.

Many people have accused this movie of being a ripoff of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. SO WHAT? Did everyone forget that Star Trek:TNG ripped off many episodes of the original series? If you have a good formula, then go with it. A great example is James Bond. Every movie is essentially the same, yet people still flock to see them. Why is that? Because at heart, true fans enjoy the familiarity of the characters, locations, minor plot points, etc.

As far as Nemesis is concerned, this is a good movie with a good villain, a lot of great starship battle sequences and decent charater interactions. Is it perfect? Far from it. All I can say is, get past some plot holes and other inconsistencies and just enjoy the movie for what it is, a big screen, sci-fi spectacle. If you worry yourself too much, you will never enjoy going to the movies.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
John Q (2002)
Decent movie, but very contrived.
11 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
As usual, Denzel Washington turns in a good performance, but this movie was way too contrived and manipulative for me to enjoy it.

***WARNING - THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

First of all, they copied too many elements from other films. As other reviewers have mentioned, Dog Day Afternoon is the biggest one.

Second, there are way too many scenes that are there for no reason other than to tug at your heartstrings. For example, at the end when John Q is being driven to jail and the son is "posing" for him. Come on!

The worst scene, in my opinion, is when John Q tries to shoot himself and the gun just clicks because the safety is on. Give me a break.

Also, the whole scene where the heart arrives in the nick of time could be seen coming a mile away.

All in all, this movie is OK, but it is not an oscar caliber movie, or performance, by any stretch.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Mixed Emotions
26 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It is very interesting to read the wide range of opinions on this movie. Some people seem to really, really hate it, and others seem to really love it. I must say that I fall somewhere in between.

***Minor Spoilers***

The first thing that made it turn bad for me is the choice of couples that the robot boy is going to be given to. Granted, the son is in a coma at the beginning, but a third-grader could have guessed that he would come out of it and that the robot and the real kid would have to compete for the parent's affection. The robot was given to these people simply to set up the drama for the rest of the movie.

Next...The mother is horrified at the idea of the robot boy being disassembled, but she has no problem with leaving him alone in the woods? Either she cares or she doesn't, which is it? I know the kid was "only" a robot, but the premise of the story is that he can experience love and other empotions. I actually felt bad for the kid when he gets left in the woods. How could it NOT have been better to have him disassembled?

The last complaint of have is the length of the movie and the numerous "endings." To me, there is nothing worse than a movie that makes you think it's over but, surprise! it's not. You can definitely see the Speilberg touch when you finally get to the "happy" ending.

Overall, the movie is OK. I was so looking forward to it and I walked out very disappointed. I would give it 5 out of 10 stars.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Great movie, but not what you think.
11 February 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but I disagee that it is a "horror" film. It has some genuinely creepy moments and some scenes that make you jump, but I don't think the movie sets out to scare anyone. What it does do, is make you think.

I like any movie that does not wrap everything up in a neat little package. One of the biggest complaints about this movie is that it leaves many questions unanswered. Duh! I don't like it when a writer or director "dumbs down" the audience by insisting that we need every plot element explained to us.

***Minor Spoilers***

The Mothman Prophecies makes you think a lot about what is going on. What is the Mothman? Did Klein's wife really appear to him and the sheriff? Did the Mothman cause the events or simply predict them?

***Spoilers Over***

I would highly recommend this film to everyone. However, do not go and see it expecting a straight-up horror films. There are some genuinely chilling moments however.

I would give this film an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10.

-WizardOfGore
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Excellent movie, but have an open mind.
20 December 2001
First of all, I have to say that this was an excellent movie. I have been waiting ever since I saw the first stills when they began principal photography and I was not disappointed. Peter Jackson makes the locations and the characters come to life. This is a movie that is definitely well worth the price of admission.

I want to post a small response to the people who are complaining that the movie "deviates from the book." I respect your opinion. However, of course the movie deviates from the book. If the book were to be filmed as written, each movie would be six hours long. I admit that there are some plot points that differ from the book for apparently no reason. However, you also have to realize that the filmmakers cannot appeal solely to the fans of the book. The average movie-goer (myself included,) has been fed a steady diet of action flicks that are rife with cliche's. All audiences must be catered to.

All I can say is, go see this movie! Sit back and enjoy it for what it is, which is a mostly faithful adaptation of one of the greatest, most respected literary treasures. Just because you enjoy the movie, doesn't mean you have to stop enjoying the book. If you are so upset that the movie differs from the book, read it again and let your imagination create all the places and events that are described, just like it did the first time you read it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
In the Woods (1999)
1/10
Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen!
27 November 2001
I am a huge movie fan, and it is very hard for me to hate a movie. I even like movies that are so bad that they are actually good, such as Plan 9 From Outer Space.

This movie doesn't even fit into that category. The director of this movie was obviously trying to be serious, and ends up making a complete joke of a film.

The acting is the worst I have ever seen and there are so many plot holes I cannot even begin to describe them all.

The effects are some of the most ridiculous I have ever seen. There is no shame in having a small budget. George Romero made Night of the Living Dead with only $60,000. But you should at least try!

Do NOT waste your money buying or even renting this film!
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Funny Games (1997)
Very disappointing
4 October 2001
I had heard about this movie for years. When I finally bought it and sat down to watch it, I was expecting a violent, disturbing film. While this movie is definitely disturbing, there is not all that much violence. In addition, the whole "audience participation" angle is unforgiveable. This movie had so much potential and then it does nothing but let you down.

If you want to watch a violent, disturbing "maniacs terrorize ordinary people" movie, there are so many I could list, House at the Edge of the Part, Last House on the Left, Desperate Hours, etc.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.