Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
2/10
Fairly decent premise, terrible acting
7 January 2014
Okay, so there are actors who can act and there are those whom you can SEE that they're really trying to act. This is one such case. The leading man, Holt, is one of the stiffest, woodenest (neologism), over acting, under actors I have ever seen. He might be used to stage acting where one must exaggerate the part so those in the back rows can see and hear, but in movies, one shouldn't do that. He apparently didn't get the memo. It ruined the flick for me, it could have been a good flick, but he shouldn't have been cast anywhere near this film. The leading girl was good. If you watch this film, try to fast forward through his lines and predictably the film will not lose an ounce of entertainment value, and will gain in the absence.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The worst movie in the history of movies...of any genre.
2 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
OK, first of all, I was in the movie. It was the only movie in which I have ever participated, and after all was said and done, I was incredibly relieved that my scene was cut! I really and truly don't want my name associated with it.

The cast was crap, the writing was abysmal and the production was boring an unimaginative to the n-th degree.

I've met a lot of "celebrities" and many who actually deserve their celebrity status, who have been decent, well spoken and down to earth individuals for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect. I met nearly the entire crew of this flick and I have never encountered a larger group of pompous, self-absorbed, back patting, pretentious, and arrogant group of people in my entire life. They seemed to feel as though they were real actors and that's how actors are supposed to behave. Nope, sorry. Even the chick that wrote the end theme, one of the worst songs ever written, unless you LIKE burning q-tips driven into your ears, thought she was the reincarnation of John Williams, only he's not dead yet, so he was still in possession of all the talent and lent her NONE.

Now for the movie. After the cast and crew were finished congratulating themselves for creating the best movie in history on a purported 600k budget, the movie was taken to this place and that for release and was apparently not picked up by anyone (smart folks out there). This movie was written by Katherine Hawkes, whom I met and seemed cordial enough, but she was flaunting the fact that she has an MA in the Russian language and therefore knew how to write good movies. OK, that's just like saying that I just bought a thousand dollar pair of shoes so I can read in the dark. The two just don't relate to each other. Obviously, since the movie is so utterly and ineffably bad.

There was also a lot of tension among the crew that was interesting. No one seemed to like one of the producers, so "SOMEONE" (not me) trashed her hotel room to scare her off, which it did, so she left, and after that, there was a huge and infinitely more interesting drama going on behind the scenes over the movie's web page and other areas. It's a shame that the drama that took place behind the curtain wasn't the actual movie, it would have still been bad, but better than the movie by a light year or two.

The vampires, were garbage, both the actors and the characters. They went from spoiled aristocrats in human guise to mindless animals in vampire form, which was funny. Which reminds me, when they had the big "premier", it was at the SUPER SAVER CINEMAS at Forest park mall, and they showed the flick with a digital projector. Just sad. It was a clue that it was going to be a horrible flick when the audience, all of whom were either in the movie or a financial contributors to the movie, were laughing at the serious parts and dead freaking silent through the parts that were supposed to be funny. Just sad.

I've seen REALLY good movies made for next to nothing with great story lines, fantastic acting, and magical production values, but this flick couldn't touch any of those movies with a mile-long pole.

So, I am of the opinion that all those they asked to act in the film, the wealthy of Hamilton, including councilmen, and the "Hamilton elite" were lining someone's pockets under the ruse of making a movie. The movie was made, but someone got away with the investment money, the talent, the acting, music, and movie quality, because NONE of that could be seen on the screen.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silly movie
16 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The very first thing that's noticeable about this flick is that the actors don't seem to have much experience with firearms. OK, not that bad of a detail, I mean it's not like it is a cowboy, shoot 'em up movie, or a zombie movie...wait a minute! After that, the protagonist, the leading man, kept reminding me of Michael Jackson with his uber high pitched voice. That's okay, it isn't like he's playing a really manly character, like a cowboy, or a zombie killer and...hey, wait a minute! If you're going to cast a manly character, please keep him away from the helium! The writing was garbage, the scenery was obviously recently built, maybe a recreation village of civil war reenactors or something, and the story line was only in place enough to show some glorious hooters, which was the only redeeming feature of this flick.

And while we're on the subject of voices, let's talk about the amazing Tonto, or village person, the Indian. Against the backdrop of the cloudless sky of the great American West, the notorious wanted Indian stands proud with his hair gloriously blowing in the wind as he cleverly hides from justice. Wait, he hides from justice by standing up on a outcropping of rock posing with hair blowing in wind? OK, but at least he had a manly voice to go with those rugged and amazingly clean and obviously brand new clothes he wore, but wait! He spoke to the hero (using the hero term very, very loosely) and his deeply spiritual native American voice was inexplicably replaced by the single most Californian uber-proper English speech, right out of a way-too expensive acting school. He also had a sibilance in his S's that would make a SNAKE jealous. This is no Indian! I thought to myself.

It probably cost a buck eighty to make, and the writer and director didn't deserve a dime of it.

I couldn't stand to watch more than ten minutes without fast forwarding through to the mundane and disappointing end. I can't comment on the acting because there wasn't enough acting among the entire cast to actually form an opinion. It's like trying to explain what space smells like.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ballistica (2009)
1/10
Trite dumbness
13 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If this movie were any more cliché it would be a cliché for others of its kind. "Man, that movie was ballistica". "Really? I didn't think it was THAT bad." The fight scenes were unnecessary, only to show off the ~incredible~ (gag) fighting prowess of the "Gary Stu" (which is an incredibly generic, stereotypical character in a work of fiction) main character. The writing is abysmal, the directing is infantile, and the acting only reflects the poor directing, which means shallow, lifeless, and flat. There need be no spoilers because this movie is so entirely predictable the first five minutes is itself a spoiler. The movie is spoiled upon takeoff. I highly recommend this movie as a lesson to burgeoning filmmakers as an exercise in exactly how NOT to make a movie unless you want to make a quick buck thirty five in profit then get the heck out of Dodge with the cold hard change in hand.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
High Plains Invaders (2009 TV Movie)
1/10
One of the most ridiculous movies ever
29 April 2010
It's more difficult to review a movie that is abysmal than wonderful because there's just so much that's bad it's hard to decide how to begin. The dialog was infantile. Not only was the writing cliché and trite, it was obvious that the writer had never seen a western let alone ever heard anyone who actually spoke with an authentic western accent and dialect. Possibly the most horrid aspect of this terrible writing took the form of the character "Rose" whose ludicrous dialog mixed with laughable acting made for a character of pure comedy, but it wasn't supposed to be funny.

The story line was sophomoric, moronic even. The plot was as thin as tissue and weaker than a ghost town's watered down whiskey. The timing of the expository statements were so in-your-face that one watching could only believe that the writer had the impression that everyone in the audience was incapable of understanding anything over second grade information. Saying it was insulting is an insult to the word insulting.

The guns were a horrible anachronism. The style if six shooters used in the movie wasn't in place in the "Wild West". The only consolation is that the guns matched era of the dialog which is modern, though stupid.

This movie is the clearest case of "let's make money as quickly as possible" I've ever seen. Utter crap. I wouldn't have finished watching it but my eyes were glued to the screen as if I were watching a horrible accident on TV and couldn't look away.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed