Reviews

3,301 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Redcon-1 (2018)
5/10
It was, well, bland...
24 May 2019
Granted this being a zombiesque movie, of course I had to watch it.

So what is the verdict? Well, a very mediocre five out of ten stars.

"Redcon-1" from 2018 fails to stand out in the zombie genre. It essentially is as bland as it possibly could be, and that is not an overstatement. It felt like writers Chee Keong Cheung, Steve Horvath and Mark Strange sat down and watched every possible zombie movie from the last decade or so, scribbled down what seemed to work and then compiled notes. Everything in "Redcon-1" have been seen before, and there was no originality to the storyline, which meant that director (and writer) Chee Keong Cheung just mustered a mediocre movie.

This wasn't a traditional zombie movie, as these were 'infected' and not 'zombies', which isn't really my favorite cup of tea. Especially when the infected are running around all over the place, being all agile, nimble and hypermobile. And it didn't really help much that the writers introduced an element of the infected starting to learn and think... wait, haven't we seen that before somewhere? Oh yeah, "Land of the Dead".

It should be said that the acting in "Redcon-1" was actually good, taking into consideration the unfathomably mediocre material that the actors and actresses had to work with.

As for the special effects and make-up in the movie. Well, the make-up on the infected was actually fair enough, although personally I would have liked it being a zombie movie more and having the traditional gore, mutilation and mayhem that we all love in the zombie movies.

"Redcon-1" was watchable, for sure, but running at nearly two hours was just prolonging the suffering unnecessarily. I managed to sit through it, but can honestly say that this foray into the zombie - or infected - genre wasn't outstanding or memorable, and it is not a movie that I will be watching a second time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A slow paced but enjoyable movie...
24 May 2019
I didn't know about "Children of Invention" before now in 2019, ten years after the movie was unleashed. But I stumbled upon it by random luck and decided to give it a chance, as I do enjoy Asian movies. Needless to say that I didn't know this was an Asian-American movie.

First of all I must say that writer and director Tze Chun actually managed to put together an entertaining movie, albeit the movie differed greatly from the types of movies that I generally watch. While the storyline and plot definitely was hindered by its incredibly slow pacing, then the movie was actually still enjoyable because it was a very realistic and heartfelt movie.

What helped the movie along greatly was the acting performances by the lead and supporting cast alike. I have not been familiar with Cindy Cheung prior to watching this movie, but she actually was quite good. However, I must admit that the two child performers, Michael Chen and Crystal Chiu, really stole the spotlight. Their performances were amazing, and they really carried the movie so well - despite having a slow paced script to work with.

While "Children of Invention" turned out to actually be surprisingly good and enjoyable, it is hardly a movie that you will watch more than once. First of all, if the slow pace doesn't deter you from watching it a second time, then the fact that the story doesn't have enough contents to be watched more than once will.

If you haven't already seen "Children of Invention", and if you get the chance, I would recommend that you actually take the time to watch it, who knows, you might just happen to enjoy it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Tomb (2009)
6/10
This was actually much better than first anticipated...
24 May 2019
Initially I had little expectations for this movie, as there already was an old movie based on the story of Ligeia, the old tale from Edgar Allan Poe, and that movie wasn't particularly outstanding.

However, this being a horror movie and it being based on a Poe story definitely was more than enough to win me over and make me sit down and watch it. Despite it being 10 years after the movie was released. Oddly enough, then I've never come across the movie before now. And also that this movie was part of the "Frightfest", definitely also was a cherry on top of the cake.

I am glad that I did give "Ligeia" (aka "The Tomb") a chance, because it turned out to be more interesting and appealing than I had first anticipated. And I must admit that I was adequately entertained by what director Michael Staininger managed to put together on the work based on Edgar Allan Poe's classic, and with a rework of writer John Shirley.

While "Ligeia" is hardly an outstanding movie in the horror genre, it is actually worth taking the time to sit down and watch. This is one of those horror movies that makes good use of the modern storytelling, but still capturing the essence of horror from the golden era.

I was pleased to see Wes Bentley performing in this movie, because he was good here, although he wasn't the one stealing the show. Sofya Skya, playing Ligeia, was the one that stole the show with her wonderful performance.

This is not the type of horror movie that will scare you or leave you panting and scared to the very core. No, this is a more subtle horror movie that builds up atmosphere and seeps in under the skin and leave you with something to think about. So in a sense, I suppose, this is a horror movie for a more mature audience, if you will.

I enjoyed watching "Ligeia" and if you have the chance to sit down and watch it, I can warmly recommend that you do so.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mutant World (2014)
5/10
Not all that bad for a SyFy movie...
21 May 2019
Well, I stumbled upon the 2014 movie "Mutant World" in 2019, and I hadn't even heard about it. So I decided to give it a chance, as I watch just about anything.

Initially when I saw that this was a SyFy movie, then my expectations dropped drastically, because they are hardly known for having particularly exciting or entertaining movies. But I will say that "Mutant World" actually turned out to be a great step up in the right direction. Every now and a again SyFy does put out the occasional enjoyable movie, and "Mutant World" was definitely halfway there.

The storyline was mediocre and hardly had an ounce of realism to it. But hey, this is a movie meant for entertainment after all. But still, just something plausible or believable does go a long way.

The movie was nicely paced and it was actually saved by the interesting cast, most of which I was hardly familiar with. And I must admit that the acting performances put on throughout the course of "Mutant World" was actually what kept the movie afloat a great long way.

The special effects in the movie were adequate and served their purpose well enough. Just don't go off expecting a grand CGI of epic proportions here.

All in all, "Mutant World" was watchable and enjoyable for what it was. But it is hardly an outstanding movie, nor a memorable one at that - sad to say. And chances are slim to none, more likely none, that I will be returning to watch "Mutant World" a second time around.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Howlers (2018)
4/10
Not an overly enjoyable foray in the werewolf genre...
18 May 2019
I hadn't even heard of "Howlers" (aka "High Moon") prior to coming across it by random luck here in 2019. I picked it up and saw it being a werewolf movie, so naturally I had to watch it.

Well, the movie was sort of interesting, but at the same time it was frightfully cheesy and campy. I mean, a band of werewolves were killed sometime in the 1800s and then come back in 2018 along with the gunslinger whom killed them. Yeah, that was essentially the core of the movie, and it was a rather thin soup.

The movie was watchable for sure, but it wasn't an overly enjoyable movie. Not even by a long shot. I managed to endure it to the end, though I was starting to lose interest in the movie along the halfway point.

The werewolves in this movie were laughable to look at. It was nothing more than your generic biker gang members with added facial hair, contact lenses, prosthetic teeth and latex added to the faces. They didn't even remotely look anything like a werewolf or a lycanthrope of any kind.

The acting in "Howlers" was actually okay, taking into consideration the nature of the movie and the limitations of the storyline and script inflicted upon the actors and actresses.

Having sat through the entire movie, I can honestly say that this is not a movie that I will ever be returning to watch a second time.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I guess boredom killed the mummy...
18 May 2019
Right, well when I sat down to watch "American Mummy", I wasn't really expecting much given the title of the movie. But come on, at least give the audience a proper mummy.

This movie was bad, and the mummy was a mere backdrop around which this train wreck of a movie circled. Sure, the mummy was there, but it was hardly a real part of the story, much less was it the antagonist of the movie. It was simply just there.

I managed to endure through "American Mummy", but believe you me when I tell you that I wasn't particularly entertained by what transpired on the screen. So why finish watching it to the end? Well, because I was hoping that the movie would eventually pick up pace and become interesting. I just never happened.

The characters in the movie were mundane, and it should be said that the actors and actresses in the movie had very little to work with, and it reflected poorly on their performances.

"American Mummy" was a massive disappointment, especially because I was expecting something in the likes of a good old fashioned reanimated mummy coming to life type of movie. That was just not the case in "American Mummy".

Do yourself a favor, and stay well clear of this 2014 movie, because it quite frankly isn't worth the time, money or effort.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Zoombies 2 (2019)
3/10
Oh please, for the love of all zombified animals out there...
18 May 2019
Well, the 2016 "Zoombies" was hardly a masterpiece in any sense, and fairly much came and went without as much as a groan or taking a bite of the zombie genre. So it was no surprise that the 2019 "Zoombies 2" pretty much did the same.

I stumbled upon this The Asylum production by sheer random luck. I have seen the previous movie, so of course I would also see this sequel. However, I can't really claim to sit down to watch it with much of any hope or expectations to it.

Turns out that it was as one would assume a zombie sequel would fare. Yeah, it was worse than the predecessor, and that leaves little to be said actually.

The storyline in "Zoombies 2" was straight forward, for sure. But it was essentially a pointless and incredibly mundane and generic storyline, one that has already been seen before many, many, many times over in other zombie movies. So don't get your hopes up for anything grand here.

The acting in the movie was adequate, if you take into consideration the type of movie it was, and the fact that The Asylum was behind this movie. However, I can't claim to be able to put my finger on any single performance that stood out amidst the others. So it was fairly bland and non-distinct.

For a zombie movie, then "Zoombies 2" was incredibly bland and actually downright boring. The zombified animals were horrible to look at, and it was painstakingly clear that it was just poorly animated CGI that looked like something you'd find in a 1990s computer game.

I gave up just about 20 minutes short of reaching the end of the movie. I was ready to have one of those atrociously fake and horribly animated zombie animals come and claw my eyes out. The movie was just not worth the effort.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wraith (2017)
4/10
So much potential squandered...
17 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I must admit that I was lured in by the movie's cover, and also because it is a horror movie after all. And also having the likes of Lance Henriksen on the cast list was a big selling point.

"Wraith" starts out quite well actually, and director and writer Michael O. Sajbel manages to establish a rather foreboding atmosphere quite quickly. However, the illusion of this being a good movie actually dies rapidly, especially once the apparitions - or wraiths - start to manifest and appear to the inhabitants of the old house.

Storywise, then "Wraith" was fairly straight forward, to the point where it became too generic and just following the basic 'how-to-make-a-ghost-movie' blueprint step by step.

The movie lost all its built up atmosphere in the blink of an eye and fell deep into mediocrity, and it didn't improve as the movie progressed with slow paced steps. The movie actually felt rather monotonous in its pacing, and that made the movie suffer.

The acting in the movie was adequate, just a shame that the actors and actresses didn't have all that much to work with. The cast ensemble is relatively small, mind you, so there was an additional weight of performing to carry the movie put on their shoulders. And of course, it is always a pleasure to see Lance Henriksen in a movie.

The movie utilizes a religious cleaning of the house to drive away an evil presence. Yeah, it has been done so many times before, but that was hardly the main issue here. The fact that it was executed in less than five minutes and felt like the director realized he was running out of time and budget and had to rush to get it over and done with, just made the entire sequence come off as being ludicrous and laughable.

"Wraith", despite having a very menacing title, turned out to be less than mediocre, and it wasn't even remotely scary, despite the atmosphere that was established early in the movie - when it tumbled down, the movie just went beyond salvageable.

The special effects department in the movie definitely wasn't being pressed to their limits. If you sit down to watch "Wraith" hoping for dazzling special effects, let me just save you the agony right here, right now; don't bother.

This is hardly a particular memorable horror movie, nor a very noteworthy one at that. I managed to sit through it, and I can honestly say that I have no intention of watching it a second time, because the movie just had very little to offer in terms of a proper and solid script.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Hive (2014)
4/10
The movie had potential, but ended up as a less than mediocre result...
17 May 2019
Right, well I gave "The Hive" a chance without knowing what it was, aside from it being a horror movie and having an interesting movie cover.

Turns out that director David Yarovesky didn't really tickle me in the right places with this 2014 movie. It was watchable for sure, but it was hardly an entertaining movie or a movie that I felt myself delving into as things progressed on the screen.

I will say that the special effects and the atmosphere portrayed and used in the movie were good, and they carried the movie quite the distance, because the movie was suffering from an inadequate script and plot.

The acting in the movie was fairly adequate, taking into consideration the anchor the actors and actresses had around their feet in terms of a lack of proper storyline and script. I enjoy watching a movie where the performers are unfamiliar faces, so that at least worked in favor of the movie.

I managed to sit through "The Hive" to the end, but I can't claim to have been thoroughly entertained by what I was watching. The movie is definitely watchable, but not an outstanding movie in the horror genre.

For me, at least, "The Hive" is a movie that came and went without leaving a dent or impression in anything. Actually so much that it wasn't before 5 years later after the movie was released that I came to know about it - and that was by sheer random luck. This is not a movie that warrants a second viewing by any means, because the movie just lacked the contents to support that.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Terror Birds (2016)
4/10
Well, it was watchable, just keep your expectations low...
17 May 2019
Given the title of the movie, "Terror Birds", you know exactly what you are getting yourself into when you sit down to watch a movie like this. But still, I did so, because once in a while a couple of these creature features actually turn out to be surprisingly good and entertaining...

..."Terror Birds" wasn't one of those times!

While the movie definitely was entertaining enough, for what it was of course, then it was also horrible generic in terms of how movies of this particular type goes. It followed a very straight forward script, but also one that was so mundane that it sort of felt like it was running on autopilot, and it offered very little to the audience.

The idea of the movie was adequate, although it didn't make sense about the acquisition of the birds or how they would come to be alive. But hey, science facts is hardly the crucial ingredient in a movie such as this. But at least serve the audience something that passes as just an ounce of believable or agreeable.

Creature features such as "Terror Bird" needs to have either realistic practical effects or really good CGI effects. "Terror Birds" had none of this. The CGI animated birds were just not believable, it looked too fake. And the CGI animated blood in some scenes was just atrocious to bear witness to. And bad CGI in a creature feature drags the movie down, far, far down.

As for the acting in "Terror Birds", well... First of all, I wasn't familiar with anyone here, and I consider that to be a good thing. I enjoy watching unfamiliar faces on the screen, because then I don't associate them with previously portrayed characters from other movies. However, the actors and actresses here had so little to work with that they were indeed fighting and losing a steep uphill battle.

I managed to sit through "Terror Birds", as it was sort of pseudo-entertaining, albeit a less than mediocre movie experience. It is not a movie that I will be watching a second time, that's for sure.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Boring and devoid of anything scary...
17 May 2019
Well, I had initially expected more from this movie. Granted, I hadn't even heard a single word about it prior to finding it by sheer random luck. I picked it up, saw it was a horror movie and decided to give it a chance.

Turned out that the movie wasn't halfway as interesting as the synopsis made it out to be.

The storyline in the movie was straight forward and very easy to follow, but at the same time it was also so simplistic that it felt like director and writer Tyler Christensen was treating the audience as if we had no brain functions. The movie was just horrible staged and felt like it was staggering around on uncertain ground.

The acting in the movie was good, despite the fact that the actors and actresses had so very little to work with in terms of script, plotline and proper characters. However, I can't claim to be able to single any one out as being particularly extraordinary. You get what you would expect here, I suppose.

As for a horror movie, then "House of Purgatory" was frightfully devoid of anything scary or even remotely disturbing. And the movie just trotted onwards at an adequate pace, but not really taking the audience along on any particular thrilling or memorable ride.

I managed to sit through the movie in its entire running length. Was I entertained, well mildly so. Was it a good movie? No, not even by a long shot. Is it a movie that I will watch again? Nope. "House of Purgatory" came and went without leaving as much as a dent in the chassis of the horror genre.

If you enjoy a proper horror movie, then there are far, far better choices readily available within hands reach.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Corpsing (2013)
1/10
One of the worst movies I have ever suffered partially through...
17 May 2019
It was two things that lured me to watch "Corpsing". First thing was because it was a zombiesque-movie, granted with a twist on the "Frankenstein" story. But also because it was a Fangoria presentation. Which I then found out doesn't mean it is a good movie.

I managed to endure 30 minutes of "Corpsing" before I gave up out of sheer and utter boredom. This movie was hopelessly boring and uneventful. It felt like I had watched an hour and a half, but only 30 minutes had actually transpired.

The storyline was atrocious and offered little, if anything at all, of any interest, and I quickly found myself with my mobile phone in hand.

The make-up was just laughable, it was screaming low budget, and the kind of low budget that you don't want to witness on the screen. It was bad, phenomenally bad.

The acting, well, let's just say that they had nothing to work with in terms of a proper script and interesting characters, and it reflected poorly on their performances.

I have no intention of ever returning to finish watching the rest of this snail-paced movie that had nothing worthwhile to it. It was 30 minutes straight down the drain, and I am glad I didn't invest another hour of watching "Corpsing".

A word of advice, stay well clear of this 2013 stinker.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Burrowers (2008)
6/10
What you can't see might just kill you...
16 May 2019
Now, while "The Burrowers" might be listed as a horror movie, it is actually a lot more than just your average horror movie. It is rare that you come across a western movie that also have horror elements to it. "The Burrowers" combines those two genres quite nicely, to be honest.

Sure, the storyline and the pacing in the movie is a bit arduous and slow paced. It takes director and writer J.T. Petty quite a long time to get from A to B throughout the course of the movie. Which is actually a shame because that did keep the movie back.

The setting and atmosphere of the movie was quite good, and it felt like you were right there alongside the riders as they struggled against something which went beyond normal comprehension.

As for the scare factor of "The Burrowers". Well, it wasn't all that great, to be bluntly honest. It felt like director J.T. Petty was trying to build up the atmosphere for something grand, for a massive unveiling of the burrowing creatures once the time was right to reveal them. However, it just didn't really pan out that way. There were no shocks in the movie, there were no scares, and there was actually very little unsettling throughout the entire movie.

What really worked for the movie was the cast and their acting performances. I always love seeing Clancy Brown in a movie or TV series, because he always brings with him so much wit, charm and demands attention whenever he is on the screen. And the characters they were portraying were detailed and nicely utilized throughout the course of the movie.

Now, as for the creatures... Well, the design was fairly interesting enough. I just feel depraved of knowing what it was. There wasn't really any proper explanation given and the audience were kept in the dark throughout the entire movie. Great or bad? Well that is, of course, an individual opinion. For me, however, it was a bit disappointing. And the creatures felt severely under-utilized.

All in all, "The Burrowers" is entertaining, if you can handle the slow pacing of the movie. And I am rating it a solid six out of ten stars.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Darkest Day (2015)
3/10
Don't bother with this "infected human" movie...
16 May 2019
I picked up a copy of "Darkest Day" given the movie's cover was fairly interesting and depicted zombies. Yeah, a zombie movie, and I am all in.

However, it turned out that "Darkest Day" was a mere cash-in and a copy of the 2002 "28 Days Later" movie, and it was not a particularly good imitation. And it was painstakingly clear that writers Will Martin and Dan Rickard had borrowed heavily from writer Alex Garland and director Danny Boyle's 2002 movie. Tch. Tch.

And this is not a traditional zombie movie, so if you like me sit down to watch "Darkest Day" hoping it is a proper zombie movie, you will be sorely disappointed. First of all, it is mere infected humans with rage, yeah surprise, where did we see this before? Infected humans running around all fast and agile jumping and violently assaulting uninfected with fists and teeth.

The acting in "Darkest Day" was adequate for the type of movie that it was, which is not a major Hollywood blockbuster with so many millions in its budget that it could have supported a small country for years to come.

As for the storyline, well it was just too mundane and offered nothing much of any interest to the audience, and that was essentially the coup de grace to the movie, ending its misery and sending it far beyond mediocrity.

And the characters in the movie were very flaccid, one-dimensional and essentially merged with one and each other to the point where you didn't have any interest in them or a lack of care when they were infected or killed. And the actors were struggling with bringing their characters to life on the screen because everything was stacked against them in terms of proper characters.

I endured "Darkest Day" to the very end, an ordeal in itself, and one that I can't really recommend that you embark upon. This addition to the zombie movie came and went without as much as a groan, shamble or an infectious bite.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Boredom rising...
16 May 2019
A werewolf movie, that is essentially all that is needed to draw my attention. And it was all that I needed to know when I found "Werewolf Rising" and picked it up to bring it home to watch.

It turned out that "Werewolf Rising" wasn't a particularly thrilling or enjoyable addition to the werewolf subgenre within the horror category. Why? Well, the movie was just lacking a proper script and storyline. And the fact that the storyline that was there was so simplistic that even a dead person could keep up to pace with the movie hardly helped it in any positive manner.

Director and writer BC Furtney hardly managed to put together a memorable or even enjoyable movie here. Still, I managed to endure this ordeal to the bitter end. But I must admit that I had my mobile phone in my hand and were perusing the social media frequently throughout the course of "Werewolf Rising", and I wasn't missing out on anything vital in the movie while doing that.

The special effects in the movie were subpar of mediocre, and that is giving them way too much credit actually. The werewolf looked like it had been ripped out of a 1980s horror movie, and it looked more like a werebat than it looked like a werewolf. That was just atrocious to bear witness to.

And the movie wasn't exactly loaded with grand movie stars. I have never heard of Melissa Carnell before, and I doubt that after "Werewolf Rising" hers is a name that I will bump into frequently and say "wasn't that the girl from that werewolf movie?" Now, I am familiar with Bill Oberst Jr. from movies produced by The Asylum - yeah, hardly a great track record. While I can't claim to enjoy his acting performances, I have to admit that it was just atrocious in this movie.

If you enjoy werewolf movies, then do yourself a solid and stay well clear of the 2014 "Werewolf Rising", because it is simply not worth the time, effort or money you'll waste on it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
#Horror (2015)
1/10
#AvoidThisMovie
14 May 2019
Okay, well first of all, when I picked up this movie it was under the mistaken assumption that it was a horror movie. I hadn't heard about "#Horror" prior to finding it by sheer random coincidence. I didn't even read the synopsis, just glanced over the back of the movie cover.

Yeah, a big massive mistake on my account. I managed to endure 25 minutes of the ordeal that is known as "#Horror", then I just simply had more than my share of watching the sad, pathetic youth generation of today with their addictions to their mobile phones and being on social medias 24/7.

In the 25 prolonged minutes I managed to suffer through, I had no idea what this movie was about, and the characters were hardly interesting enough to make me want to continue watching even though the movie had nothing worthwhile to offer in terms of plot or storyline. And sorry, but no, I am not interested in watching a young girl with a mobile phone addition on the movie screen. If I wanted to see that kind of pathetic behavior, I'd just look out the window and down on the streets outside.

I suppose the first indication of this going to be a suckfest of grand proportions would be the # on the movie's cover. The hashtag phenomena is just lame, but for some odd reason I opted to ignore that alarm bell when I picked up the movie.

This is a wreck of a movie that I will discard off quickly and efficiently, erasing all memory of ever having wasted 25 minutes on it. I kid you not when I said that this movie had nothing worth of any kind to offer. And it is definitely among the most unappealing movies I have ever had the misfortune of sitting down with an intention of watching.

#NotWorthTheEffort
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Well, at least it had potential...
14 May 2019
I stumbled upon "Frankenstein vs The Mummy" in 2019, and hadn't even heard about it up until now. Granted with a title such as this, I can't really claim to have held any hopes up particularly high for the chance of being in for a grand movie experience here. But still, the movie does have two very iconic horror characters in it, and that was more than sufficient to make me give the movie a chance.

The script and storyline in "Frankenstein vs The Mummy" was straight forward, which at least counted for something. But at the same time it was so horribly simplified that it offered nothing for the audience, it didn't require the audience to do any thinking or participation of any kind. You just shut down, sit back and watch the movie as it unfolds on the screen.

The effects in the movie were adequate and actually were on the better end of the mediocre movie special effects scale - if there is such a thing. By that I mean that there are monster movies out there with far, far worse special effects than what was present on the screen in "Frankenstein vs The Mummy". The mummy was actually quite decent to look at, whereas the Frankenstein golem was sort of not all that great, especially because his torso and arms were ordinary skin colored, whereas his face had a sick yellow hue, it just didn't look natural and looked so askew that it stole focus from everything else. That was just bad in terms of monster make-up.

Now, as for the acting, well let's just say that you will not be in for any award winning performances here. But given the concept of the movie, then you know aforehand what you are getting yourself into. Mind you, I am not saying that the actors and actresses here were bad; I am merely saying that it was adequate performances taking into consideration the script and material they had to work with.

Take heed, as the movie is branded as 'horror'. Well, it might rightfully be so by default because of the mummy and Frankenstein's golem, but the movie wasn't particularly scary. It felt more like a movie that tried to embrace multiple genres all at once but failing to do so with grace and good execution. Don't sit down to watch this movie if you expect a proper horror movie.

I sat through the entire movie, and found it to be adequate entertainment for sure. However, it is hardly a movie that will find its way back to my movie system for a second viewing, because the movie just doesn't have the contents to support multiple viewings.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
More enjoyable than one would think...
14 May 2019
Okay, well I must admit that I am not overly fan of neither Batman nor the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but my 9 year old son wanted to watch this animated DC movie movie, so we did.

When it comes down to it, I have to step up and admit that "Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" was actually a lot more enjoyable and entertaining that I had first anticipated from the title of the animated movie alone.

There is a good combination of comedy along with the action here, which really helped keep up the interest level - at least for me.

The storyline here was fairly straight forward and pretty much reminiscent of every other animated Batman movie; a villain has a scheme to do great evil and of course his plans are thwarted by Batman. Only this time he had the help of four mutated sewer turtles.

There was a good pacing to the movie, which most definitely also helped to keep the movie enjoyable and watchable. The dialogue was adequate, taking into consideration that it is, after all, an animated movie.

The characters in the movie were familiar characters, of course, which also help keep the movie afloat. And the gallery of villains trapped in the Gotham Asylum was just a nice touch. Shredder was actually quite good in this animated movie, and was definitely a step up from the usual dimwit version shown in the old "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" animated series. However, it was the fly-man sidekick that stole the show, he was just hilarious and so obviously an homage to Seth Brundle from "The Fly", and he even sounded somewhat like Jeff Goldblum.

My son was genuinely entertained by it, and I must admit that "Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" definitely delivered more than I had expected or anticipated. As such, I am rating it six out of ten stars.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Oh lord, this was atrocious...
13 May 2019
Well, given the title of the movie "The Amityville Terror" then you just know that chances of this being a good movie were going to be slim to none. And with that information, I still decided to sit down to watch it. After all, it is still a horror movie.

But my suspicions did ring true, and this turned out to be a dreadful movie that just carried the title of a once glorious movie; a movie that has been diluted beyond recognition by one questionable sequel after another.

This movie was atrocious, and it didn't take long before I found myself sitting with my mobile phone in hand and perusing the social media when I should be watching the movie. But it was just so awfully boring and unappealing that it was hard to find any enjoyment in the movie. Well, aside from the production level, at least.

I do believe that with this movie, then it will be my last venture down to Amityville, because nothing good comes from there, anymore apparently. The first original movie was good, then it was a steady sloped downhill ride picking up momentum and speed as one more questionable movie than the next were spewed forth with the "Amityville" name in the title.

The acting talents in the movie had virtually nothing to work with in terms of a proper storyline or script, and everything was just working as an anchor around their leg, dragging them down as director Michael Angelo steered on the sinking storyline concocted by Amanda Barton.

Stay well clear of the 2016 "The Amityville Horror" movie, some of us suffered through the ordeal so you don't have to.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pig Hunt (2008)
3/10
Oh, this was bad...
13 May 2019
Suckered in by the Fright Fest presentation? ... Check.

Suckered in from the director of "Skinwalkers" and "Jason X"? ... Check.

Bored senseless throughout the entire movie? ... Check.

Right, well initially I had hope for something more than the less than mediocre drag that "Pig Hunt" turned out to be. Granted, the title of the movie wasn't much of a grand appeal, but still, from time to time the creature features can be enjoyable movies to watch.

"Pig Hunt" wasn't one such movie.

The storyline in "Pig Hunt" was just unfathomably boring and uneventful. And I am not kidding when I am saying that you might as well just skip the entire movie and just watch the last 10 minutes or so, because that is the only part where the movie actually had any worth. But even at that point, the movie had slipped so far out of director James Isaac's hands, and the writings of Robert Mailer Anderson and Zack Anderson had turned into the muck that the boar was dwelling in.

As for the acting in the movie, well let's just say that the performers were crippled by an inferior script and horrible characters. The entire movie was totally devoid of anything that even resembled character growth and development, and they could just as easily have been replaced by cardboard cutouts. But at least Tina Huang made the movie somewhat worthwhile to endure.

I was bored throughout the course of "Pig Hunt", yet I managed to stick around to the end, in sheer defiance that a movie could really be so bad when it definitely had so much potential. But now that I've seen "Pig Hunt", I am never returning to it again. I suffered through this ordeal of a movie so you don't have to. Stay well clear of this 2008 creature feature, because there are far, far better movies in the creature feature genre.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Gold 3D (2011)
5/10
An adequate B-movie...
13 May 2019
I didn't really know what I was getting myself into here when I picked up "Deep Gold" and decided to give it a view. I had somewhat expected it to be a treasure hunting movie of sorts.

Which it was, in a way...

"Deep Gold" was entertaining enough for what it turned out to be, which was a semi-low budget action thriller. Mind you, there are far, far better movies in the genre out there. I managed to sit through "Deep Gold" to the end, and it should be said that the movie wasn't actually boring. But on the other hand, it wasn't a masterpiece either.

The movie was shot in the Philippines, but somehow it eluded me why they spoke English and not Tagalog, the main dialect of the Philippines, or Cebuano, the local dialect spoken in the Cebu area where the movie was taking place. To reach out to a wider audience perhaps, I can only speculate. However, it felt forced and the movie seemed to lose some of its authenticity by having the Filipino and Filipina performers speak English.

While "Deep Gold" hardly was a memorable movie, and one that I am sure will be obliterated from my memory in less than 48 hours, then it was still an enjoyable enough movie if you enjoy B-movies - which I happen to do. Then again, I am all for giving every movie a chance.

Bebe Pham, playing Amy Sanchez, carried the movie quite well almost singlehandedly. So that was quite an accomplishment and testament to her acting talent and performance.

"Deep Gold" is, however, not the type of movie that will make it around for a second viewing, because the movie just didn't have that much appeal or that much of a plot and storyline to support more than a single viewing.

I am rating "Deep Gold" five out of ten stars.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shazam! (2019)
6/10
Shazam!
13 May 2019
Granted, I can't claim to hold much of any particular interest in the superhero genre, yet I have seen almost every single one put out there so far. Why? Well, because I enjoy watching movies and given the chance, then I will definitely watch a movie or at least give it a chance.

Turns out that "Shazam!" was actually entertaining, well at least for what it turned out to be. It wasn't a superhero movie that took itself all that seriously. But then again, I am not familiar with "Shazam!" or the tone used in the comic books. But for me, as being unfamiliar with it, then it was adequate entertainment to watch a boy turn into a grown up and gain super powers at the blink of an eye.

It was nice to see a superhero movie that didn't turn dark and brooding, like the Marvel movies have a tendency of doing. "Shazam!" was what it was, a superhero movie mixed with some comedy.

The acting in the movie was good, and I think that Zachary Levi, playing Shazam, actually carried the movie well with his charming appearance and his demeanor. He definitely made the movie more enjoyable for me. I've always thought that Mark Strong was a good actor, and he was quite nicely cast for the villainous role in the movie.

As for the special effects, yeah, it is a superhero movie after all, so of course it is going to need special effects. And yes, the CGI and special effects people definitely delivered something that was quite pleasing for the eyes. I liked what I saw here.

The combination of comedy and action superhero genre was actually working well in favor for "Shazam!" and if most definitely made it more bearable and enjoyable for me to sit through a superhero movie.

So after the movie ended, is "Shazam" a superhero that I want to watch in more movies? Well, not particularly no. He was fun for what it was, and that was about it. But I can't really imagine a whole series of movies with this character.

Definitely a watchable superhero movie, but not a particularly outstanding one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An enjoyable horror mixed with dark comedy...
11 May 2019
This is the 2nd time that I've watched "Satan's Little Helper" now; once in 2019 and some time back around the mid 2000s. Funny how the movie actually was more enjoyable than I initially remembered it to be.

The movie is a wonderful mix of horror and dark comedy, and the movie never really takes itself too serious. Which is a good thing, because while there is an overlaying element of comedy to the movie, there is still something dark and definitely horror element to it.

I couldn't remember that it was Katheryn Winnick whom was in this movie, maybe because this was from way before "Vikings" made her famous. It was actually fun to watch her in a movie such as this. And of course it was also nice to see Amanda Plummer in this movie.

As for the killer, well it wore a little bit thin throughout the course of the movie that he didn't talk or that you didn't get to see his face. It has been done in way too many horror movies already prior to "Satan's Little Helper". The mask he wore, though, was cool.

The horror elements in the movie were not over the top, but had just the right of horror mixed with dark comedy to keep the movie interesting. While the movie does have elements of comedy to it, it is not the type of movie that will make you laugh.

"Satan's Little Helper" is enjoyable to watch, but hardly makes for a horror classic.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dead Trigger (2017)
3/10
Not a grand addition for the zombie genre...
11 May 2019
The sole reason for why I picked up a copy of "Dead Trigger" (aka "Zombie Shooter") was because it is a zombie movie. Yeah, that is sufficient to make me have an interest in watching a movie. However, reading the synopsis for the movie and the fact that Dolph Lundgren starred in a zombie movie, wasn't exactly factors that made me feel overly thrilled about watching "Dead Trigger".

Now hold on for a second, Dolph Lundgren does put out the occasional entertaining action movie for sure, but starring in a zombie movie? Not so sure that it was going to be the ultimate combo.

And my fears came true, because Dolph Lundgren is not particularly suited for a zombie movie, despite having done one prior to this one already, which wasn't particularly outstanding either. Or perhaps it was the fact that he seems very disinterested in the script and movie and was just there to cash in on a paycheck. It definitely felt like that given his performance and demeanor throughout the scenes he was in.

The storyline and script in "Dead Trigger" was fairly straight forward, albeit to the point where you need zero brain activity to keep up with the movie. You just switch to autopilot mode and sit back and watch the movie. The ultimate point of the movie, as revealed at the end of the movie, that couch potatoes sitting at home playing online shooters can become elite military personel trained to kill zombies and save the world was just a slap in the face. Playing online shooters gives you absolutely zero real-life skills worth of any proper job.

For a zombie movie, then "Dead Trigger" wasn't particularly outstanding. The zombie make-up and special effects were adequate, just don't expect anything overly gory or interesting in terms of decay and zombie injuries. It had an up-scaled low budget feel to it, but still managed to fair well enough, and the effects served their purpose. The horrible CGI animated blood sprays was just laughably bad to look at.

As for the acting in the movie, well let's just say that you shouldn't be expecting anything in terms of character development, dramatic acting, or anything even close to that. This was low budget to the core.

I managed to endure "Dead Trigger" to the end, despite my attention failing twice throughout the course and I started doing other things. But returning to the movie 5 minutes later revealed that nothing important had been missed. I've watched it once now, and can honestly say that this foray into the zombie genre didn't even leave as much as a dent.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Pet Sematary (2019)
3/10
This was an abysmal remake... Oh. Dear. Lord...
11 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I loved the 1989 "Pet Sematary", so I must admit that I was dreading this remake once it was announced. I had my hopes, for sure, but given the track records of how the endless stream of Hollywood remakes tend to fail and become horrible movies, then I had my fears for this remake as well.

And this 2019 remake can be summarized with just three words; Oh. My. God.

I wanted to like this Stephen King remake. I did. I really did. But there was next to nothing that appealed to me in it. Sad to say so, but it is true.

Yeah, it was abysmal. Not only because it was almost a frame-by-frame copy paste job, which was a major setback for the movie. Sure they added new stuff, but it was just too much copy-paste for me to be enjoyable. But also because this felt like it was one of the most unnecessary remakes ever made. It was just atrocious.

The only things that made this movie bearable to watch was the production level, John Lithgow and Church (the cat). Everything else was just bland and essentially just filling.

Zelda in this 2019 remake was just a faceless character, whom lacked everything that the Zelda character in the 1989 version had. The 2019 Zelda wasn't scary, she wasn't memorable, she wasn't much of anything really. She definitely didn't scare me at all, whereas the Zelda in the 1989 version still gives me goosebumps when I think of her appearance, her demeanor and her voice. That was a massive fail for the 2019 remake.

Granted, I haven't read the novel, so I am not in possession of the knowledge whether Pascow is Caucasian or Afro-American, but he was Caucasian in the 1989 version and Afro-American in the 2019 remake. If the character in the book is Afro-American then yay, good for getting it right. But if he was Caucasian in the book, why change it for the 2019 remake? Is Hollywood really that whipped under the 'politically-correct-and-scared-to-offend-anyone' dogma?

Again, holding on to deviations from the 1989 version, then in the 2019 remake it is the daughter Ellie that dies on the road, not the son Gaige. Once more, I haven't read the book, so I don't know whom it was that Stephen King made die in the traffic accident. Great, if they made it true to the book, but it is was changed just because the director felt like it, not that much of a good choice.

Directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer haven't exactly made a memorable remake here. In fact, quite the opposite. I want to forget about ever seeing this movie as fast as possible, and just let its existence fade into oblivion. The 1989 version is superior in every aspect.

If you talk about pointless remakes that never should have made it off of the concept idea drawing board, then the 2019 "Pet Sematary" is definitely one of the high ranking movies.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed