Reviews

63 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Narc (2002)
8/10
Liotta's best?
8 July 2005
Ray Liotta is one of the best actors of his generation, but has for some reason rarely been seen in real blockbusters, except his breakthrough in "Goodfellas" and the role he did in "Hannibal", he seems more content with doing roles he likes, rather than going after the big cash. This is especially evident in "Narc", a movie which did quite well in the USA, but was by no means a big grosser and also suffered from, at times, almost non-existent distribution anywhere else.

In "Narc", Liotta plays the ruthless cop Henry Oak, a very complex character: Oak may be a fascist and a racist, but he has his principles, and even though he may be one of the hardest hard-asses around and has no problems with breaking the law for the sake of hurting people who, in his opinion, are bad, he is still a person.

Liotta makes Oak come alive and a character which in the hands of a lesser actor might have been portrayed as a total nihilist becomes one that you on one hand hate and on the other hand admire. In my book this is Ray Liotta's best performance ever, he also gained 25 lb. for it to give Oak a look that says "Try see if you dare hit me!". All thanks can't go to Liotta though, as Joe Carnahan has done an excellent job with writing the script.

Jason Patric also delivers a tremendous portrait of a haunted cop. A character that is maybe not as complex as the one of Oak, but on the other hand more likable.

The movie itself is a cold, brutal story about an unsolved cop killing, a twisted plot and some interesting characters makes it even more intriguing. This move owe a lot to classic cop-on-the-edge movies like "The French Connection", but it has a different vibe which somewhat resembles the manic and frantic atmosphere that is evident in "Se7en". Production wise you can see that it ran on a tight budget, as many of the shots are done either inside or on desolate locations, on the other hand why would you need a lot of flashy scenery to make a movie such as this? Also, the absence of it makes this movie feel even grittier.

People in this movie all seem to work for their own cause with little respect for others. Every being in this world seems corrupt in some way, except those who decide to leave it. Pessimistic? Yes. Fitting? Very fitting indeed.

Word has it that the movie ran out of funding when it was just half-made and that Patric and Liotta actually worked for free, when you watch the way they act you can tell that they would probably even have paid to make it.

This is a movie that i would recommend to anyone who feels the world is a bit to cute, turn this on and you'll instantly be transported to a world where the masks are dropped: peoples greed and egoism is no longer hidden, it's all right there before your bleeding eyes.

Note: I may have said that Busta Rhymes was "the worst rapper gone actor ever", but he revives himself here and does a pretty good role.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Really bloody useless
6 July 2005
Once in a while I like to kick back with a movie that doesn't tax my brain at all and just lets me enjoy a stupendous amount of blood, guts and limbs. Beyond the Limits certainly gave me my fair share of the latter, but unfortunately it also features so much stupidity that I actually started to wonder what the hell I was doing. It also had really serious problems with acting, as some of the actors looked more scared of the camera than of the murderer. And the dialog must be some of the cheesiest I've heard since Ittenbach seems to think that good dialog consists of a bunch of words drowned in a sea of profanity. The only thing I can't complain about is the bloodshed which looks kind of good, and yes, the gore is obviously the whole point of this movie, but I can't ignore the fact that the movie sucks.

Braindead gorehounds will have a good time but most of us will probably have fallen to sleep by the time it ends.
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Big Fish (2003)
3/10
Truly terrible movie.
18 May 2005
"Big Fish" has for reasons beyond me been hailed as a modern classic by many a viewer. The story is about an insane, self-centered chronic, liar (played by Albert Finney), who tells the story of his life to his neglected son (Billy Crudup). Of course the father lies about his life and comes up with a lot of stupid tales about himself as young (Ewan McGregor).

What I don't get about this movie is how people can like a person as reprehensible as Ed Bloom. Not only is he an arrogant S.O.B. who can't talk about anything but himself, he was also a bad father and probably also a bad husband, which is somewhat implied by Jessica Lange's restrained and depressing performance. Also, Ed Bloom seems to get sad every time someone tells him that he's not funny and tries to make him act sane for at least one time in his life. Wait scratch that, first he's sad and then he tells another story. I found it impossible not to hate him. Which is strange because everyone in the movie loves him, and I have no idea why. The only scene I really enjoyed was when he got beaten up.

Some things aren't awful though. The sets and Alison Lohman look great and... Well that was about it. Otherwise this is just two hours of pure horse-manure.

I could ramble on about all the pointless, sugarcoated, sentimental crap that this movie is stuffed with, but honestly I just want to erase it from my mind.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Wow, this is bad.
13 April 2005
Mel Gibson, the personification of greed, stirred up a lot of emotions last year with this movie, he also convinced me that he should be put inside a very little box which should be put on fire and then the ashes should also be put on fire just to make sure that he never ever makes a movie again.

"The Passion of the Christ" is a painfully boring exercise in antisemitism and excessive violence. The violence is actually not as bad as some people try to make it out as. I actually thought that the movie was somewhat restrained, but that is if I compare it to splatter-flicks such as "Beyond the limits", "Hellraiser 2" or "Braindead". Unlike those movies this should aims a much higher target, the life and death of a very influential person (whether he existed or not), and it just does't pull that off. It's just violence for the sake of it. Mel Gibson obviously thinks that too many people are just too stupid to get anything unless it's shoved down their throats and therefor tries to beat the viewers into submission by making "The Passion of the Christ" far gorier than it really had to be. He basically tells the viewer: "Look at this man, if he suffered this for you much you must obey him.". An extremely shallow message that obviously seems to work.

And he doesn't stop there, all feelings of the characters are just crammed down your esophagus until you just want to puke the whole stinking mess straight into Gibson's face.

The whole movie is also so extremely one-dimensional and dumb that it actually makes me hate him for it. For example the Jews in this movie are depicted as people of pure hatred and spite, constantly mocking and beating Jesus.

And no, it does not even stop at that. Even homosexuality gets a punch by characterizing Satan as a very feminine man who wears a lot of makeup.

The ancient languages spoken by the people in the movie only serves to make this movie look more intelligent than it actually is. When a movie is this thin it actually borders on narcissism and only serves make it feel even more pretentious than it already does.

Also another thing that strikes me when I watch this is how little we actually get to know about Jesus as person, Gibson preaches for those who already believe in the Bible and is completely unable to move anyone who is merely interested in Christianity or make anyone interested who doesn't give a flying one about Christianity. Jesus could actually be any person who has committed a crime an then suffered the consequences, and actually this gives me support for my theory: Jesus was just a madman who got nailed to the cross because he could not keep his mouth shut. Hmmm. Wait. Wasn't this movie supposed to promote and support Christianity? Well that is just one example of the way you can interpret this movie. This basically means that Gibson actually had no idea of what the hell he was doing. He was probably to busy making fake blood to understand what this movie was supposed to be about.

I have actually no idea how people can like this movie. It lacks every hint of thought and depth. It is an incredibly shallow and boring affair that serves no purpose besides making Gibson richer and all the Christians feel a lot better for believing in Jesus who was so severely tortured.

Please don't watch this pile of crap.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Heavily flawed movie.
27 March 2005
"Interstate 60" is a modern fairytale which has some interesting ideas, and a pretty good fantasy feeling. The whole idea of traveling a road which only exists or oneself and the metaphor for life which exists therein is a fresh and good idea.

But unfortunately there are also some flaws that proves to be fatal if this movie is watched with an unforgiving eye. Let's get on with it shall we? One of the bigger problems in "Interstate 60" is the acting. The wooden James Marsden lacks the ability to carry this movie and the good actors, Michael J. Fox only has a short role in the beginning and Gary Oldman is not on screen enough to save this movie.

The real problem however is the script. It has a senseless plot that seems more like an excuse to fill this movie with strange locations and characters than anything else. I have to admit though, that some locations and characters are amusing, but far to many of them just seem to be thrown in for no reason. The end may be pretty exciting but the explanation for it that follows actually reeks.

"Interstate 60" is a movie which shows some good premise in the beginning but unfortunately falls apart because of a really weak script and often substandard acting. You may however like it if you don't pay attention to the all flaws in it, it has a lighthearted and warm feeling to it and as i already said it does have some exciting ideas.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wrong Turn (I) (2003)
5/10
OK movie.
15 January 2005
So what do I know of movies about teenagers getting killed? Uhm, let's see now. Beautiful women. Strong men. Weed. Cars that won't start. Sex. People getting chopped to pieces. Masked killers. Monsters that won't die.

Well "Wrong turn" follows that list pretty well, leaving out just a few of all the typical clichés you might expect from a movie like this. But to say this movie is original is to really overestimate it, even though it actually leaves out the whole "Masked killers" bit.

"Wrong Turn" is clearly influenced by (or ripping off) "Deliverence", "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The hills have eyes", obviously the makers of this movie were so proud that they even had one of the characters saying that the situation they were in reminded him a whole lot of "Deliverence". But enough of all that about this movie being a rip off now. To be honest this movie actually can stand a bit on it's own. Sure, it's not really scary, it's not original in any way but on the other hand it has OK gore, not too bad atmosphere and some pretty ladies.

OK entertainment for a lonely night, but nothing you'll remember for more than a couple of hours.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Signs (2002)
3/10
For wimps only.
27 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
M. Night Shayamalahayamahan or whatever showed the world that he wasn't really the heir to Hitchcock's throne at all by making this tiresome, stupid film about crop-circles and alien invasions and whatnot. Well this is unimaginative and plain boring at best.

First of all the movie is really dull. Sure, an alien movie doesn't need to be fast-paced to be great (Alien anyone?), but it has to interesting in some way, "Signs" plain ain't. Then it's also stuffed with clichés and, ugh, Mel Gibson plus a boring, tedious side story and some of the wimpiest, ugliest, most unscary aliens since Nukie. It also has a flaw that is so big that the whole movie becomes completely illogical: anyone who watched this movie and liked it, may I ask you: why didn't the aliens disintegrate in the air? It has a lot of water you know.

Please avoid this movie. You will probably save yourself from a lot of cursing and throwing stuff at the TV.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I knew acid was a common drug in the 60's but this is ridiculous.
22 December 2004
You want stupid? You want insane? You want awful? Then, ladies and gents, I suggest you look no further than Santa Claus Conquers the Martians! This is by all means the worst movie I've seen, even Hercules in New York looks like a masterpiece compared to this pile of manure.

Santa Claus, in this case a retarded, raging alcoholic, is kidnapped by martians and along with two annoying kids played by horrible kid-actors goes to Mars to bring the Christmas spirit there.

Words can't really describe how poor this movie is. The settings look like something that's been threwn down a pool of liquid plastic and then spray painted by very drunk people, the dialog is jawdropping and goes something like this:

  • Where are you going? - Ho, ho, ho! - Is that all you can say? - Ho, ho, ho!


As for the actors, I bet everyone was high when they made this. Especially Santa, who laughs in every sentence.

Awful ideas, made in the most awful of ways by and with awful people.

1/10
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bad Taste (1987)
4/10
Is it me or the movie that ages badly?
7 December 2004
Times where better when you were younger. When I was ten I loved this movie, I thought it was a amazing display of what you can do with 2000 bucks and imagination.

Well now that I'm nine years older I have no idea what to like in this. First of all, the FX look horribly cheap. Sure, it may be made on a shoestring budget, but why do you decide to put in half an hour or so of guntotin' if it looks this poor?

Second: it feels like it's an hour to long. The last forty minutes or so feel like replays of something that happened one minute before it.

Third: the acting. Sure, this should make no difference whatsoever, I mean "Evil Dead" may have had sub-par acting but at least you didn't hate the actors. Well Peter Jackson's character Derek is played in a way that's so incredibly annoying that I wish to never speak of him again.

Fourth: The jokes. God, I can't believe I actually laughed at this when i was ten. It sure makes me wonder if I did drugs back then without knowing it.

Well however much I want to bash this movie, I can't really deny how good it seemed back in the golden days. But some memories are obviously better not to relive.

4/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not really useless, but...
26 November 2004
Sly Stallone, the big action hero of the eighties, decided for reasons unknown to do this "comedy" along with, get this, Estelle Getty! Unfortunately it works bad as a comedy, the jokes are just not funny, it also tries to be an action and a romantic comedy, which it doesn't work as either.

This movie just doesn't function. OK? The reason I don't give it lower than this, is because I loved it when i was about ten years old, for some strange reason I thought it was cool having a gunslinging grandma, and Sly seemed to be way cooler back then. Oh well, goodbye dear childhood.

3/10
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The great story.
20 November 2004
Talking about an odd turn for David Lynch, the man who has brought us some seriously weird and unpleasant stuff like "Lost Highway" and "Twin Peaks" has made one of the warmest and most touching movies of the nineties.

The plot is just to strange to not be true: an old man visits his brother by riding a lawnmower through several states of America. Sure this film may not suit every one, many people who love Lynch's other movies might feel alienated when they watch this, but if they can sit through the first half hour or so they will probably start liking it. The story is both full of joy and sorrow, and really hard not to like. The only problem I had with this movie was the slow pace, it was often relevant to have the movie as slow as it was, but sometimes it just didn't work very well.

It's also very well acted. Richard Farnsworth didn't play Alvin Straight, he was Alvin Straight, clearly one of the most memorable performances I've seen.

One you shouldn't miss, though it is somewhat slow at times.

8/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
And here we go again...
20 November 2004
I really wonder what the hell was wrong with American teens back in the eighties. I mean, how the hell could a monster as boring as Jason ever rise to fame? Well anyway, I'm actually I'm not supposed to write about how dumb people were back then, I'm supposed to write something about Friday the 13th part *drums* eight!!! Eight means really good! As any person who understands anything about movies should know, the higher the figure in the end of the title is, the better the movie is! This is proved by "Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000", 3000 means that this is the best movie in the world! That's until Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 4000 comes of course.

Sic. What I really wanted to say was this: this movie is just like any other "Friday..." movie, but somehow manages to be worse than "Jason goes to hell" minus every other "Friday..." movie. Well only three things really: the beginning, the end and everything in between.

I would rather nail my testicles to a block of ice than watch this again.

1/10
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kråkguldet (1969)
7/10
Forgotten series.
19 November 2004
Okay, I'm writing this review more on fond memories than facts, but what the hell, the very few people who have managed to navigate themselves to this very place have probably seen it anyway.

As an eight year old, this was the coolest show I knew. Sure it was really old even back then (I'm born 1985, you do the math), but I still thought it was a thrilling and smart show and it made me feel like some eight year old version of Sherlock Holmes.

Stupid narcissism aside: nowadays is this series sadly overlooked and forgotten and should be aired again as soon as possible.

Well recommended for young kids and parents as well. (I haven't given it a score since I can't remember exactly how good it is.)
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please let Myers die.
2 November 2004
The first Halloween movie was a classic, it's one of those movies I'll always remember. The series, however, is a bad one. It looks like those who own the rights to it are trying to outnumber the "Friday the 13th" series in most movies and that just can't be a good idea.

Resurrection starts off like any other sequel of this sort, with a dead killer returning from the grave.

All the clichés aside, this movie still reeks. Bad actors, bad FX, un-scary... This is all you don't want from a horror movie. And by the way, Busta Rhymes shows us all that he's the worst rapper gone actor ever, Snoop Dogg looks like de Niro in comparison.

Avoid, avoid, avoid!

1/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Very boring but "Loffe" shines bright.
27 October 2004
I was almost certain that I would hate this movie when I started watching it. Well, now I'm certain that I would hate this movie if it wasn't for one redeeming factor: Janne "Loffe" Carlsson. Anyone who doesn't know much about Swedish movies will have absolutely no idea of who he is what so ever, but take my word for it, he is just simply lovable. He plays his role in such a way that you just can't dislike the movie, even if you really want to and I'm sure you'll want to, because besides Loffe's superb acting, there's really nothing here to recommend, most supporting actors are bad, many characters are seriously underdeveloped and to top it off the story is both sentimental and boring, this movie is, however, worth seeing for "Loffe" alone.

Long live "Loffe"!

4/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Zzz...
20 October 2004
My, my. The Friday the 13th series is definitively a thing to put on my official "Why I dislike the 80's-list". In his no-brainer Jason is back from the dead (again) and still thinks it's funny to kill idiots. Well like in any other movie in this series there are a lot of idiots and yeah, most get killed too. The bodycount is still pretty disappointing, landing somewhere around 15, the gore is almost non-existent, the plot is as weak as you might expect and for once there's not even any boobs to be seen.

The beginning is about the only thing in this movie that doesn't make you fall asleep, mainly because of some stupid gags and a particularly funny James Bond imitation by Jason.

Otherwise this is as boring as a horror movie can get.

2/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Fall from grace.
11 October 2004
Martin Scorcese is one of the most known and loved directors in the business, responsible for masterpieces such as "Goodfellas", "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull", he will always be remembered as one of the truly great. Unfortunately Scorcese's career and movie making has turned stagnant and "Gangs of New York" is proof of that.

First off, there's the actors. Leo DiCaprio is very pale in his role and looks somewhat distant, Diaz is unfortunately not very good either, Daniel Day-Lewis however plays off a remarkable performance as the bad guy.

Second, the pacing is slow and plodding. The first half of the movie was so slow and boring, mainly because of boring acting, that I had to watch it three times before I got through it, luckily the second half is better, not because acting improves but because more things happen.

Overall the story is neither very engaging, most because you don't feel anything for Di Caprio's character, Amsterdam.

Overall, Scorcese's "Gangs of New York" is a tired effort.

5/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hannibal (2001)
4/10
A big step down.
2 October 2004
O.K., almost everyone knows about "The silence of the lambs", one of the most influential thrillers of the nineties. Well here's it's sequel. And like almost every other sequel it's just much worse than the original outing. "Hannibal", has no suspense at all, killings are just too common to ever feel scary, they are however also pretty gruesome but that should only satisfy gorehounds. The plot is moronic and nowhere close to the first one's.

Everything doesn't stink however, like I've already stated, the gore is good, the acting is fine, especially Julianne Moore. Beside this, stay far away from this movie.

4/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A big letdown.
23 September 2004
The last film in a trilogy is often the best! No wait, what the hell am I writing here? It's not the best, it's almost never the best. Just look at the Godfather trilogy, the Rambo trilogy, the Die Hard trilogy. It should, however, be the best. Why? It's the last of three movies, dah! You don't really want to see three movies were the ending of the saga manages to make you both annoyed and mad, do you?

Well "Day of the Dead" is unfortunately another bad movie that ends an otherwise great trilogy. "Night of the living dead" was genre defying, "Dawn of the dead" is one of very few sequels which actually are better then their predecessors, "Day of the Dead" is, well, just a bit crap actually.

Acting in "Day of the dead" might not be worse than in any other movie of the "Dead"-trilogy, unfortunately, this movie relies more on acting than the previous and it therefor becomes more apparent than ever that none of these actors will ever win any prize whatsoever for their "skills" in acting.

The pace is also annoyingly slow. Often people just walk around to different locations, says something which sometimes makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. This is what happens most of the time and it is not entertaining in anyway.

The gore is the only department were this movie is really effective. Tom Savini has made some of the most stomach-churning gore ever. And I do really mean it. This is so well made that it's almost bordering on snuff, gorehounds will without any doubt whatsoever be satisfied.

Overall I felt this movie was uninteresting and mostly dull, but it's worth seeing both for being he end of the "Dead"-trilogy and for the remarkable make-up effects.

5/10
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Boring.
22 September 2004
Among the movies I never ever want to see again, this tops the list. It may be beautiful to look at but the plot is so confusing that I had a hard time understanding what it was all about. For some reason the men behind the script thought it was a good idea to put three different crime fighting groups with almost exactly the same names into this movie. Well they did a fine job of confusing me at least.

The confusing plot is sad really because underneath it is some tremendously well-made anime, and a beautiful score. Too bad it's just so hard to enjoy it if you loose the plot anywhere.

Worth a try if you have the patience.

5/10
3 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spice World (1997)
1/10
OH. MY. GOD.
22 September 2004
What happens if you take a talentless, brainless, tasteless, obnoxious pop product an try to make a movie about it? I'm surprised to say that you would probably get something better than "Spice World". The annoying Spice Girls, may Satan torture their soles forever, has made one of the worst movies of nineties, quite possibly one of the worst movies ever.

Now you may wonder why I ever watched this if I hate Spice Girls so much. The answer amigo, is this: I had a bad hangover and unfortunately this was the only thing on the T.V. right then.

Plot is nowhere to be found, decent actors are also completely absent, really annoying idiots however, are there plenty of here, but since this movie is about Spice Girls, it just couldn't be done without including five of the most obnoxious, irritating, stupid cows ever to be vomited out of the U.K.. If you're a bit retarded/stoned/drunk, it's Spice Girls I'm talking about right now. OK?

Well anyway here's all you really have to know about this movie:

It blows. Goats. As hell.

The only people who might like it are those who really love Spice Girls. But those people probably won't be able to see this at the mental institutions they live in anyway.

1/10
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Stinker.
22 September 2004
You may wonder why this was made, well here are two qualified guesses:

Arnold probably made this movie to show off his humorous side. Well, he shows us pretty well that he has no talent whatsoever when it comes down to making people laugh.

The director probably made this to show us the true spirit of Christmas. Quite obviously, according to this movie, the true spirit of Christmas is: "give expensive gifts to your children so you can neglect them all you want".

Even apart from these major flaws, this movie blows. Somewhere along the line someone came up with the moronic idea of turning an already abysmal, sugarcoated Christmas "comedy" into an "actioncomedy". Problems are, as you might suspect, that a) this movie isn't funny, b) the action suck, oh yeah, this movie sucks too.

Personally I'd prefer ebola as a Christmas gift, rather than watching this manure again.

3/10
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I, Robot (2004)
6/10
Better than you might suspect.
21 September 2004
Will Smith is back in the sci-fi genre, fortunately not as a man in black. "I Robot" is a different kind of movie that blends paranoia with CGI in a pretty good way. The future is for once not a dark place were every one wears Ray-Bans and it always rains, but it is however full of robots. The people seem to have forgotten everything "Terminator" was supposed to learn us. Smith is a police officer and the only person in the movie who doesn't trust robots. Everybody else makes fun of him because of this. Well I guess you can see were it goes from here, but "I robot" actually manages to pull of some twists and surprises along the way, which makes it stand out among all the "Bladerunner" imitators out there, while it's never as complex as, say, anything Hitchcock ever did, it's still enough to make you stay awake and actually enjoy his movie. The reason for this pretty low score is that it's quite obvious that this is a Hollywood movie. There are just a bit too much dumb jokes and sometimes the CGI gets a too central role in it and by the way, all violence is PG.

Still an entertaining movie.

6/10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Scary Movie (2000)
3/10
Moronic and abysmal.
21 September 2004
"Scary movie". Very appropriate title. This movie scares the crap out of me because it reminds me about how rancid the movie business has become lately. This is a movie made for those kind of people who were too stupid to understand what "The Naked Gun" series was all about. My favourite hate-object, Anna Farris somehow managed to get the leadrole (I'm pretty sure how, but I can't tell you why, in risk of getting sued), and she manages to screw it up pretty good and she's still the best actor here. The jokes are not only dumb but they're so incredibly lame that it will make you want to burn everyone responsible for this tripe on the stakes. The reason it actually gets a 3 is because it has some funny gags. But then again, there are thousands of movies with better and more jokes. Go watch them instead.

3/10
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Useless, talentless, tasteless.
11 September 2004
I've always considered myself as a big fan of British comedy but then comes this movie to tear my illusions asunder. This inane, tasteless movie is aimed at nervous teenagers with bad acne, no hobbies or friends whatsoever and palms that are so hairy they need to comb them. So if you don't fit into that category you can stop you're reading right here and forget that this movie ever existed. OK?

Really, this movie makes "Scary Movie" look like "The quest for the holy grail", it's way of trying to bring forth laughters are at best annoying and at worst really offending. Acting is below substandard, humor is absent in every scene and the script should have been burned after the first reading, after the scriptwriters had been shot that is.

Avoid at all costs.

1/10
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed