DVDZombie Reviews

Orphan (2009)

Somewhat overrated but worth watching.

[6/10 · 17 October 2010]

Going into this movie I had heard a lot about it from various people. Having actually watched it myself, I feel a little slighted. While it is a decent movie it's not the best I've ever seen and it certainly isn't particularly frightening. So many people had made this out to be the thriller of all thrillers I guess I expected far more then the movie could ever have provided.

It does manage to create a good atmosphere, it's well acted, well scripted and very well shot. What it lacks is any real culmination to the build up. It's one of those...it's coming...it's coming...oh. I'm sure you've seen the type of movie I'm referring to and if you haven't, check this one out because it's as good an initiation into the anti-climactic thriller as any. I'm not saying it's a bad movie, the ending is actually decent and everything is explained well but without the "make you jump" moments, it seems like the movie just misses it's mark.

I'll say one thing though and I say this without hesitation. Isabelle Fuhrman is a wonderful actress and is completely captivating. I never doubted for one second that she was Esther. I'd love to see more from her in the future, particularly in this genre because she has fantastic potential.

Lost Boys: The Thirst (2010 Video)

A million times better...

[8/10 · 17 October 2010]

In as much as Lost Boys 2 was a disappointment, this movie is a treat to watch and in fact is so much better then the previous sequel I'd argue that this should have gone to the theater. This looks like a movie, it has a good script, good acting, good music and an overall feel of being a complete and finished product. It still has a few rough spots here and there but I really have to say that I'm very pleased with how this turned out and I'd recommend it to anyone.

The thing that strikes me the most is how much attention was payed to the original with this one, something that was really lacking in the Lost Boys 2. Not only is a complete picture painted of what happened to each of the characters from Lost Boys but you get a real sense that this movie picks up years later rather then having been made to try and reboot or update the original. Scenes from Lost Boys are incorporated during flashback moments, the original theme song Cry Little Sister is used at several points and numerous references are made the original storyline. In my mind, all of that is key in making this movie work so well. It's worth noting as well that the humor of the original is more then present with this one and that really helps the movie feel worthy of bearing the Lost Boys title. Many eighties horror movies seem to have a sort of wry, off color sense of humor to them with people getting bathed in blood and the film almost making a joke of it. Lost Boys itself had that to a degree and it can certainly be found here.

All in all I really enjoyed watching this and I can see myself watching it again in the future. If you haven't seen it yet, give it a chance because you'll be more then happy with it.

The Last Exorcism (2010)

Beyond surprised

[7/10 · 15 October 2010]

I expected nothing from this movie going in and came away from it with my jaw on the floor. This is one that I can see myself watching again and again, much like Paranormal Activity or Ghost Watch. If your a fan of Blair Witch style mockumentaries like I am, you'll love this movie.

There were two things really worried me about this movie. The first, recently I've lost a lot of faith in Eli Roth. I haven't liked his mainstream work much and I certainly didn't like Inglourious Basterds (2009). I've felt Roth has gotten off track and almost betrayed his horror roots. The second thing I was worried about, was the PG rating this movie wound up with. I normally hate PG horror movies. I don't mind TV horror and there are a few movies out there that I like in the PG horror realm but for the most part, the rating scares the hell out of me. When I head this got a PG I rolled my eyes and though "well there goes another movie down the toilet". I was wrong. Not only has Roth redeemed himself in my eyes, but the PG rating didn't hurt this movie at all. I not only enjoyed it, I loved it and as I said I can see myself watching it over and over again. Overall the acting is good, the script is good, the story is good, it's got some scares and you'll easily wind up sinking into it believing that what your watching really happened. What more can you ask for in a movie of this style? Regardless of what I say, regardless of what anyone else says. When it comes out, rent it, watch it and judge for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

Piranha 3D (2010)

Describe Piranha 3D in one word...bad.

[3/10 · 12 October 2010]

The casting is horrible, the soundtrack is terrible, the special effects are worthy of a Syfy channel movie and the story is so stereotypical you can literally predict what's going to happen in each scene.

One question kept nagging me as I forced myself to sit through this train wreck. Why are Ving Rhames, Jerry O'Connell, Steven McQueen, Jessica Szohr and Cody Longo even in this movie? It's almost as if someone wanted to take the worst of the worst and give them screen time. With Mcqueen, Szohr and Longo in it the movie looks like an episode of a CW series gone bad...and that's saying a lot because most CW shows are terrible as it is. Why you would cast such whiney, emo looking actors in anything I have no idea but where this movie is concerned I can only assume the entire casting budget was blown on Richard Dreyfuss and Christopher Lloyd, so the CW crowd was all they could afford.

As for the effects, don't expect much. If you've seen one of those really low budget Syfy channel movies then you've seen these kinds of effects before. They look worse then a video game cut sequence and you can spot them a mile away. The studio even went to the trouble of using CGI on the beer bottle in the opening sequence, all the fish and the majority of the under water shots. How nice of them. The few times you see any real effects work like blood and gore type stuff, it looks horrible. I'm pretty sure I've seen better makeup on twelve year old's at Halloween.

Do yourself a favor, go watch something from about twenty five years ago. It'll look better, cost less to see and you won't feel completely ripped off by the time the credits roll.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

Ridiculously overrated

[4/10 · 23 August 2010]

This is yet another one of those movies. You hear about it, everyone seems to be raving about it, the reviews are all positive, you wait and wait for a chance to see it. The time finally rolls around, you settle in for what you think will be a fantastic film, you watch it and by the time it's done you wind up wishing you could get the last two hours of your life back.

The biggest problem with the movie is that it's so slow, you could watch paint dry and find it more thrilling. The acting overall is decent, but the story is disjointed and at times you forget what's actually going on in the movie because it keeps switching back to one of the dumbest sub plots I've ever seen.

Parts of the movies plot that are supposed to connect with each other never really seem to and the parts that do connect well don't really seem to add up. Then there's the character of Lisabeth, who is the focus of the movies sub plot and ties in...or rather is supposed to tie in to the main plot line later in the film. The character is so over done, you might think you were watching an Anime cartoon instead of a live action movie. Mainly, it's her wardrobe that causes that and if they had simply dressed her normally, Lisabeth would be a far believable. There are other issues with her, but her wardrobe is just so ludicrous for most of the movie that it sticks out like a sore thumb. There's also the issue of the scenes involving her probation officer, which I had heard were horrid and hard to watch. All I can say is, nothing to see here...move along. Yes she gets raped and yes she returns the favor but both scenes are done so poorly it's hard to find either really offensive or shocking. How you have a teenage girl get raped and then rape her attacker, yet manage to show less violence then a 90210 episode, I will never understand. Aside from that, is shock value all the producers were after here?

Between the assault in the subway tunnel, the office sex scene, the rape, the revenge rape and so on, the film makers seem to have forgotten they were supposed to be making a thriller. I won't give away the ending, but I will say this. It's not much of a shock and it wasn't worth sitting through this movie to see it. From beginning to end you feel like you waiting for something that just never happens. The pace is terrible, the thrilling moments are a yawn and the entire movie feels like something from the nineteen nineties. All of the characters are cliché and the storyline is rife with plot holes. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my Blu Ray player out with soap.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Should have been "re-booted" into the trash can.

[3/10 · 4 May 2010]

I'm not a purist. I don't always believe that the original is necessarily better or that one person is the definition of any given character. That said, in this case both of the above statements are true. The original Nightmare On Elm Street had a certain quality to it. Like many movies of it's era, the original was a perfect storm of casting, special effects, make-up and story. It was destined to become a legend and it did. In fact, no installment of the series was ever "bad" in the sense that it was unwatchable and I've seen them all more times then I can count.

My older brother introduced me to the series (much to the chagrin of our parents) and since then I've been hooked. When this remake was announced I was excited. I really thought they were going to pull this one off. I fall into that trap every dam time. Platinum Dunes started putting the nails in the coffin right off the bat. First they recast Freddy. then they changed Freddy's make-up, they reworked the story and finally they stopped calling it a remake and started calling it a reboot. God knows, if you hear or read the word reboot you know the movies screwed. It's a term used when the people making the movie know it's gone off track and it's sinking fast.

Why should Freddy's make-up not have been changed? Because there was much more to his look then just some random burn victim. Freddy was portrayed as a guy so evil, so demonic and so cruel that his face was warped and twisted. Not just scarred from being burned in a fire but permanently altered because of his evil. Freddy was part human and part devil. He looked as if hell had just spit out a soul so far gone that even Satan himself wouldn't want him around. Freddy wasn't just some random man burned in a fire. He was a child molester, a child rapist and a butcher. He cut little kids up into pieces because he enjoyed it. He hunted teenagers in their dreams because that's when they were at their weakest. Trapped and alone he could victimize them for his pleasure and steal away their souls to keep for himself. He felt no guilt in seeking revenge against the vigilante mob who killed him because he felt no guilt for anything he had done. He had no conscience and no humanity at all. None of that is conveyed in Freddy's face when you watch this remake. None of it. He looks like a burn victim. So what? No offense to burn victims but I mean in a horror movie sense, big deal.

Why should Robert England have played Freddy again? Who the hell else looks and sounds like England? Who? Robert England is beyond a shadow of a doubt the reason A Nightmare On Elm Street became an iconic horror series and why the character of Freddy became a legend. If anyone else had played Freddy in the original film it would have been just another horror movie and undoubtedly would have been forgotten. Take away his facial structure, his stature, his walk, voice, laugh and attitude and what's left? A guy in some make-up. Unless you put England in that make-up, you loose Freddy and by default you loose the feel of the movie.

Why is the rest of the cast so bad? Bland, forgettable faces and downright terrible performances. The main cast consists of emo looking actors and plain Jane looking actresses who come across as though they couldn't care less about their performances. The cast here is the epitome of what's wrong with the current crop of actors and Hollywood in general. I could go on about the so called "talented" young cast but hey, who has that much time to waste? Overall this movie is boring, badly paced and quite simply a very lame attempt at remaking a classic. It's a reboot alright but unfortunately no one was smart enough boot it right into the trash. People will call me a purist, overly critical, a movie snob, a fan boy and so on. You know what? Those people can knock themselves out because I for one am sick of watching Hollywood ruin classic films so they can turn a quick buck and hide the fact that they haven't had an original script since the late nineties.

If this kind of crap is the best Hollywood can come up with and the masses want to flock in to have their brains thoroughly washed out that's fine. Just don't expect me to bend over and say "thank you sir may I have another" because it's not going to happen.

When a Stranger Calls Back (1993 TV Movie)

A good movie but hard to watch...

[7/10 · 25 May 2009]

This is a genuinely decent thriller. It manages to capture much of the suspense and terror of When A Stranger Calls (1979) while bringing back Carol Kane and Charles Durning to reprise their original roles. Overall the plot, acting, direction, script work, story and camera work are all very well done. Why then do I say it's hard to watch?

The movie falls down in two ways, the first is the terribly dated nineties fashions and hair styles. Most of it would be forgivable if the main characters clothing and hairstyle weren't so bad. This may seem like a trivial complaint but in all seriousness, it makes the movie hard to watch. A woman with a mullet, the vests, the high wasted stone washed (or is it acid washed?) jeans, the white running shoes, I mean it just looks so bad that it actually distracts you from the movie. Most film makers are careful to avoid dating their movies in this way. Generally they try to have actors and actresses look good while still keeping enough distance from popular fashion that the movie still looks good twenty years down the road. In the case of this movie though, caution was apparently thrown to the wind.

The second downfall of this movie is the ending, which I won't give away but I'll elaborate a little on why it hurts the movie. The original ended in a fantastically sinister way. Having watched it recently, the ending of When A Stranger Calls actually sent a chill up my spine. This film however fails to achieve that and instead offers up a sort of ho hum ending that's quite forgettable.

There is also a strange scene in a strip club that must of been born out of the California hard body craze. Rather then spoil the joyous fun by describing it, I'll leave it up to those of you who are adventurous enough to watch this movie and find out what I mean.

All of that said, Charles Durning is fantastic in this as he has been in most things I've seen him in. He plays the role of the worn out detective very well. Carol Kane is believable as the somewhat strung out victim of a psychopath trying to move on with her life and achieve something meaningful. Jill Schoelen provides a good performance and the rest of the cast, with a couple of exceptions, all do a good job. The movie really is worth watching if you can tolerate the fashion disasters of it's era...actually disasters may be to a light a word, horrors maybe?

Star Trek (2009)

I am stunned, no pun intended.

[10/10 · 19 May 2009]

When I heard about the making of this film I cringed, when it went into production and the cast was announced I winced, when it finally hit theaters I hid. I stayed hidden and held my breath in angst waiting to hear what others thought of the movie before I dared see it myself. Even my girlfriend saw the movie before I did. All of this was due to my die hard love of not only Star Trek as a whole, but the original series more then any other. To me the characters, story lines and ideals sit so high on a pedestal they can never be tarnished and god help anything or anyone that dares touch them.

So I finally worked up the nerve, after reading countless positive reviews and getting the all clear from my girlfriend and two others, to see this new incarnation of Star Trek. I simply smiled, from start to finish. I cannot come up with a single complaint about this movie, it's portrayal of the Star Trek universe or the characters there in. Pine is fantastic as Kirk. I read an interview with him in which he stated that he didn't study Shatner at all because he was afraid he would try to act like him and the performance wouldn't be honest. If that is indeed true, then the casting of Pine as Kirk was the greatest casting success in history. He looks, acts and talks like William Shatner did in his portrayal of the character. At one point during the film, as Kirk is walking down the steps of Starfleet Academy with Bones, Pine does a light jog with his arms slightly raised at his sides. In that moment I could have sworn I was watching a young William Shatner portray the character. There are many other moments in the movie where the same feeling takes over and it's a wonderful thing. In my eye's Chris Pine was and is the perfect choice to play James T. Kirk and I hope that he will continue to fill the role in any sequels to come. As for the character of Kirk in the movie, it is written perfectly. Kirk was always said to be impetuous in his youth. Brash and hard headed taking on every challenge with no doubt of winning and no fear of failure. As a Captain he always chose to put his life at stake whenever the lives of others hung in the balance. Kirk always put his ship and the lives of his crew before himself and he always chose to jump in feet first when danger arose. I don't know how the portrayal of Kirk in this film could have been any more accurate then it is.

The movie itself pays great attention to detail where the Star Trek saga is concerned, while setting the groundwork for a whole new era. There are plenty of moments which reference the original series and stick to the time line and events of Star Trek. The mention of Scotty and his loss of Archers prize Beagle, Kirks rigging of the Kobayashi Maru test, even Chekov's infamous inability to pronounce the letter V. It's all there plus a whole lot more and even better, it's there with a twist that allows the reshaping of Star Trek's future.

As for the other performances, Quinto is fantastic. I doubt anyone could have chosen a better Mr. Spock. Simon Pegg is so perfect as Scotty that all I can say is watch the movie and see for yourself. He portray's the wit, charm and intelligence of Mr. Scott to a T. James Doohan would have have been proud of Pegg's performance. Urban is an excellent Doctor McCoy, Cho a wonderful Sulu and Yelchin filled the role of Chekov quite well. Zol Saldana played Uhura magnificently and I loved the way her character was handled. A beautiful actress portrayed her with just the right amount of sophistication and emotion mixed with sex appeal. What more could you ask for?

The special effects are fantastic, the music is excellent, the wardrobe and weaponry are all perfect. The story is enthralling and contains just the right amount of humor, drama and action all rolled together into a movie that no one will soon forget. This looks and feels like Star Trek and In fact it screams Star Trek while opening up the Trek universe to a future that's never been brighter.

I would jump on board with the complaint of there being no role for William Shatner in this movie, but having seen it, I don't know where an old Kirk could have fit into the story. It would have made no sense to see an old Kirk given the events of Star Trek Generations and the time line presented in this movie. However, stick with me here, given the events of this film there is now room for an old Kirk to appear somewhere in a sequel.

To anyone who detracts from this movie I say your not being honest with yourself and, no pun intended here either, your letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Channel your inner Vulcan, or simply suck it up as the saying goes, and admit that this in one hell of a movie. To those who haven't yet seen it, go check it out because there is nothing here that a Star Trek fan or a SciFi fan in general wouldn't love. Star Trek has been done justice with this movie and more than that, both Gene Roddenberry's memory and his dream have been honored.

The Devil's Tomb (2009)

Don't let the bad reviews fool you.

[8/10 · 18 May 2009]

This movie is certainly not as bad as most people are making it out to be. The acting is good, the script is decent, the story, locations, special effects and direction are all above average. The movie itself looks and feels like a big budget production, with only a few minor weaknesses showing up every so often.

The biggest weakness comes in the form of casting where the Medic is concerned. She neither looks or acts the part of a trained soldier but it's forgivable because the rest of the cast is solid enough. There are few mistakes in gear and weapons (most notably weapons handling) but nothing so obvious that you can't watch the film. The watches will catch you off guard if your a fan of military movies and the bit with soldiers disobeying orders gets a little tired but it's nothing you can't look past.

The subject matter of the film might upset some, as might the gore and violence, but anyone watching a horror film should expect all of the above and quite possibly worse. If your looking for a comfortable little movie to snuggle up and watch with your lover, you might want to pick up the latest Jennifer Aniston fare and stop looking at horror movies.

It's hard to say much about the plot because the title of the movie is misleading and I believe that was intentional so I don't want to ruin the film for anyone. I will say the actual plot is a bit of a surprise and there's a sub-plot involving Cuba Gooding's character which, when resolved, will also be a surprise. It's worth noting that there are scenes where the soldiers who enter the facility are tempted. Some of those scenes could easily be seen as offensive and I think they have a lot to do with why some people really dislike this movie. In particular there's a lesbian scene which I'm sure put some people off who may have been expecting one of those "clean" religious based movies. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that type of movie, but this isn't one of them.

All in all this is a genuinely good movie and well worth watching if your not weak stomached and your not put off by religious themes or other touchy subjects. It's a great movie and it certainly doesn't deserve to be trashed because the story, acting and production values are all simply to good to ignore.

If you like movies along the lines of Prince Of Darkness (1987), End Of Day's (1999) or even Constantine (2005) then I think you'll get into this. If your looking for something like Left Behind (2000), your barking up the wrong tree.

Hannah Montana: The Movie (2009)

The quest to ruin this movie is...amusing at best.

[8/10 · 14 May 2009]

One can't help but notice the amount of people who are intentionally trying to bring the rating on this film here at IMDb down, not to mention the number of them who clearly never even watched the movie. This sort of trolling and rating fixing has become a serious problem on the site, most notably with the Dark Night/Godfather fiasco which led to the intentional reduction in the Godfather's rating by fans of the Dark Knight in order to raise it to number one. It's a shame really, but as with most things on the internet it's also unstoppable. Those with the time to waste and the willingness to waste it, will always prove themselves pathetic enough to ruin something others enjoy.

As for the Hannah Montana movie itself is actually enjoyable if taken for what it is. It's intended to be a light hearted family film and it fills that role well. Cyrus herself is a treat to watch as is the rest of the cast, the music is catchy yet innocent enough to fit with the theme and the scenery is fantastic. It's also worth noting some excellent camera work and direction as well.

If you enjoy stepping out of the norm, shutting out the negative and just relaxing with some innocent fun, check this out because you'll have a good time. If on the other hand your looking for serious drama or National Lampoon's type comedy, then I'd certainly recommend skipping this because it's just not for you. Even Nickelodeon tends to be raunchy when compared to Disney, especially when compared to something like Hannah Montana.

And now, I have THX 1138 loaded up and ready to go so it's back to the depressing, thought filled, stressed out life I normally lead.

Trip with the Teacher (1975)

A Nice Surprise

[8/10 · 5 May 2009]

When I picked this out to watch, I was expecting a cheesy Sexploi movie loaded with nudity and bad acting. Instead I was surprised with a rather intriguing film that grabbed my attention from the beginning and held it through out. It's not Oscar material or anything, like most low budget movies of it's time it suffers a little in some departments but this is a truly good film.

The acting overall is good, although Zalman King, Robert Gribbin and Robert Porter certainly steal the show. Zalman King in the character of Al is entirely believable as a psychopath and more so, he fits perfectly in the image of the insane drifter that these types of movies created. Even Jack Driscoll who looks cheesy as all get out, is entirely believable at his most critical moment in the film and Brenda Fogarty comes across perfectly as the prissy, controlling school teacher. The weakest acting in the movie is on the part of the school girls, but that shouldn't surprise anyone who watches seventies exploitation movies.

The film has excellent drama, it draws you in and keeps you watching. As the movie progressed I found myself understanding the emotions of Pete, sticking by his brother through thick and thin, wondering what Jay would do as the situation worsened and wondering if the bus driver would try to stand up when the time came. I had my suspicions as to how things would go and I was surprised time and time again. As the end of the movie neared, I honestly wondered if any of the girls would get out alive or if the "bad guys" would win.

It's worth noting that the version I saw was listed as "Uncut". What was cut in the theatrical release I'm not sure. In the uncut version there is surprisingly little nudity (although there is some), not a whole lot of foul language and no blood that I can recall. There are couple of wince worthy scenes and of course the rape scenes but nothing that I could imagine would be to bad to show in theaters.

One thing that really mystifies me is why this movie has such a low rating here at IMDb.

Sexploi and exploitation in general are usually niche genre's, that's no surprise. But can all the people who rated this movie so low really not see anything in it? Did they even watch it? It surprised the hell out of me to see this movie sitting at only two stars. It deserves so much better and I would recommend it to anyone who likes the genre.

Fuzz (1972)

Well acted, humorous and well worth watching.

[9/10 · 28 December 2005]

After reading several bad reviews of this film I was almost afraid to watch it. I hate wasting my time on bad movies, but I decided based on the cast to give it a go and I'm glad I did. The movie is not a fast paced comedy by any stretch of the imagination. It is instead, like many movies from it's time, a slow moving style of film along the lines of The Big Fix. It keeps your interest because the characters are interesting. It makes you laugh at times and actually has a little suspense mixed into a story that seems disjointed at first, but ties together so well in the end it makes the whole movie work.

The plot centers partially around a bombers scheme to blackmail the city of Boston, but more so around the police precinct he chooses to contact with his threats. We see a group of officers trying to get through their daily routine as they work on several cases at once. Focusing on the bomber but still trying to deal with a myriad of other problems that present themselves as they try to solve other crimes. It presents itself as more of a "day in the life" type movie rather than a film with one main focus. It's well acted, well told and is a good movie for those times when you really want to just relax and get into a story. Sure it has a few weak spots as with most movies but it is certainly worth putting on and I'm very glad I had the chance to see it.

In short, if your looking for Starskey & Hutch 2005, this isn't it. If your looking for a slow paced intelligent movie, don't let bad reviews chase you away and give this film a shot.