Scavengers (2013) User Reviews

Lacklustre

[webmaster-2173 · 3/10 · 22 March 2013]

Avoid, not even good enough for a wet Sunday afternoon. Script is clichéd as is a lot of the dialogue.

CGI is terrible with everything looking plastic. The lead bad guy says everything in this slow, low rough voice like he's trying to be Judge Dredd but just comes across as a moron. The bit part actors seem to have just been hired straight from some community acting society and are extremely wooden and monotonous.

As fox_wabvyi said in their review all the bad guys have really cheesy nicknames that exactly describe their character and skill set. At least I hope they are meant to be nicknames.

disappointing

[fox_wabvyi · 3/10 · 22 March 2013]

So the movie is called "Space Soldiers", so you know what you can expect from the movie. Some sort of Space Battle with the focus on special effects. While watching the moving you will notice the movie is more based on dialogs and let me tell you those are BAD.

First thing to notice are the names. A weapon expert "Overkill", a good looking mercenary "Breathtaker", another "Mercenary girl" and they are fighting over a "Chaos Generator". My first impression was "awful", but then i notice its way easier to keep track of the names during the dialogs, if someone talks about someone called "Data Ocean" you know exactly who is meant. A nice trick but it doesn't make the movie any better. Too many clichés and flat dialogs which are not very well thought.

I can not recommend the movie, even with low expectations the movie is disappointing.

In space no one can here your snore...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 28 April 2013]

"Scavengers" was quite a boring Sci-Fi movie, which usually tend to be the overall impression of these fairly low-budget Sci-Fi movies. This particular genre of movies need spectacular CGI effects and impressive technology, so it doesn't really help it that the movie suffers from a lack of interesting storyline or the ability to actually captivate the audience.

The storyline in "Scavengers" was so uneventful and uninteresting that it was bordering on being capable of putting people to sleep. During a salvage and scavenge operation the crew of a spaceship comes across a 'chaos generator'.

Well, I am sure that the storyline had potential somewhere, somehow, but it just never come into being and it never really got up in pace and speed. It just trotted forward at a dull, slow pace, lulling the audience into a slow, but sure, slumber.

Effects-wise, well then "Scavengers" was adequate. The CGI worked to show what it was supposed to do, but it wasn't anything breathtaking or spectacular, nor was it anything that leaves you in awe. There was a single scene in the entire movie that impressed me, and it was a gory one at that, where a crew member touched the 'chaos generator' and was instantly exploded.

As for the cast in the movie, well it was fairly unfamiliar and less than famous people. Aside from Jeremy London and Sean Patrick Flanery, then I think I knew no one there. And people did adequate enough work with their roles, though it wasn't anything spectacular at any point throughout the movie.

"Scavengers" is really not worth the time or effort to sit through, as it takes forever to actually tell nothing. If you enjoy Sci-Fi movies, then there are far better choices available.

Just awful

[alexgermany-199-304201 · 1/10 · 23 March 2013]

I'll make it short: This movie is nothing but awful. For my entertainment I would have been happy if this movie had just been a lower average science fiction flick since I have seen lots of movies of this genre and my expectations are rather low, but as a matter of fact this movie was plain boring, cheaply looking and a disappointment in every way. Looking at the visual effects was like a flashback into 1994 when I had fun watching the cut-scenes of "Wing Commander 3" (PC Game)... too bad for the movie it is 2013 already. This movie has a sticker on the box which states "Sci-Fi-Horror in style of Event Horizon" - This movie is another proof for the evidence that stickers like these are ALWAYS a warning notice!

Worse that the previous worse reviews would indicate

[nwsts · 1/10 · 2 April 2013]

I give 1's to very few films...maybe a total of 3 out of a couple of thousand films watched. This movie is well deserving of a 1 and possibly worse. I'm not sure what I could subtract from the already appalling reviews that have accurately described this movie. But let me also warn you that the actors slurred their words (especially the chief villain) and the audio engineering was also horrible. Be forewarned that the sets, costumes, cinematography and special effects were all equally horrible. Finally, let me say the sequencing of the plot (storytelling) was well below amateurish. I watched diligently the first half of the movie (about 45 minutes) and then started fast forwarding through sections, hoping something worthwhile would present itself....to no avail. To the reviewer here who watched it twice looking for something good, you have my respect as a true devotee...and my condolences.

This stinks worse than a Casu Marzu cheese (Google it)

[aelthric · 1/10 · 23 March 2013]

I think first I have to mention how sad I am to see how low Sean Patrick Flanery has fallen since his inspired performance in "The Boondock Saints", to see him hamming it up as some cartoonish psychotic commander bad guy with a speech impediment that meant that he came over as nothing more menacing than a moron was truly horrifying and painful to watch.

The dialogue in this is stupid at best, certainly annoying and insulting to the intelligence of any who watch this waste of time. At times the dialogue was so ridiculous and forced that it only provokes a jaw drop at the idea that someone pitched this stupid script to a film maker and they actually made the film instead of throwing the script in the bin where it belonged.

The special effects could have been knocked up by any school kid with a computer, the sets were clearly "green screen" sets with poor quality computer modelling and rendering and the hard sets were clearly made by amateur props makers using such items as recognisable wireless computer keyboards glued to a surface and then spray painted to look like a console (They were doing that for such low budget TV programs as "Red Dwarf" which were infinitely more entertaining than this).

WARNING : Cheese Factor - Casu Marzu

minus 10

[rikard-643-159761 · 1/10 · 26 March 2013]

Possibly one of the worst movies ever made, seriously, acting is ridiculously bad, manuscript feels like it being made up while filming, Sean Patrick Flanery has an extreeeeeemly annoying way of wrinkle his nose (like a rabbit) throughout the whole movie, possibly trying to look angry, but more looks, yeah like a rabbit. The CGI is made on somebody's iPad I think. Films like this should not be made. I rather watch Dinoshark... Don't waste your time here guys, I actually created an account here on IMDb just to tell you this. It is a waste of time. A whole heap of funding that could have gone for something good. Nothing else....

Dreadful

[chrisst4 · 1/10 · 23 March 2013]

Where do we start...

The CGI was poor (bits looked like they were done on a ZX81), and in some sections of the movie the lighting was all wrong - highlighting the fact that the background was superimposed.

The acting was bad, really bad - no one was believable - but I guess a special mention really needs to be made regarding the "script" which was even worse (did someone get paid for this?). Some of the lines were just ridiculous and seemed at times to be trying to be funny (especially the "baddies" - Captain Jekel and sidekick BreathTaker).

The sound effects were, to say the least, interesting: I would never have thought to have machine gun noises for spacecraft fire.

All in all this is a howler and not worth the 90 minutes you will never recover.

OMG!! worst movie EVER

[jonnybischof · 1/10 · 22 March 2013]

Whoever compared this movie to "Event Horizon" is a real idiot... This has NOTHING good about it. Absolutely NOTHING. The special effects look like one of the 80s movies, if not worse. Had they made the whole movie with little model ships like the old starwars movies, it would have looked 1000 times better. The story could have had potential, but they don't exploit it. At all... The action is awful. Just like the classic star trek series. The dialogs are IDIOTIC. One ship's commander talks like Shakespeare (just worse) which is really stupid because they're all in the future and all the others talk normal. They tried to throw in some technical stuff - baaaaaaaaaaaadly executed. The sound is something cut together from some old videogames (probably stuff that's old enough for nobody to care about the stolen material anymore)

While writing this I just watched a scene where the commander girl (or something) just all of a sudden pulls a gun to her colleague who almost died and acts like she really wants to kill him. Then they make out. That's just so stupid.

The next scene some guy dies (actually in a pretty funny way) and the doctor girl who turned out to be in love with him just stands there, not showing any reaction at all.

Then the drama goes on... Brainless dialogues, not a single character that's even remotely believable.

Aaah you know what? I'll just stop writing any more and more importantly stop wasting my time with this BRAIN AMPUTATED MOVIE -.-

(hope there's not too much bad language here - it's my first review here :) )

I was hoodwinked!

[dhdregun · 1/10 · 24 March 2013]

Lets face it, in the genre of Sci-Fi the chances of seeing a well made flick is far and few between. Yet I was immediately stoked to see the description of the movie and the subsequent (at the time) 6.3 rating pretty much giving me a Sci-Fi chub!

Gah!! After the first 4 minutes I knew I was in trouble (and 2 of those was actually a nice title sequence) so yes; within 2 minutes of the movie actually starting you can tell it's awful.

The only spoiler I'm going to give I hardly count as a spoiler...nothing to spoil!

So this woman is made up to be some real bad ass, so much so that they keep asking her why she's even taking a gun with her. So a scene unfolds where she's in some kind of bar and is suddenly surrounded by about 10-12 guys. Scene cuts to a different arch in the story and when it comes back all the guys are on the ground. Literally; what am I supposed to infer happened? You could replace the woman with a quadriplegic with dwarfism and film the scene the same way....both give you the same impression.

Just like the epic fight scene I was expecting to happen the movie failed to deliver on any premise of being an enjoyable film. I think the entire cast and crew originally rated the movie..only way after so many reviews it hasn't hit 1 or lower yet!

**Update**

After reading some newer reviews I thought maybe I watched the wrong movie. How else could it explain the extreme polarization between my personal review and a few others. So I tried to watch this disaster one more time thinking my expectations where just too high.

I was hoodwinked again!

I never ragged on the visual effects because I knew it was low budget. I never ragged on the acting because it was low budget. The worst thing about the movie is the directing and script. I blame the director for everything that is wrong with this film. He allowed substandard acting and visual effects from what I'm assuming are competent people. The scenes that fell flat on their face (which there are tons) was under his control. This is the only movie I have written a review for and I've seen some really bad movies in my time. I could not let others get hoodwinked like I did.

I'm sorry if cast/crew/family members are doing their best to drum up some kind of support for this movie on here..honestly I am. I cannot rate this movie any lower and I wish I could give it a 0!

If you really want to hate yourself for wasting over an hour of your time, by all means watch this movie. No other movie has ever made me angry for watching it, NONE! This horrendous flick could cause wars or plenty other unseemly acts of violence towards other people.

Just watched "Space Soldiers" aka "Scavengers "

[frostywinterz · 9/10 · 31 March 2013]

Probably one of the 'TOP TEN' best low-budget sci-fi films I've seen in the last couple of years. Yes, some of the actors were bad, but some of them did a decent job. The dialog wasn't great, but the story was excellent and actually quite interesting. I enjoyed the graphic novel feel of the digital effects, costumes and sets. I am not sure what was going on with the one scene of nudity..... unnecessary. For being a low budget film i was impressed. Not many low budget films can be pulled off like this. This movie kept me very entertained throughout....the beginning is a little slow but it picks up. Score and Sound Effects are pretty decent as well.

Overall, I think Scavengers is a film worth watching....

It has one or two good moments.

[rushknight · 7/10 · 26 March 2013]

I actually had a good time watching this movie. For me, that is a huge piece of criteria in judging a film. Acting, setting, special effects and production value aside, if I enjoy the film I give it some slack.

Overall it's a poor film. The computer generated space flight scenes are very poor (there's even a scene near the beginning where the background "stops" during flight). The character development is ham-fisted at best, and the acting is overkill. They are attempting to be dramatic, but fail to carry the viewer into the illusion. I felt as though I was supposed to care, but didn't understand why I should. That's a huge negative, because in a low budget film like this the writing needs to carry the show when the setting and special effects can't.

I think the setting is my favorite part. It's ridiculously two-sided. For example: The "good guy ship" is well lit, clean, has a good warm atmosphere, is filled with hot blonds and handsome young men who are affectionate and humorous with each other, and a captain who is like the gentle father figure of the family.

The "bad guy ship" is dark and brooding, messy, with dark haired ladies and gruff mercenary men that like to kill people, and a captain who is not only cruel and violent but CLEARLY (and enjoyably) insane. Almost every word he says ranges from ridiculously over-dramatic to completely nonsensical. I loved it. While his acting was atrocious and the writing was horribly overdone, you could see that he was doing his best to get into it, and having a good time. Oh, and the ship has a "crew" of masked men (who I suspect were all played by the same guy) that is utterly expendable and easy to kill and never voices a complaint; an important accessory for any evil space pirate.

Also, the music is worth noting here. While not an amazing soundtrack, it does a very good job of setting the tone that the director was aiming for. It is very atmospheric and pulls you in nicely. That, and the few moments of humor that are inserted are enough to turn a potential disaster into a moderately enjoyable experience.

Good or bad, I can honestly say that I wasn't bored watching it.

Absolute rubbish

[DrTeeth007 · 1/10 · 25 March 2013]

I have seen some awful films in my time, but this one MUST be the worst. I LOVE sci-fi and have watched some tosh ion the hope of finding some redeeming features at the end - this crud has none.

First, the 'acting'. There was none at all. Some attractive actresses where one can assume how they got their roles. The growth one finds at the bottom of an unwashed coffee mug has more acting ability then anyone in this film.

Second, the 'special effects' make films from the 1940s look advanced. The space craft looked like 2D transfers.

Third, the script. I could do better than this blind drunk. The whole plot could be written on one side of a beer mat.

I wasted 90 minutes of my life so you don't have to. No matter how much you enjoy sci-fi, avoid this. Sesame Street has more going for it.

Scavengers assemble (fka Beautiful people in Space)

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 1 April 2013]

Still not exactly a soap. Not much better than one though. The German title "Space Soldiers" also promises something that sound more like an action movie than it is. But that is not the problem with Scavengers at hand here. The problem is, that while it's cute (and "dark"), it fails to impress on the jokes side. It tries hard to be funny and the actors are probably not as bad as they seem in this movie.

Unfortunately the timing is off and S.P. Flanery might try to outdo Steven Seagal with his performance here (alright it's not that bad. But still worse than anything else I've seen him do and I know he can act). Other than that you shouldn't be too fixed on the production values (because there are none), especially the cheap looking ... everything in it. Still they try their best to hide those things with fog/smoke inside a space ship(?). Yep it's that bad. If you still have a heart of Gold and can't be mad at the somewhat likable characters and some funny ideas (Twelve/Thirteen), you might like this more than you should. Until the end after end comes along ... maybe

Pretty poor, but not the worst.

[richard-cullen971 · 3/10 · 11 November 2015]

I may have been feeling generous towards this film, having just watched something that is far, far worse - but this is a film that had potential. Sadly little of that potential was realised.

The main characters were so cliché that they'd have appeared as such in a 1930s Flash Gordon episode. Sadly the film tried to take itself seriously, and the result was dire. There were some attempts at decent acting from the supporting cast, but these were never allowed to develop or evolve in any way.

The visual effects were not so bad as to be distracting, but were never going to set the world on fire. Quality scripting and directing were needed to make this film work - and they were sadly lacking.

The ending makes it appear as though a follow-up was intended. Maybe this was a pitch pilot for a series? If it is, then better writing and directing could turn the concept into something very good. In fact, it would be great to imagine someone else re-making this film properly, as the idea of a salvage crew working against a properly realised background of a universe at war would be a fantastic film to watch.

Ignore the bad reviews! This is so much worse than 1 star can suggest!

[lightningslim · 1/10 · 27 August 2013]

Make a note everybody, a 1* review on IMDb = "Awful." For this movie a new level of stars is required, I suggest - 1 minus star for every bad thing about the movie...

-* Script -Unintelligible, yet trying so hard to be profound, at least that is my guess at what this mess is trying to be.

-* Acting - Hard to tell if there was any really except for the "Star" who was giving a tour de force display of "Overacting, and how to look really really stupid, while sounding really really intoxicated."

-* Directing - Well, I suppose someone was telling them what to do, but it's very hard to be sure on the evidence presented.

-* Visual effects - Yes there were some, but none worthy of positive mention

-* Sound effects - Someone mentioned already "Machine guns in space!" But let me also mention hearing far off explosions in a vacuum!

-* Physics - I suppose with all the other drivel, I shouldn't expect much, but spaceships exhibiting ballistic motion? Yes, a lot of other "Sci-fi" movies don't get it right either, but that's no excuse!

I'm sure the was more to moan about, but frankly I could only stomach 29.03 minutes of this junk. Also minus 6 stars is enough to get the message across.

PS. Any positive reviews must be by those who were involved in this monster of a movie, or possibly those on strong medication... Hmm probably both!

Very Not Good.

[baker-jenn-75 · 1/10 · 30 March 2013]

You know a movie is bad when you wish Nicholas Cage was in it!

The Good: My favourite part was when Breathtaker and Jekel kiss through the shower glass! Also "Twelve" aka "Thirteen" is eye-candy...even if he is the recurring red-shirt. I also give props to the writer for adding in "I'm not dead yet" in what I will consider a tribute to Monty Python. And if it sounds as though I'm grasping for straws, it's because I am.

The Bad: Everything else. Weak plot, poorly written dialogue, bad sets, worse cgi. The "twist" at the end was disappointing.

I hope to never hear the words "protocol" and "scavenger" again.

I don't usually say this but just avoid.

[Jester222 · 1/10 · 30 June 2020]

Totally boring film. I'll be giving the blu ray to a charity shop tomorrow or just put in bin. Zero suspense. Dodgy cheap effects. Script is pathetic with so much bad dialogue. Hardly any action. And when it does arrive it has no tension at all. Terrible over the top camp acting especially from the main villain. He is terrible. Its beyond cringe.

That's all I'm gonna say..........spent too much time than it's worth already.

Utter waste of money, if money was actually spent on it.

[snapey7925 · 1/10 · 18 January 2014]

I'm a fond watcher of sci-fi movies both from the highs of Hollywood and from the underworld where B movies are made, neither prepared me for what I just watched. The film was apparently made in 2013, i'm convinced this was actually found in some dusty decrepit cellar in a tin dating back to the early 1960's and since nobody knows the actors anyway they got away with it.

It beggars belief how a director and for that matter a production company actually put money into this so it could be made and even released.

To explain my disgust onto the world about how bad it is isn't easy but let me say that the continuity alone before I get onto the 'acting' was so bad that within the first few minutes I knew I was watching something that I had to report on, for instance the cgi, oh dear oh dear oh dear, lets just say it was so bad that even a cgi ship cast a cgi shadow onto a cgi space background, is that bad enough for you?....no, then how about the visors vanishing randomly into the green screen or the background suddenly stopping when a spacecraft flies past.

There are probably more bumbling errors but I only watched the first 40 minutes before switching it off so if you dare go watch it and find out for yourself. Oh and when someone gets blown up the people around that get covered in his blood and guts don't tend to just stay stood there and not give a damn, and the blood wouldn't just stay where it initially landed, it tends to run.......except in this film where it literally dries on the spot.

Now onto the acting, there isn't any end of, everyone on it seems to have been dragged in off the streets, doesn't want to be there and then decides to put on stupid voices to sound futuristic and that's the actors dealt with.

Now the sets of in internals of the ships, I get the idea of scavenging and that's why the parts are a mish mash of everything, but in the future why are there 1970's televisions propped up on their sides, there must be 100 random keyboards used on the sets simply painted the same colour as what they're attached to and i'm sure I saw bits of lego used also, even the sets of 1970's doctor who and Blake 7 were better than what was used in this film.

Right that's it, my rant is over, I bet it's taken me longer to write this than it took the script writer to write the dialogue for this film, OK OK rant finally over. Seriously guys 'n' gals just don't watch it for the sake of your sanity, there are much better films out there that we're made on a budget like this one and are actually good.

Poor quality...

[rogers_jeffrey · 2/10 · 13 August 2020]

...of special effects, very amateurish, and weak acting, especially Ms Lindon, destroy a somewhat original concept...not worth the time invested in watching.

Scavengers achieves what it was made for, might have to Scavenge for accailmed success

[travisjhendricks · 8/10 · 27 March 2013]

a somewhat typical setting for a sci-fi flick; future/space-ships/local space bar/club.

the plot takes off from the first minutes in the film.

they are in space and come across an enemy. details emerge from here to about 2/3rds onto who wants what, why they want it.

there are battles, character development, and some nice surprise quirks throughout the movie.

one grand finale, with a bit of a twist, brings you to the close.

SO if I were writing review hoping Scavengers would break new ground, compete on a playing field with George Lucas in one corner and James Cameron in another, I would be furiously typing about the lack of 3-d, in movie ad placement, and high dollar cg.

THANKfully that is not the basis of my review and score. this is a film made to be a casual, in home experience. there is enough indi element to keep the movie fresh and personal compared to the Hollywood Juggernaut type cg based film. also there is enough true Hollywood experience and craftsmanship to make this film beautiful to watch and believable (with a small amount of imagination).

Not as Bad as Most Say

[infernal-eternal · 6/10 · 1 October 2014]

This is a fairly low-budget sci-fi movie with nothing original to show, and it's not trying to be funny (which could potentially make it more entertaining), so there's only so much you can expect. 7/10 would be the maximum a movie of this kind could get.

With that in mind, it's actually not too bad in general. There's just one problem.

If you take all the characteristics of badly written villains from the 80s and put them together, you get Captain Jekel. His lines are retarded and ridiculous, and so is his behaviour. That, combined with crappy acting, makes this character a disaster and would be bad even for a toilet cleaner, never mind somebody who's supposed to be a captain of a space ship. Every second of the movie that this character is on screen is extremely annoying. If a person like that was really a captain, his ship would never even take off.

That said, the rest of the movie is pretty decent. Acting for the other ship's crew is fine. Jekyl's crew's acting is mediocre, but not terrible. The CGI isn't great (looks more like from a game than a movie), but low-budget is low-budget. I'm not one of the people who watch movies for special effects, so I don't mind this at all, but if you're one of those, you'll probably complain. The plot's not original or anything, but I've seen worse.

It's not a great movie, but it's not terrible either. Just try to get distracted with something else whenever you see Captain Jekel.

Don't Blame the Actors

[ladybug2535 · 5/10 · 29 May 2014]

An uneven if entertainingly bad film, hurt considerably by it's obviously low budget as well as outdated CGI (I can't believe this film was done in 2013! Did they run out of money?) that look half-finished and ignore basic physics. Continuity and script problems undermine what could have been an interesting story. The music is notable and the most successful part of the film. Most of the acting is actually fine with a few exceptionally good moments--and some bad ones. "Indeed" the actors are undermined by bad dialog and directing--but they get the blame. Exceptionally awful is the lead "bad guy" (Sean Patrick Flanery!) who plays it way over the top (and what's with the southern drawl?) However, it is likely his character was (unnecessarily) deliberately drawn that way given the blatantly obvious dichotomy between good and evil throughout the movie, and given that he is usually a half-way decent actor. Overall I was more bothered by some of the off the wall "sciency" stuff spouted by the characters that wouldn't make sense in any universe. The scriptwriter obviously didn't bother with the most basic background research--"Indeed", an absolute sin for a serious science fiction film. Does the writer know what a clone IS? Why wouldn't a clone use his real name? And given the attributes of the clone character--why wouldn't EVERYONE have clones? This was a potentially interesting (and humorous) plot point (that might have saved the film!) introduced then ignored. I'd like to point out (since several reviewers have brought up this specific scene) that given who he was, the crew had reason not to react to his misadventure(s) as they might otherwise have done with someone else--this was true to the logic of the story and not bad acting. "Indeed", though there are a LOT of problems with this film, I was entertained--especially with the unexpected payoff at the end.

Worst film ever?

[m-bok72 · 1/10 · 26 May 2013]

This film was the worst I ever watched (and I kept on watching it because of this). I never write reviews but in this case I made an exemption. At the end I thought I watched a film that was produced around 1960. The dialog's were terrible. The switch between scenes was very confusing. The special effects were very simple and totally not realistic. There was a lot of blood (too much). I don't understand what the filmmakers were thinking. They could could not have been serious in making this film and what about the actors? What serious actor would play in such a movie. I think that every beginning filmmaker should be forced to see this film. This would certainly enhance their self perception.

Utterly wretched

[TheLittleSongbird · 1/10 · 16 May 2013]

The idea for the movie did seem decent enough if not exactly original, and I was willing to forgive any shortcomings providing that it looked that effort was made. Unfortunately Scavengers or Space Soldiers didn't seem to show much if any effort. The best thing about it is the music, which was fitting and had a sense of dread but once the movie was over I couldn't remember any of it at all. So if that was it for a redeeming value, that doesn't say very much now, does it? Scavengers/Space Soldiers is made cheaply to the extent that it was a real eyesore to look at, with choppy editing, too darkly-lit and green-screen like sets and special effects that looked like they were made out of the least expensive plastic they could find. The writing sounds incredibly forced and inane, the worst of it even intelligence-insulting, I agree that the villains' cheesy nick-names are indication enough of how bad the writing is here. The story is plodding and predictable with nothing suspenseful, thrilling or fun. If any kind of heart went into making Scavengers/Space Soldiers I for one certainly didn't see it. The direction at best is amateurish, while the acting is just terrible. The actors do have truly bad dialogue and cardboard characters to work from, but I don't see that as much of an excuse to act miserable throughout. Sean Patrick Flanery over-compensates so badly that it was really embarrassing to watch him, if an actor who has shown before that he can be good can be bad as well that is also an indication of the quality of the acting. All in all, utterly wretched in almost every way possible excepting the music, considering even that asset wasn't that great either that is faint praise. I personally don't think it's the worst movie ever made or the worst I've ever seen, but it is one of the worst I've come across in a long time and probably the worst movie of 2013 I've seen so far. 1/10 Bethany Cox