Change Your Image
captaincameron
Reviews
Prom Night (2008)
Rated B, for B*$ch don't waste your time
I try not to put spoilers in, but always check the box in case I slip up. The original Prom Night was a classic--early dead teenager movie that helped set the standard. And sure, this is not so much a remake as a re-imagining, so there can be some leeway. But 45 minutes in, you will find yourself strongly disliking Brittany Snow. By the hour point, Gandhi would be hitting her in the head with buckets of salt. You really, really start to root for the killer. And not just because of how irritating she is. Inept police, friends with no clue, boyfriend who feels so strongly about protecting his girlfriend that he decides to do so by sleeping. It is not the worst movie ever made. The music is good, and the cast is pretty. But if you are looking for a quality horror flick, you might as well rent one of the Herbie The Love Bug movies. Really.
Three (2005)
Rated W, for WTF did I just watch?
Billy Zane--good actor. Juan PabloDi Pace--I'd never seen him in anything before, but he seemed like a reasonable actor. Kelly Brook--always nice to see her talents on display. That, and her acting skills. But this is an incredibly disjointed piece of cinema. Love triangle? Sure. Survival epic? Sure. Weird changes to make it seem like an art film? Sure. And way too many of those. Get to the Billy Zane "leaf goggles" and tell me I am wrong. It's not bad. It's just not good. It's just--well, just something I can't put my finger on. This is not a movie that you are going to recommend to a friend. I am a person who loves to watch movies again and again, trying to get the best parts, the best lines, the best scenes, and so forth locked into my mind. But you only need one viewing of this to accomplish that. If it's on in the background while I am doing something else, I may not change the channel, but this is not something I will actively seek out again.
The Sand (2015)
Once in a while, a low budget horror film is a wondrous find!
Once in a while, a low budget horror film will surprise you. The dialogue is exceptional, the lead characters fully developed, and the story line solid. This is not such a film. I always click the "contains spoilers" but do try to avoid revealing them very often. That said, if you read the plot summary and look at the stills, you know a lot about the movie already. Scantily-clad women--and a few guys, including Dean Geyer who is a handsome enough guy but always looks like he took Nyquil an hour ago--are stuck on a beach fighting an unknown evil. One pretty girl gets topless, but the whole pretty thing and topless thing loses its appeal when losing the fight against the unknown evil. Why the topless girl could not have survived, at least for while, and instead one of the girls who retained her top could have lost the fight, I don't know. It would not have changed the plot, and while there remained plenty of cleavage, it still would not have been unpleasant. The dialogue is amazing. I think the phrase "Look at me" was probably uttered just over seven hundred times. Or at least thirty, and none of them with one of the pretty people meaning "Hey, I'm pretty. Look at me." You could turn this into a drinking game. What happens at the end? I can't tell you. Not that I won't tell you, as I don't want to give it away. I can't. Nobody can. I would be willing to bet that the writer(s) have no idea either. But it's not actually that bad. If you see it in the discount DVD bin, save your money, but it shows up for free, give it a watch. Eye candy. Unknown evil. Fat man in a trash can. Basically, this is the Citizen Kane of its time.
Time Lapse (2014)
Rated F, for freaking awesome
I always click the "there may be spoilers" button in case I let something slip, but unless the movie is godawful and I want to spare others the pain I went through with it, I try not to give spoilers. That said, quick summary: three friends find a camera that takes pictures of the next day and they use it to their gain, and then comes some of the problems associated with time travel types of things. Then to the review: Not a lot of money was spent on this film, nor was much needed. Small cast, few sets, and no special effects that could not be mimicked using items found in a grocery or hardware store. The story is well-paced, perhaps a little slow at points, but this is not an action film, so that's okay. Plot twists? Yes. Good characters? Yes. Good dialogue? Yes. Danielle Panabaker? Yes! This is not a great flick, but it is definitely worth watching, and even though, as time travel types of movies go, I know how everything turned out in the end, I will watch this movie again more than a few times.
Fear the Walking Dead (2015)
Rated D, for dull.
I'll still watch next week--I have faith. But had this show been a stand alone, and the original The Walking Dead series not existed, I would not have kept it on the same channel after the first 45 minutes. It's a different series, of course, and if they followed the same formula as The Walking Dead, that, too, I suppose would get boring. But it might have more than two or three walkers in it. I guess that's not fair--there might have been some other staggering, soulless flesh-eating ambulatory corpses, but this is set in Los Angeles, so that is par for the course. The actors were good. Well, they had the potential to be good. The script jumped around a little too much for any of them to say more than three lines at a time. But, as I say, I'll watch next week. The premise is good, and fairly unique in the zombie genre in that there aren't a slew of them around instantly. But seriously, it needs one or two every hour or so.
White House Down (2013)
Rated just above D, because it was not quite dreadful
But it was pretty close to dreadful. NOTE: I always try to click the box that says a review may contain spoilers, but I try to avoid using them. That said, I won't be using spoilers when I say that this was a terrible, contrived piece of junk. What's worse: it had a great cast. And this includes Jamie Foxx--I will never pay to see one of his films until he either renounces his religion or apologizes for describing President Obama as "our Lord and Savior." But there is about 30 minutes of boredom. Then things blow up. Then more boredom. Then things get loud. Then a compilation of scenes and characters from other action films. Then some boredom. And then--something might have happened that you would not expect! No, it didn't. Nothing happens in this movie that you don't expect. Actually, that is not true. There are a few laughs and a few twists and turns. I am going to say that during the entire two hour journey--and trust me, it seems longer--there are easily six or eight laughs, and four surprises. But the laughs are not big, nor are the surprises. I won't go so far as to say that if this comes on television in the background you should immediately turn it off, but I will certainly advise that you not actively seek it out.
Godzilla (2014)
You can't spell "godawful" without "Godzilla"
Okay, you don't go into a Godzilla movie expecting Shakespeare. But if Shakespeare were alive and had taken me to this movie, I would have slapped the crap out of him. I loved Godzilla movies as a kid. And I still do. That is, the 1950's-1970's Godzilla and the reattempts in the 80's and 90's. When 1998 rolled around, I was enthused about the new Godzilla movie. My wife was unfamiliar with Godzilla, so I was more enthused. Two hours later, we walked out of the theater--slightly deaf-- wondering what had happened.So I didn't even try Godzilla 2000. But this Godzilla. This had promise. Great cast, great CGI, an air of suspense. And that was all it had, promise. Cranston was in the movie about as long as Godzilla--maybe ten minutes. Wattanabe considerably longer, but they managed to reign in his acting skills. And Taylor-Johnson made Kristen Stewart look like Sarah Bernhardt. Avoid this movie like the plague, and when Godzilla 2 comes out-- don't even watch the trailer.
Germ (2013)
Worst zombie film since "What's Eating Gilbert Grape"
And, if you've seen Gilbert Grape, you might recall that as zombie films goes, it stinks. This one at least has zombies. Fast ones--like 28 Days Later zombies. Yes, technically they weren't zombies in that film, but technically this film is a piece of trash. Generic plot--satellite crashes to earth, some people turn into zombies and try to eat others. I didn't time it, but it seemed like about a month and a half before you actually see a zombie. Perhaps only half an hour or so. Characters flat. Well, a couple of bouncy ones but the $75 or so that each actress was overpaid was not enough for them to show flesh. Storyline flat. Zombies--fast, but nothing original. Violence--blurry. Lots of gunshots, lots of biting. Nothing unusual. But it's not the lack of originality that makes this film fail. It is this film's utter and complete failure as a film that makes it fail.
Dead Noon (2007)
Rated 1.5, for an hour and a half I'll never get back
Oh, dear God. I cannot come up with the words to describe how terrible this movie is, nor can I come up with strong enough words to encourage you to stay away from it. Acting-bad. Dialogue-bad. Effects-Really, really bad. I mean really bad. Story idea-perhaps the only saving grace of this crap-fest. I had this on in the background and am so thankful I was doing work or my eyes and ears might have bled. And it was on Fear Net. For those of you unfamiliar, Fear Net has a brief advertisement 30 minutes into each flick. And when I heard the familiar Fear Net commercial, I thought "That was the longest half hour of cinema history." Seriously, save yourself. I'm sure that I have seen some worse movies--and I am a fan of movies, even bad ones--but right now, I cannot think of any film worse than this. But I try to avoid spoilers (although I always click the button just in case)--don't wait for the 15 minutes of ending credits for the final five second useless freaking scene.
Camp Hell (2010)
Camp Hell If I Know Why This Movie Was Made
I always click the "spoiler" button in case something slips, but generally try to avoid letting those things out. Why spoil the surprise or fun or excitement of a movie for others, right? But in this case, as there is no surprise, fun, or excitement in this film, that's not a danger. Let me start off with the good parts. The acting in this film is very good. Granted, the "big names" (McCarthy, Delaney, Eisenberg) have very limited roles, but the relatively unknowns did well with what they had. And now, the spoilers: The first 15 minutes, nothing happens. Then, in the next 30 minutes, things really heat up, and nothing happens. Then you get about 15 minutes of nothing happening. Finally, the movie wraps up with nothing happening. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. Camp Hell is truly an unfortunate experience and I would save you the pain.
Divergent (2014)
Stunningly average
I always click "may contain spoilers" in case I slip, but I try not to offer any. And as i write this review, I should admit that I never got around to finishing the book, so I can't say how true the film was to it. But I can say how true the film was to, well, films in general, and that was this: average. The pacing was poorly assembled. How the world came to be the way that it was was never explained. Why Kate Winslett was in the movie was unfathomable. This may be a spoiler, so stop reading if you wish to avoid such, but when our heroine and others are being trained in hand-to-hand combat, they adopt some sort of weird "I'm hugging a skinny person to my chest" stance with their hands and keep their legs almost entirely straight. This is guaranteed to have them get the crap kicked out of them. But the good points: the characters were consistent all the way through. Good point, I guess that was. My advice: Wait for this one to hit the premium channels. More advice: While Divergent was the first in a trilogy, and Hollywood has a way of making a trilogy into four or five or seven movies, don't expect a sequel. This really was that sort of weak.
Veronica Mars (2014)
We waited ten years for this?
I'm a big V. Mars fan. I converted my wife. We've anticipated this movie and had high expectations. These expectations have now been dashed. I always click the "might contain spoilers" option but I actually try not to include them in reviews, and I will try to avoid them here. That being said, Rob Thomas owes us an apology. This movie could not have stood on its own--he had to assume that everyone knew who the main characters were. As for new characters, there was zero development. And as you can tell by looking at the cast, they brought back a good number of the regulars. For no apparent reason, mostly. Character X pops up, has a few lines, then is gone. Fortunately, there is a story line--a good mystery (go figure) and that part did not disappoint. But otherwise, it was not worth the wait. If there are video game fans reading this, the best analogy I can make is waiting ten years after Diablo 2 for Diablo 3 to come out, and then what a crap fest that was. If you want to complete your Veronica Mars collection, certainly buy this when it comes out on DVD, but save your money and don't bother going to the theater for this one.
Restraint (2008)
If Hitchcock were alive today...
Well, he'd be scratching at the lid of his coffin. But otherwise, he could have put together this film--it has a slightly faster pace than his films, but otherwise...simply amazing. I always click the "spoilers" button as I don't want to get blacklisted if I let something slip, but I try not to. The story is simple enough: criminal couple from the wrong side of the tracks wind up taking a wealthy hostage--then things happen. The three leads are extremely believable in their roles. The camera work and lighting/shadows deserve an award in and of themselves. The ending--a bit unexpected, but if you watch the movie through, there is really no other way to tie this movie together. Add to this that one of the leads was Teresa Palmer. As they said on The Big Bang Theory, everything is better with Bluetooth, the same is true for Teresa Palmer. Everything is better with Teresa Palmer. Except Warm Bodies. I love zombie films, good and bad, but even she couldn't save that train wreck.
Beowulf (1999)
Mind numbingly bad
I try not to include spoilers, but always check the "spoiler" box in case I slip up. While this might be considered a spoiler, the only thing that they didn't really %^&* up in this movie was giving Rhona Mitra a penis. And there may be a director's cut out there where they have done that. I like Christopher Lambert. He's hardly Olivier, but his movies are generally good quality B flicks. Nope, not this one. Basically we've died Connor McLeod's hair white and given him a seemingly unlimited number of hand-held crossbows and a few other weapons, including what appears to be a sword that throws the wheels from a 1970's Spirograph. And there was eye candy--Rhona Mitra, always gorgeous, bounced around in a push-up bra and shoulder-less shirt quite often, and Grendel's mother was smoking hot. But Lambert and the ladies could not save this. The supporting acting is awful. The castle that has no electricity but somehow has a speaker system is confusing. The soundtrack could have gone the techno route or could have gone the sixth century sword and sorcery movie route. Instead, they tried to do both. It's not the worst movie out there, and if it is one and I am too drunk to figure out how to use the remote control, I'll watch it again, but I can't really recommend it too highly.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006)
Why the hate?
(I always click "may contain spoilers" but try to avoid actual listing them) It took me a while to get to this movie, but some people are bashing it, and I don't quite know why. Mandy Lane is played by Amber Heard. Heard is not the Meryl Streep of our time by any means, but she is awesome to look at. To paraphrase The Big Bang Theory's comment about Bluetooth, every movie is better with Amber Heard. Teens in an isolated place--drinking, doing drugs, having sex or at least trying to--what could possibly go wrong? Well, a lot of things, but if you're looking for Shakespeare, don't watch something that appears to be a dead teenager flick. The acting is not bad. As a bonus, Mandy Lane has one of the side characters from the Twilight series. You can't sling a dead cat without hitting one of those kids in a not-so-stellar flick.
Fading of the Cries (2008)
Rated K, for Kill Me Now
I always click the "contains spoilers" box, although I always try to avoid actually listing spoilers. But there are no spoilers for this movie. It is spoiled, rotten, and freaking awful. The first stab I took at it only lasted about 20 minutes. I had to stop because my eyes were so tired and bored that they kept trying to reach back and choke my brain. But I'm a movie fan--and a fan of bad movies. So I persevered, and went through the entire film the next time. I would like to save you that pain. Lighting, acting, action--crap. Zombies--wildly inconsistent. There can be the walking dead or the running dead or the MMA dead, but pick a zombie plague and be done with it. My advice: Given the option between watching this movie and voluntarily becoming a member of the zombie horde, you can best serve humanity by choosing the latter.
Aftershock (2012)
Bad. Tremendously bad.
And I like bad movies. (And I always click the "spoilers" box in case I spill something, but I always try to avoid spilling anything) I'm a fan of horror but not so much of simple splatter/gore, so thought that Eli Roth in an acting role might be interesting. But I still expected some splatter/gore, and there was some. About five minutes of it. Character development? Some sort of bonding? A villain who we hate but still can understand? Nope. The only good parts of this are in the first half hour, and these parts involve attractive, scantily clad women, and the writer's attempts at witty conversation between the men. Otherwise, absolute and utter crap. I feel like sending my electric company a little extra with my next bill to apologize for possibly taking away resources that someone else could have used to watch Ishtar or Bubba Ho-Tep or another awful film. Both of those--far, far better than Aftershock.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Tremendous
I always click the "contains spoiler" box in case I slip up, but I try not to include spoilers. Catching Fire was extremely well done, and it held largely true to the book as well. Jennifer Lawrence rocked (not unusual) and the other leads were also good. I had my doubts about Woody Harrelson being cast as Haymitch, but now I can't see anyone but him playing the role. Jena Malone, although given brief screen time, was awesome. The cinematography was better in this than in the first. This wouldn't quite make it as a stand alone movie--it does not explain how or why the games started and how Katniss and Peeta came to be in their position, but who cares? It's a sequel. The first book as good; the first movie was good. The second book was good (my wife says it was better); the second movie was better. And here be the only semi-spoiler: the third book sucked rocks, so I don't have a lot of hope for the third and fourth movies.
Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013)
Doomed
I'll admit that I never was a Marvel comic-reading kid when I was growing up (or now), so it might be that I am missing certain important themes. And that same disclaimer would hold true for The Avengers. But neither the Avengers film nor episode one of Agents of SHIELD would encourage me to become a fan of Marvel or watch more of the series. And Joss Wheedon typically rocks. But Agents and The Avengers have one thing in common: the introduction of characters in different situations, almost zero interaction between these characters, and then effective a group hug towards the end. It's beautiful to watch, but if they don't try to wrap the characters together into some sort of realistic (as realistic as you can get with superheroes), this is not gong to make it past Halloween.
House at the End of the Street (2012)
What an unbelievable disappointment
There are four good things in this movie: Jennifer Lawrence in a tank top and Elizabeth Shue in a tank top. Barring that, this movie was truly, truly bad. In part I can blame the marketing--they made it seem like a supernatural horror story; instead, it was a failed attempt at a thriller. Rather than creating a new character, they pretty much let Jennifer Lawrence stay in the role of Katniss from The Hunger Games, but with her hair blonde instead. But she did okay, given what she had to work with; so did Max Theriot. Other characters in the movie didn't have to worry about wooden dialogue because we never really saw them more than a couple of times. Every attempt at a plot twist was easily anticipated, including the attempt at a shocker ending. Save yourself time and pain and skip the flick--and if you are watching it for the four good things that I mention, those are few and far between as well.
Rottweiler (2004)
Ouch.
Oh, my God. While I am a fan of all films, good and bad, one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. If a pair of stoned film students with a fluffy cat made a "Benji Saves The Universe," it would be of Oscar quality as compared to this. Acting-bad. Special effects-bad. Storyline-convoluted. And bad. The storyline is actually the best part (here is where a semi-spoiler is) that it jumps back and forth, making you think that perhaps it's an art film, or has flashbacks, or has elements of An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bride. But that was just optimism on my part--hoping against hope that there would be something--ANYTHING--redeeming about this. But there is not. My apologies to the fine people who clearly put in some effort and spent at least three days writing, casting, filming, and editing this horrendous piece of crap. If I could list a score of less than 1, I would. If you find yourself somehow forced to watch this, you may consider by drinking drain cleaner a better and more enjoyable alternative.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Rated C, for crap
I'll start with the obvious--as anyone can tell from the commercials, there is a cabin in the woods, some teens go there, stuff happens, but it seems that there are people controlling what sort of stuff happens. And that part is good--it is an original twist. But from there, the much awaited premier was a poorly acted, poorly lit festival of boredom and clichés. I hoped that towards the end, something might change, and it did--there was an interesting twist for close to 15 seconds before it, too, became boring and predictable. Don't waste your time with this one. And I say this as a big fan of Joss Whedon's other work. But if I had been in the theater with him while watching this, I would have taken my DVD of Firefly and beat him to death with it.
Skyfall (2012)
Great spy/action film, lousy Bond film
I always click the "may contain spoilers" option in case I let something slip, but I try not to do so. Skyfall was a great action flick. Well put together, extremely well-filmed. The director was a little too crazy about using lots and lots of glass for my taste, but that's okay. But it was not a good Bond film. There was a tremendous lack of gadgets from Q. There were no great Bond-style lines. The Bond chicks were very few and far between, and their roles in the movie were minimal at best. There were a number of familiar themes taken from other movies, but I'd rather not list them here. And certain aspects of the storyline just kind of got dropped off for no apparent reason. Change the name "James Bond" and any other names (or letters, like M, Q, MI-6) that associate Skyfall with the Bond franchise, and the flick is pretty solid. As a Bond film, though--bleah.
Taken 2 (2012)
Watch the first one many times and enjoy, because the sequel is terrible
I was enthused about Taken 2. The first Taken was an awesome flick on so many levels—sure, if you want to see Shakespearian acting a dialogue, Taken (the first) was not for you. But if you want to see action, dialogue, believable characters, and some gritty but realistic (mostly) violence, Taken (the first) was awesome. If you want to see action, dialog, some believable characters, and some gritty but realistic (mostly) violence, then go back and watch the first Taken movie. You will not find much of any of these in Taken 2. To be fair, Taken 2 is not the worst movie that I have seen in the theaters this year. That honor goes to Dark Shadows, which is, I believe, the new standard for disappointment in a film that had great actors, great directors, and great promise. But wow, Taken 2 came close to being as bad. I always indicate "May be spoilers" in my reviews on IMDb in case I let something slip, but I try not to let many details out, because regardless of how good or bad the film was, I believe that the people involved deserve respect for their efforts, and I am willing to admit that I may be wrong in my reviews, so I don't want to ruin any surprise. Fortunately, with Taken 2, the above warning is not all that necessary. It is an ACTION film. In theory. After about the first half hour, things eventually started moving at more than the glacial pace the movie started with, and that began with Liam Neeson (OMG!) knocking on someone's door. Taken 2 was—once you get past the first half hour or so—wildly predictable. A few (and very few) Luc Besson-style fight scenes and one really long car chase. There was one twist where Winnie The Pooh looked down through a hole in the roof and said "It puts the honey in the basket or it gets the hose again," and that was kind of scary. But wait, that didn't happen. That must have been when I nodded off and dreamed that a child's cartoon combined with a book/movie written more than 20 years ago had more entertainment and action value than Taken 2. The key to a great movie is to have a great opening sequence to bring people in, a middle sequence with a great story with great characters, dialog, action, romance, etc., and a great ending—often with a twist involving the characters, dialog, action, romance, etc. The key to a good movie is to have two—or even one and quarter—of these attributes. Taken 2 had, well, none. Opening sequence—boring. Middle sequence—poorly put together. Ending—weak, weak, weak. I could add another weak and that would almost make for a month that you should avoid wasting your time or money on Taken 2. Please take my advice—it is better to get the hose again from Pooh than to sit through this film.
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Rated K, for Kill Me Now
Holy, batcrap. I grew up reading the Bourne novels, and watched the tragedy that was Richard Chamberlain and Jaclyn Smith. The first two Matt Damon Bourne flicks were very good; the third sort of declined. And then we got to this thing. I was enthused about it, even though it was a departure from the Bourne-concept itself. And I'm not sure who Jeremy Renner's agent is these days, and while I find him to be a very good actor, but you can't sling a dead cat right now without hitting a movie that he is in. And he tried, I think, to make the best out of whatever poorly functioning script writer put this one together. The same goes true for Rachel Weisz, who is normally a quality actress and is beautiful to boot. Her job in this movie was basically to cry and have her cheek quiver. I always list my reviews as containing spoilers, in case I give too much info out, but I really try to avoid such. But let me say this: The first 30 minutes of the movie could have been compressed into about 3 minutes. The same is true for a 10 minute series of nothing but swiping security badges at doors. Truly, 10 minutes of walk, swipe, walk, walk, swipe, walk, swipe--oh crap, swiped it wrong--swipe again, walk, walk, swipe. And then there is a motorcycle chase at the end of the film. This would be a good time to get up, go to the restroom, and come back, because you will miss nothing exceptional here for 10 minutes or so. A few good stunts, and some very good fight scenes. If they had launched a Bourne-themed hour long TV show (and let's hope they don't do this), they could have compressed this movie into the pilot by eliminating all of the crap and I still would not watch the second episode.