It seemed to be written by a 10 year old and filmed by high school kids. The following were simply ghastly: Acting, directing, plot (A and B stories), dialog, logic of any kind, and special effects. This movie should have a "F" rating for FAIL on every level. Please don't waste your time like I did. Go find something much better. Cheers!
Reviews
32 Reviews
Becky
(II) (2020)
Awesome little B thriller!
6 June 2020
I loved this movie! It wasn't meant to be an A list mega release. It is just a fun, fast paced, sometimes bloody, B thriller that will have you on the edge of your seat.
I very much liked Kevin James as the heavy. He played this role so good. And Lulu Wilson as the protagonist couldn't have been cast better. In fact, all the actors did a great job and were very believable.
So, the downside is that the writers should have made all the action/story a little more believable. With just a little more thought this could have been a cult classic (Think: Last House On The Left). But instead it comes off as a pretty childish writing job.
Still, if your looking for something fun this summer in a sea of mediocrity then try this little B thriller. You'll be glad you did.
Alien Outbreak
(2020)
Great low budget sci-fi horror!
5 March 2020
What is with all the low scores? I loved this film! You have to see it with the proper genre in mind though. It is a low budget sci-fi horror with some good twist and turns. It sort of reminded me of the 70's horrors but the CGI was pretty compelling in my opinion (considering the budget it was awesome).
The aliens came across as downright creepy and weird, the actors did a good job with what they were given, and the directing and photography was at least good. Yes, there was "some" shaky cam, which I have always detested since The Blair Witch project. But most of the scenes where shot steady.
If your looking for another big budget hollywould film with big names, lots of catch-phrases and witty comebacks, some liberal propaganda, and unlimited CGI from Industrial Light and Magic...then yea, this ain't it. But if you are a fan of the "B" movies and enjoy a good story, good acting, some really freaky aliens, good CGI, all with a few twist and turns then you really need to see this.
So, all you "B" movie aficionados grab some popcorn, some root beer, and pop-in the disk. You won't be disappointed. I highly recommend!
Portals
(2019)
Potential for so much more
26 October 2019
The concept had potential but the implementation failed miserably. It was told as a series of stories which led to a disjointed and confusing anticlimactic end. I doubt the writers had much more than a 5th grade education and certainly never had a class in writing drama. And, who read this script and thought,"Yes, that sounds good!"? Just wow!
The actors were OK, the cinematography was decent, even the background music was passable. But the story just didn't have enough legs to go anywhere. It was obvious the writers had no real concept at all and so the individual stories never became cohesive.
The whole thing kind of came off as an indy-art-house picture with no real substance. Don't waste your time.
Jeruzalem
(2015)
Fun low budget horror. Break out the popcorn!
26 January 2016
Yes, it contains shaky-cam. Yes, there are some dark scenes. Yes, I too would have liked some more special effects and scary moments (Like some effects from the Exorcist or the like.) But overall it was a fun movie. The special effects were good enough and the acting was good. The story was interesting, it moved at a good pace, and all the scenes fit the story well. To me that makes this low-budget horror first rate.
The direction was OK but I hated the confused-camera shots during some of the action scenes. At first I thought it was simply to cover the lack of budget. But it really did impart the confusion of a fight and also helped a little with plot twists. But still, I think they could have shown more with a little effort. I will still follow the directors with interest!
The movie is shot first-person style (like a First-Person-Shooter game). This was great in some scenes and a little disconcerting in others. Overall it worked well and the explanation was geeky enough to believe.
Overall, I gave it 7/10 which is pretty high praise. But you have to take into consideration the genre as well. It may not win any awards, but it is a perfect late night popcorn movie!
The direction was OK but I hated the confused-camera shots during some of the action scenes. At first I thought it was simply to cover the lack of budget. But it really did impart the confusion of a fight and also helped a little with plot twists. But still, I think they could have shown more with a little effort. I will still follow the directors with interest!
The movie is shot first-person style (like a First-Person-Shooter game). This was great in some scenes and a little disconcerting in others. Overall it worked well and the explanation was geeky enough to believe.
Overall, I gave it 7/10 which is pretty high praise. But you have to take into consideration the genre as well. It may not win any awards, but it is a perfect late night popcorn movie!
True Skin
(2012)
Awesome short! We need feature length!
10 November 2013
I just watched this for about the 10th time. It is really cutting edge. The graphics and special effects were great, the story was fun and entertaining, and the actors/narrator was spot on! Great job!
This really needs to be a feature length film. It would be such a relief from the stale Hollywood reboots/remakes and mediocre fair we keep getting pummeled with. If they remake Carrie one more time I think I will scream! And whats with the Star Trek reboot?...just let it die for God's sake!
We really need a new-age visionary to step up and make movies for those of us who aren't brain dead yet. I love the idea of brain-uploading and interchangeable parts. This is the new science fiction. This is what writers, producers, and directors should be working on. I hope we see more of this kind of science fiction soon!
This really needs to be a feature length film. It would be such a relief from the stale Hollywood reboots/remakes and mediocre fair we keep getting pummeled with. If they remake Carrie one more time I think I will scream! And whats with the Star Trek reboot?...just let it die for God's sake!
We really need a new-age visionary to step up and make movies for those of us who aren't brain dead yet. I love the idea of brain-uploading and interchangeable parts. This is the new science fiction. This is what writers, producers, and directors should be working on. I hope we see more of this kind of science fiction soon!
Moon
(2009)
Indy Scifi for Adults...You Will Enjoy It !
9 July 2009
I love an Indy Scifi that tries so hard to be believable. In a time of big budget bombs aimed at 12 year old's it is refreshing to see something aimed at the adults.
The special effects were great for a low budget movie. This movie had the look and feel of a real moon base with just about everything you would expect. It looked better and was more realistic than many modern space movies.
The script and the acting were great. I would have added a few lines of dialog to make things more clear but overall it was well done. I think the characters should have been a little more sleuth like in their endeavors and their questions, but perhaps that's just me. Given the short time frame to "take it all in" perhaps I wouldn't have done much better.
The pace of the movie was pretty good, but did have a few slow spots. I know this was just to expand on the characters but I think it could have been sped up a bit and a little more action or sleuthing thrown in.
Truly, it should have been a PG-13, not R rated. I guess it is OK to see people get blown to smithereens or vaporized but not to say the F word. The language wasn't even that bad in this movie. The R rating is a little silly here and shows that you can't trust the rating system at all. And as long as it was going to be R, the director should have gone all out and made it even more adult.
Originality could be seen as a bit troublesome here. You could say this movie borrowed from many Scifi movies (Replicates in Bladerunner, HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey). But the story here is different and has a more claustrophobic feel to it. I applaud their use of ideas from other scripts. If it works then why not? My only gripe is they didn't expand on the character GERTY to show that it wasn't HAL in disguise.
Overall, I have to give this movie a 8/10. Perhaps it isn't perfect but it was well worth the time and money. I am going to have to watch the Indy house near me for other cool Scifi movies. This one wasn't advertised at all and I almost missed it. Do go and see it!
The special effects were great for a low budget movie. This movie had the look and feel of a real moon base with just about everything you would expect. It looked better and was more realistic than many modern space movies.
The script and the acting were great. I would have added a few lines of dialog to make things more clear but overall it was well done. I think the characters should have been a little more sleuth like in their endeavors and their questions, but perhaps that's just me. Given the short time frame to "take it all in" perhaps I wouldn't have done much better.
The pace of the movie was pretty good, but did have a few slow spots. I know this was just to expand on the characters but I think it could have been sped up a bit and a little more action or sleuthing thrown in.
Truly, it should have been a PG-13, not R rated. I guess it is OK to see people get blown to smithereens or vaporized but not to say the F word. The language wasn't even that bad in this movie. The R rating is a little silly here and shows that you can't trust the rating system at all. And as long as it was going to be R, the director should have gone all out and made it even more adult.
Originality could be seen as a bit troublesome here. You could say this movie borrowed from many Scifi movies (Replicates in Bladerunner, HAL in 2001 Space Odyssey). But the story here is different and has a more claustrophobic feel to it. I applaud their use of ideas from other scripts. If it works then why not? My only gripe is they didn't expand on the character GERTY to show that it wasn't HAL in disguise.
Overall, I have to give this movie a 8/10. Perhaps it isn't perfect but it was well worth the time and money. I am going to have to watch the Indy house near me for other cool Scifi movies. This one wasn't advertised at all and I almost missed it. Do go and see it!
The X-Files: I Can't Believe It Either
18 December 2008
This would have made a good two part episode of the TV show but it has little to offer a theater audience. It is basically a creepy two hour X-file with no UFO's, few special effects, and nothing new to say. I mean really, how many times can we watch Mulder blindly follow while Scully reexamines her faith. I got sick of that about the hundredth time they did that in the series.
The plot wasn't very original, the characters had nothing new to say, and the chills and spills were few. At best it was a low-grade B horror that would have been better received in the 90's, not 2008.
I can't believe they wasted the effort here.
The plot wasn't very original, the characters had nothing new to say, and the chills and spills were few. At best it was a low-grade B horror that would have been better received in the 90's, not 2008.
I can't believe they wasted the effort here.
Blindness
(2008)
You'll Go Blind If You Watch This!!!
9 November 2008
The Bad: Some of the dialog, characters, and situations are laughable. The camera work gets tedious quickly with all the blurred white outs. The Japanese couple always speaking in Japanese so that you have to read subscripts gets tedious also. Much of this film leads nowhere and is just unnecessary. I suppose it was inserted to give atmosphere, but it failed miserably. All the close-up shots and weird camera work was just annoying.
The Good: Julianne Moore is a great actress and carries this film. The underlying theme is interesting. It did portray the chaos of outbreak realistically.
Overall: I give this one a 5 out of 10 and that is being very generous. I mainly like the theme. Watch for it on late night cable but don't waste money on video rentals.
The Good: Julianne Moore is a great actress and carries this film. The underlying theme is interesting. It did portray the chaos of outbreak realistically.
Overall: I give this one a 5 out of 10 and that is being very generous. I mainly like the theme. Watch for it on late night cable but don't waste money on video rentals.
Shocked, Offended, Grossed Out...And It Was Hilarious!
27 July 2008
This was my first Troma film and the most outrageous thing I've ever seen. It is not for the faint of heart or straight laced ignoramuses. This is gonzo cinema all the way. It contains lots of blood, slime, low ball humor, nudity, singing, more blood, more slime, some more blood, and even more disgusting low ball humor. This movie gets really really disgusting and silly in case you haven't guessed. So, get some friends together, grab some brews, and laugh till you drop. The talented and beautiful Kate Graham does some fine acting as well as the lead Jason Yachanin. The movie couldn't have been cast better. The plot may be a little silly but it works well for this genre (comedy horror exploitation.) A must see!
The Quatermass Xperiment
(1955)
Dated British Science Fiction Flick
27 July 2008
This was pretty cutting edge for the time in which it was made but it comes across as just a typical 50's Scifi today. Lots of talk, conjecture, cops chasing the monster, and a grand finally in which we get to see the monster. It is pretty standard fair with just a little film-noir thrown in. It doesn't make much of a horror compared to todays standards and the science was a little scarce. Without all the scary music it would really look a little silly. A much better American movie called Forbidden Planet came out a year later, and in color, which would set the bar much higher. However, if you want to see an old black and white flick and see how they were done "back in the day" then give this movie a gander. I really think it is just too dated and simplistic for todays audiences.
Copperhead
(2008 TV Movie)
A Poisonous Two Hours!
26 July 2008
In an attempt to meld together a western and a horror they have instead created a boring, childish, bit of fluff. The acting, camera work, and visuals are alright. The actors did a good job with what little they had to work with. But, nothing could fix the childish script. It amazes me that someone at a studio read this script and then gave permission to create this movie! What were they thinking? The script is slow, boring, contains way too much talk and too little action. I doubt this movie could keep the interest of even a ten year old more than a few minutes. It doesn't completely fail as a B or C western. But the addition of the snakes gives the movie a real schizophrenic character. If your looking for some thrills then click the channel and keep searching. You won't find what your looking for here.
I Am Legend
(2007)
This Movie Won't Be A Legend...
25 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Based very loosely on on the novel "I am Legend" by Richard Matheson, this movie falls short when compared to its predecessors: "Last Man On Earth" with Vincent Price and "Omega Man" with Charlton Heston. It doesn't adhere to the original story like "Last Man On Earth" and it doesn't have the flow or original feel like "Omega Man".
Never mind that the original story had the victims turning into vampires instead of the PG-13 version of Dawn Of The Dead like zombies. Never mind that there were so many flash backs in this wreck that it just got boring. What bothers me the most is the title. The meaning of the original novel title was that the main character had become the monster, the evil, a killer of vampires and thus a "Legend" to them.
Independence Day, I Robot, and I Am Legend all come across as Hollywood cookie cutter flicks. They throw in a big name, a cool title, and release it during the holidays to make big money. The poor quality of the writing is evidently not a issue with them. You can have good production values, great actors and actresses, and the best ad campaign in the world but that won't make it a good or memorable movie. It's just another piece of fluff.
Well, I give Will Smith a "E" for effort. But, I have to give the movie a 3 out of 10.
Never mind that the original story had the victims turning into vampires instead of the PG-13 version of Dawn Of The Dead like zombies. Never mind that there were so many flash backs in this wreck that it just got boring. What bothers me the most is the title. The meaning of the original novel title was that the main character had become the monster, the evil, a killer of vampires and thus a "Legend" to them.
Independence Day, I Robot, and I Am Legend all come across as Hollywood cookie cutter flicks. They throw in a big name, a cool title, and release it during the holidays to make big money. The poor quality of the writing is evidently not a issue with them. You can have good production values, great actors and actresses, and the best ad campaign in the world but that won't make it a good or memorable movie. It's just another piece of fluff.
Well, I give Will Smith a "E" for effort. But, I have to give the movie a 3 out of 10.
Last Train to Freo
(2006)
Drama/Thriller Builds to a Crescendo
16 April 2007
I wasn't sure what to expect and originally watched this movie because I like just about anything with Gigi Edgley in it. I wasn't disappointed at all. This movie starts out in what seems a slow and sluggish way but the eventual twists and turns make it all worthwhile. It was an excellent character study piece. It really isn't a movie for the younger crowd because of the adult situations. But then, I guess compared to HollyWould movies this is rather tame. It is just that the acting and situations build to a crescendo towards the end and present the subject matter in a very visceral way. It will have you on the edge of your seat towards the end. The casting couldn't have been better, the acting was great, and the direction was excellent. It is a drama/thriller extraordinaire.
The Hitcher
(2007)
Well Done Thriller, but Nothing New...
20 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a remake of the classic 1986 movie, The Hitcher. Although this new version is very good, it doesn't really add anything new to the original. It has me wondering why they remade it at all? I expected some new twists and turns but it is basically the exact same movie. I guess they figured the name alone would get people into the theaters.
The casting was great with Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton as the protagonists battling the villain. And Sean Bean does a fantastic job playing the creepy psychotic killer. Neal McDonough plays well as the cocky police officer who is tracking the carnage. But just like the B-Movie original, none of the characters are ever really developed. The actors just weren't given enough to work with here. So it is just another action movie where we never get to know the players well. I give casting an A+ but character development a D-.
And just like the first movie, we are never told why the bad guy is so evil. It never explains why he is killing everyone or why he wants someone to kill him. So, no plot development either. If your looking for a well-made brainless action thriller with a little gore than this is the movie to see. You will probably like it more if you haven't seen the first version because it is so similar as to not be worth watching both.
I still give this movie an 8/10 because it makes a pretty good action thriller, even if it is a little mindless. I was expecting more though.
The casting was great with Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton as the protagonists battling the villain. And Sean Bean does a fantastic job playing the creepy psychotic killer. Neal McDonough plays well as the cocky police officer who is tracking the carnage. But just like the B-Movie original, none of the characters are ever really developed. The actors just weren't given enough to work with here. So it is just another action movie where we never get to know the players well. I give casting an A+ but character development a D-.
And just like the first movie, we are never told why the bad guy is so evil. It never explains why he is killing everyone or why he wants someone to kill him. So, no plot development either. If your looking for a well-made brainless action thriller with a little gore than this is the movie to see. You will probably like it more if you haven't seen the first version because it is so similar as to not be worth watching both.
I still give this movie an 8/10 because it makes a pretty good action thriller, even if it is a little mindless. I was expecting more though.
Children of Men
(2006)
Another Fluffy Doom and Gloom Anti-Authority Flick. Very Bad!
14 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Just got done watching this, and glad I didn't pay for it. Kind of a waste of 2 hours. I really don't see what the big deal is. It is just your standard anti-authority flick with a bunch of 60/70's music thrown in which really doesn't match the year 2027, considering todays music. It was as if an old hippie was given a camera and told, "Go make a futuristic movie in which women can't have children. Oh, and add some old hippie music also!" There also is nothing very futuristic about the future, not even modern. Evidently no one has cell phones, pocket TV's, GPS, or anything else we all carry around with us today. They run around in very old cars with a little extra fiberglass for body style, and none of their weapons even have laser sights. My house is more futuristic than this movie! This movie just seems to ramble on and on going nowhere. It might have made a good 15 minute short film, but not 2 hours. It didn't have anything new to say and certainly doesn't make you think. In fact, I thought it was a rather brain-dead conglomeration of anti-establishment nonsense. This movie is a lot like the old hippie movement itself. It exalts anti-authority rhetoric but then gives no viable alternative at all. In the end it just amounts to a bunch of really stupid and childish people carrying signs saying "Hooray for our side", flash with no substance. Which is what this movie is. And the movie doesn't even do it well. Rather than watch this trash go and see something better like: Gattaca, Blade Runner, Silent Running, or Logans Run. At least they had something to say.
The Black Dahlia
(2006)
Has NOTHING to do with the true Black Dahlia story!
15 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie could have been called absolutely anything. It shouldn't, however, have been called "The Black Dahlia." If your going to base a story on real events then there should be at least some similarities to the truth! This movie had no connection to any real events at all (The real life victim never made a film of any kind, porn or otherwise.) And, the fiction story that was presented was not all that enthralling. It is often said that truth is stranger than fiction, which is certainly true in this case. A story based on the real story of the Black Dahlia could have made an excellent movie. But they chose to create a total fiction with no basis in fact at all. I felt ripped off by this Black Dahlia impostor!
The Wicker Man
(2006)
Cinch for a Golden Raspberry Award. Most awful movie of 2006!
2 September 2006
This is absolutely the worst movie in 2006. How Nicolas Cage got talked into this is a mystery. It's not like he needed the money. And, it will only hurt his next offer. He must have owed someone big. Wow!
The original 1973 version is a wonderful B movie, a sort of film-noir horror/mystery. So I was excited to hear about this new version. I wondered what kind of twists and turns they might throw in. But, it was such a let-down. It was obvious from the start where this train-wreck was going. I even saw people walk out about 5 minutes before the end. I guess they figured they had seen enough. I was thinking the same thing about 30 minutes before that but I was with some people so I just sat and bared it.
The acting was passable. The plot wasn't bad. The special effects were even OK. But the dialog was so stupid it was funny. The script was so obvious as to be mind numbing. And the flashbacks were just confusing and not needed. My God! What is happening to Hollywood? They keep churning out these crappy remakes without a thought in the world about quality.
If you like the idea for this movie then go rent the 1973 version, you won't be disappointed. But this remake should be removed from the theaters and burned, perhaps with some kind of ritual to keep them from making a sequel! You know it's coming!
The original 1973 version is a wonderful B movie, a sort of film-noir horror/mystery. So I was excited to hear about this new version. I wondered what kind of twists and turns they might throw in. But, it was such a let-down. It was obvious from the start where this train-wreck was going. I even saw people walk out about 5 minutes before the end. I guess they figured they had seen enough. I was thinking the same thing about 30 minutes before that but I was with some people so I just sat and bared it.
The acting was passable. The plot wasn't bad. The special effects were even OK. But the dialog was so stupid it was funny. The script was so obvious as to be mind numbing. And the flashbacks were just confusing and not needed. My God! What is happening to Hollywood? They keep churning out these crappy remakes without a thought in the world about quality.
If you like the idea for this movie then go rent the 1973 version, you won't be disappointed. But this remake should be removed from the theaters and burned, perhaps with some kind of ritual to keep them from making a sequel! You know it's coming!
Million Dollar Baby
(2004)
Very good movie about an aspiring woman boxer.
11 August 2005
This movie is really two movies in one. The first half is about an aspiring woman boxer and the problems she must overcome to get where she wants to go, and also about her trainer and how he gets involved with her. But the second half of this movie is the real drama, about how people affect each other's lives and how they find meaning by taking that one shot and how they face adversity. I would have given this movie a perfect ten but I was really in the mood for something a little more uplifting, instead of deep. Still, the acting couldn't have been better, the plot was interesting, the cinematography was good, the direction was excellent. Go see it!
Saw
(2004)
Saw is sharp, cutting edge, horror!
5 November 2004
This is one of the best horror movies in the last few years. It had more of a plot, better acting, and more twist and turns than other films in this genre. It wasn't nearly as gross as I'd thought it would be (Did they cut some stuff out for American audiences? If so why? I would have preferred it to be Unrated and a little more gory.)
Leigh Whannell (Adam), and Cary Elwes (Dr. Lawrence Gordon) did an excellent job in the lead roles as two men trapped by a serial killer. Danny Glover (Detective David Tapp) also gave a fine performance. I have heard some say the acting was a little over the top. I didn't see that at all. The actors made you believe they were ordinary people facing very extreme situations. I thought the acting was dead-on.
The plot and the script were pretty good also. Every moment your learning something new about the characters, their situation, and the plot. In fact, there is almost no dead-time. Everything is building to a horrific crescendo which fills in all the gaps and makes you shiver. I actually heard several groups of people, leaving the theater afterward, say they thought it was an excellent movie and I have to agree.
So, is it a classic? I'm not going to go that far. But if you like the horror genre than your going to love this movie! I give it 9/10. See saw!
Leigh Whannell (Adam), and Cary Elwes (Dr. Lawrence Gordon) did an excellent job in the lead roles as two men trapped by a serial killer. Danny Glover (Detective David Tapp) also gave a fine performance. I have heard some say the acting was a little over the top. I didn't see that at all. The actors made you believe they were ordinary people facing very extreme situations. I thought the acting was dead-on.
The plot and the script were pretty good also. Every moment your learning something new about the characters, their situation, and the plot. In fact, there is almost no dead-time. Everything is building to a horrific crescendo which fills in all the gaps and makes you shiver. I actually heard several groups of people, leaving the theater afterward, say they thought it was an excellent movie and I have to agree.
So, is it a classic? I'm not going to go that far. But if you like the horror genre than your going to love this movie! I give it 9/10. See saw!
Moontrap
(1988)
One of the best B movies!
29 October 2004
This isn't a classic by any means. But it is fun to watch! It has a very good SciFi premise, the acting is good, and the cinematography is good. I really thought the special effects were outstanding for a small budget flick. The dialog suffers a little/lot here and there but is passable. While the movie itself doesn't make the "A List" there are two or three scenes that are kind of classic and make the whole thing worthwhile. If you like the B flicks then this one is a must! I would love to see a big budget remake. Grab some popcorn and load it up, you'll be glad you did!
The Grudge
(2004)
So bad it is funny!
24 October 2004
Even Sarah Michelle Gellar couldn't make this pig fly. Director Takashi Shimizu does a remake of his own bad Japanese film and produces an American version that is just as bad. Perhaps the Japanese are more easily entertained.
I like Sarah Michelle Gellar (aka Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as an actress very much, but her choice in movie scripts is getting pretty poor. Even Buffy couldn't make this film any better no matter how well she acted. Bill Pullman, Clea DuVall, and the beautiful KaDee Strickland are also good actors but the script just gives them nothing to work with. I certainly can't fault casting or the acting here. It is just a terrible, somewhat juvenile, script and all the star power in the world couldn't have fixed that.
The direction and cinematography wasn't bad. The camera was always in focus, the segues were nicely done, and everything seemed to be in frame when it was supposed to be. However, the special effects weren't scary at all. In fact, they were a little silly. The only thing that will have you jumping out of your seat is the loud sounds whenever an event of some kind takes place. It is just more annoying than anything else.
What made this movie so bad was the stupid premise and even dumber script. It is truly the "Dumb and Dumber" of horror movies. The premise is that when a person dies in a rage that the place where they died is then haunted. If that were true then one out of every twenty homes in America would be unlivable. It is just a silly and untenable premise. I also couldn't believe some of the ignorant things the characters did and said in this movie. It was so bad it was funny! People in the theater were actually laughing.
Perhaps this is what happens when we outsource our horror movies to Japan. I'll take a good old copy of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" over these foreign films any day. Seriously, foreign writers and directors are just too mild and timid for American tastes. They are going to have to do a heck of a lot more then yell "Boo" to scare us! I hope this trash isn't an omen for the rest of the October movie season. Where is George A. Romero, Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter when you need them!
Rating: 3/10. Don't waste your time or money. Too bad, I had such great hopes.
I like Sarah Michelle Gellar (aka Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as an actress very much, but her choice in movie scripts is getting pretty poor. Even Buffy couldn't make this film any better no matter how well she acted. Bill Pullman, Clea DuVall, and the beautiful KaDee Strickland are also good actors but the script just gives them nothing to work with. I certainly can't fault casting or the acting here. It is just a terrible, somewhat juvenile, script and all the star power in the world couldn't have fixed that.
The direction and cinematography wasn't bad. The camera was always in focus, the segues were nicely done, and everything seemed to be in frame when it was supposed to be. However, the special effects weren't scary at all. In fact, they were a little silly. The only thing that will have you jumping out of your seat is the loud sounds whenever an event of some kind takes place. It is just more annoying than anything else.
What made this movie so bad was the stupid premise and even dumber script. It is truly the "Dumb and Dumber" of horror movies. The premise is that when a person dies in a rage that the place where they died is then haunted. If that were true then one out of every twenty homes in America would be unlivable. It is just a silly and untenable premise. I also couldn't believe some of the ignorant things the characters did and said in this movie. It was so bad it was funny! People in the theater were actually laughing.
Perhaps this is what happens when we outsource our horror movies to Japan. I'll take a good old copy of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" over these foreign films any day. Seriously, foreign writers and directors are just too mild and timid for American tastes. They are going to have to do a heck of a lot more then yell "Boo" to scare us! I hope this trash isn't an omen for the rest of the October movie season. Where is George A. Romero, Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, and John Carpenter when you need them!
Rating: 3/10. Don't waste your time or money. Too bad, I had such great hopes.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!?
(2004)
What do we know? That this movie has lots of flaws!
15 October 2004
A bit of fluff that explains very little about quantum physics with just a dash of physiology. I believe I could have done a much better job with only a digital vidcam and a couple of helpers.
The special effects were alright, but nothing spectacular. I could have done about the same with some expensive software on my home computer. I mean, this kind of stuff is so easy to do these days that it isn't a reason to go see a film anymore.
I did like some of the film, especially the wedding scenes. The actors were good enough but they just didn't have a proper script to go by. I almost didn't care at all for the science part of this film and just wanted to see more of the actors and their little drama roles. It could have been turned into a nice little fiction piece. But they mucked it up with science that didn't really tie into anything. I really hope Marlee Matlin and Elaine Hendrix appear in something a little more theatrical in the future. They both have talent which was wasted here.
This film is basically a half-hearted attempt at saying because of quantum physics we all control our own destiny through thought which creates our own reality. It's really the worst kind of propaganda because it confuses science with religion/philosophy using sophistry (Plausible but fallacious argumentation.) If you want to know about quantum physics then read "Schroedinger's Kittens And The search For Reality" by John Gribbon which is a sequel to "Schroedinger's Cat". Those two books are easy to understand while getting to the heart of the matter (No pun intended).
At best I rate this film a 2/10. It is mildly amusing. You aren't going to learn much and your life won't be changed by it. If it is a hot day or raining and you just need to spend some time indoors then a theater with this showing might provide a good diversion. Enough said.
The special effects were alright, but nothing spectacular. I could have done about the same with some expensive software on my home computer. I mean, this kind of stuff is so easy to do these days that it isn't a reason to go see a film anymore.
I did like some of the film, especially the wedding scenes. The actors were good enough but they just didn't have a proper script to go by. I almost didn't care at all for the science part of this film and just wanted to see more of the actors and their little drama roles. It could have been turned into a nice little fiction piece. But they mucked it up with science that didn't really tie into anything. I really hope Marlee Matlin and Elaine Hendrix appear in something a little more theatrical in the future. They both have talent which was wasted here.
This film is basically a half-hearted attempt at saying because of quantum physics we all control our own destiny through thought which creates our own reality. It's really the worst kind of propaganda because it confuses science with religion/philosophy using sophistry (Plausible but fallacious argumentation.) If you want to know about quantum physics then read "Schroedinger's Kittens And The search For Reality" by John Gribbon which is a sequel to "Schroedinger's Cat". Those two books are easy to understand while getting to the heart of the matter (No pun intended).
At best I rate this film a 2/10. It is mildly amusing. You aren't going to learn much and your life won't be changed by it. If it is a hot day or raining and you just need to spend some time indoors then a theater with this showing might provide a good diversion. Enough said.
Primer
(2004)
Fun scifi romp done on a budget!
8 October 2004
No spoilers. I just saw this and thought it was great. It beats Hollywood films because it portrays science in a believable way. The acting was also good and very believable. Shane Carruth did a fine job as writer, director, and actor. I give it an A+.
Film Quality: The lighting and focus weren't always perfect but neither are most big budget films. I loved that you could at least hear everything they were saying in this film unlike most big Hollywood flicks where they ruin it with orchestra music and background noise (I have no idea what Tom Cruise said at the end of Collateral and I doubt anyone else does either.) Primer does an excellent job with film quality, especially considering their small budget. I found this film very watchable.
Story and Plot Quality: The story and plot are also good, but it does get a little convoluted by the end so I was somewhat lost when I left the theater. I think I understood all but the last 15 minutes. Personally, I think the director purposely made the end hard to follow so people might go see it again. I think a simple 2 minute narrative would have filled in all the gaps. A few segues (transition scenes) also could have been a little clearer. I find that I'm still figuring things out many hours later. Perhaps it was bad editing, but more likely a directors trick to make you think and possibly see it again. I would have done a few things different with editing, which is my biggest gripe here.
Who should see it: It isn't really a movie for the family. Take an enlightened friend or perhaps a date if that person has an open mind. The first half of the movie is there just to give background and make you believe that they could build such a machine. Children and old people aren't going to like this one because it doesn't have a lot of whiz-bang type stuff in it (No eye candy for the mentally challenged or immature.) Special effects are scarce, but really aren't needed in this intellectual thriller.
Rating: I rated this movie 10/10, but I was considering it's genre also. A budget scifi with lots of intellectual intrigue. If your looking for childish, comical, Hollywood whiz-bang type crap then go rent "Back To The Future" instead. I think Primer will sort out the men from the boys here!
Film Quality: The lighting and focus weren't always perfect but neither are most big budget films. I loved that you could at least hear everything they were saying in this film unlike most big Hollywood flicks where they ruin it with orchestra music and background noise (I have no idea what Tom Cruise said at the end of Collateral and I doubt anyone else does either.) Primer does an excellent job with film quality, especially considering their small budget. I found this film very watchable.
Story and Plot Quality: The story and plot are also good, but it does get a little convoluted by the end so I was somewhat lost when I left the theater. I think I understood all but the last 15 minutes. Personally, I think the director purposely made the end hard to follow so people might go see it again. I think a simple 2 minute narrative would have filled in all the gaps. A few segues (transition scenes) also could have been a little clearer. I find that I'm still figuring things out many hours later. Perhaps it was bad editing, but more likely a directors trick to make you think and possibly see it again. I would have done a few things different with editing, which is my biggest gripe here.
Who should see it: It isn't really a movie for the family. Take an enlightened friend or perhaps a date if that person has an open mind. The first half of the movie is there just to give background and make you believe that they could build such a machine. Children and old people aren't going to like this one because it doesn't have a lot of whiz-bang type stuff in it (No eye candy for the mentally challenged or immature.) Special effects are scarce, but really aren't needed in this intellectual thriller.
Rating: I rated this movie 10/10, but I was considering it's genre also. A budget scifi with lots of intellectual intrigue. If your looking for childish, comical, Hollywood whiz-bang type crap then go rent "Back To The Future" instead. I think Primer will sort out the men from the boys here!
Ladder 49
(2004)
An excellent drama depicting the life of a firefighter!
1 October 2004
This movie is definitely Oscar material. The plot and storyline were very believable, the acting was superb, and the casting couldn't have been done better. This is the best movie of the year so far!
The plot and storyline were excellent and very believable. Even the dialog was realistic enough so that you felt you were there. I like movies like this because the protagonist isn't saying witty things every five minutes or performing stunts that no one could survive. This movie is a realistic rendition of what a firefighters life is like in a large city such as Baltimore.
The casting was great. They couldn't have done better than Joaquin Phoenix as Jack Morrison, the main character. He fits the role perfectly as a humble blue collar worker who just wants to do something good with his life and what better than become a firefighter, the rush of fighting fires and saving lives tempered by the loss of friends and colleagues. Jacinda Barrett stared as his wife and did a fantastic job. We will see her in many films to come! And of course, John Travolta is pretty good in just about everything he does and this movie is no exception. Here he plays the station commander.
If you see just one movie this year go see this one! If it doesn't make you laugh, cry, and feel part of story then your just brain dead! This is an excellent flick. Go see it! 10 stars!
The plot and storyline were excellent and very believable. Even the dialog was realistic enough so that you felt you were there. I like movies like this because the protagonist isn't saying witty things every five minutes or performing stunts that no one could survive. This movie is a realistic rendition of what a firefighters life is like in a large city such as Baltimore.
The casting was great. They couldn't have done better than Joaquin Phoenix as Jack Morrison, the main character. He fits the role perfectly as a humble blue collar worker who just wants to do something good with his life and what better than become a firefighter, the rush of fighting fires and saving lives tempered by the loss of friends and colleagues. Jacinda Barrett stared as his wife and did a fantastic job. We will see her in many films to come! And of course, John Travolta is pretty good in just about everything he does and this movie is no exception. Here he plays the station commander.
If you see just one movie this year go see this one! If it doesn't make you laugh, cry, and feel part of story then your just brain dead! This is an excellent flick. Go see it! 10 stars!
Tell Your Friends