I'm only thirty minutes in, and just watched Ke Huy Quan beat down six security guards with a fanny pack full of rocks. This fight scene is better choreographed and presented than ANYTHING in the new Matrix film, while maintaining a comical edge that keeps the brutal concept fun. Quan sells it hard too. I had no idea he could move like that. I decided to give it a watch because Michelle Yeoh is awesome, but I didn't know I'd be getting a long overdue dose of Short Round. . . Lo Pan too. I don't care where this movie goes from here, the first thirty minutes have me convinced this is a 10/10. Perfect blend of cast and genius filmmaking. Highly enjoyable.
Reviews
13 Reviews
Attack of the Demons
(2019)
Loved it.
4 May 2021
This movie was fun from start to finish, and was obviously a labor of love. It pays wonderful tribute to Italian horror films of the 70s and 80s. Although the method of animation is "low tech", there are some wonderfully composed shots. Fairly consistently too. I'd love to see what director Eric Power could do with a much larger budget.
Mom and Dad
(2017)
Four Stars for Cage
13 November 2020
The guy plays unhinged like he invented it, and he's the most amusing aspect of this movie. The premise feels mostly undercooked and gimmicky. There are some interesting ideas, but it all seems a few drafts short of an actual story. It's biggest crime is trying way to hard to be edgy without ever fully indulging. Nearly every death is off screen, and disgusting aftermaths are only hinted at. For the most part the film is presentable from an audiovisual standpoint, but the action scenes look like they were edited by a chimpanzee on cocaine, and the score sounds like Transformers having an orgy. There's really nothing to see here. . . outside of Nick Cage singing The Hokey Pokey while smashing a billiard table with a sledge hammer.
Bill & Ted Face the Music
(2020)
STATION
28 August 2020
Bill & Ted have arrived in the 21st century with the right message at the right time. Be excellent to each other. Face the Music was most triumphant from beginning to end. If we can learn to get over ourselves and just play together, we too can save the world. Party on, dudes!
The Banana Splits Movie
(2019)
Low Energy, Little Effort
10 September 2019
This movie is aggressively boring. A lackluster script, wooden performances, and bargain bin gore, amateurishly edited at a snail's pace, churn an otherwise ok B movie premise into a grey flavorless concoction unfit for human consumption. I love "so bad it's good" movies, but this is bad due to sheer laziness. It gives the impression that no one, on screen or off, cared about the film they were making. The Banana Splits movie has nothing to offer in the way of entertainment, aside from the satisfaction in knowing there's no way this garbage recouped its budget. The only thing it manages to do competently is defecate on the legacy of Sid and Marty Krofft. I'm giving this movie one star, which is one star too many. Sadly IMDb does not offer anything less, as it deserves a negative six or seven.
Burn
(III) (2019)
Thanks, Burn.
25 August 2019
Thanks for not being every other movie. Thanks for giving me a protagonist who isn't a cardboard cut out of a cardboard cut out. Somebody so far outside the politically correct Hollywood norm that I had to question my own morality a few times when rooting for her. In the dessert of superheroes, remakes, and pointless sequels Burn is a refreshing glass of. . . something different.
Praise aside, this movie's weaknesses all lie late in the third act. Minor restructuring, and capitalizing on things established could have made this a perfect 10.
Praise aside, this movie's weaknesses all lie late in the third act. Minor restructuring, and capitalizing on things established could have made this a perfect 10.
Jacob's Ladder
(2019)
What the Hell Did I Just Watch?
23 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This abominable lump of crap barely qualifies as a movie, let alone Jacob's Ladder. Everything great about the original has been stripped away and replaced with feces. Instead of a tale depicting the fleeting consciousness of a dying man . . . they turned it into a cheap jump scare riddled mess about a junkie. There are not words strong enough to convey the disappointment. I truly hope the writers and director contract Ebola, and spend their remaining agonizing days puking their guts in each other's faces. I've given this one star because IMDb does not allow for negative scores. If you get an opportunity to see this film I strongly suggest doing something more constructive. . . like heroin.
Justice League
(2017)
I Have Seen Far Worse, But. . .
30 December 2017
Some things are not so easily excused. Namely Clark Kent's goony CGI mouth. I would rather have the mustache. . . seriously. If shaving is so far beyond out of the question, witch is ludicrous in and of itself, don't do what this movie did. Superman looks like a living flyer for a long missing child, age progressed into adulthood. Other than this most effects were passable, and some pretty cool.
Little Flash Person isn't very good, and his part just sucks. The kid is mostly there for unnecessary comic relief in a cartoon of a movie featuring Superman's digital face, looking like somebody microwaved a Bruno Mars action figure. The film didn't need relief, as it never approached serious. Also unneeded is Little Flash Person's entire subplot about being a good boy, and trying to help out his Pap-pap. There is a point where Little Flash Person claims he is working 5+ jobs. We are to assume his speed makes this possible. . . though only if we are as stupid as Justice League believes we are. Sure. . . use your powers to cut down your work hours when your whole purpose for working is to try to get money. Every aspect of this character is just as stupid, except for the Speed Force effect which is pretty cool at times.
Batman sucked, aside from select moments.
Aquaman had moments. . . of unintentional comedy.
Cyborg was the most interesting character. Too bad he was practically wasted.
Wonder Woman was there. Her first scene was fun. . . and she's pretty.
Speaking of pretty. . . why is Ma Kent hotter than Lois Lane? I don't fault the movie for that, but I do find it confusing.
Jeremy Irons can do better.
You got Joss Whedon in my Zack Snyder.
Final verdict is five out of ten. A safe middle of the road score for a painfully average film about a digital faced Superman, who's upper teeth look like pillows, fighting a generic enemy with a popular name. I'm disappointed, and Warner/DC should feel bad.
Little Flash Person isn't very good, and his part just sucks. The kid is mostly there for unnecessary comic relief in a cartoon of a movie featuring Superman's digital face, looking like somebody microwaved a Bruno Mars action figure. The film didn't need relief, as it never approached serious. Also unneeded is Little Flash Person's entire subplot about being a good boy, and trying to help out his Pap-pap. There is a point where Little Flash Person claims he is working 5+ jobs. We are to assume his speed makes this possible. . . though only if we are as stupid as Justice League believes we are. Sure. . . use your powers to cut down your work hours when your whole purpose for working is to try to get money. Every aspect of this character is just as stupid, except for the Speed Force effect which is pretty cool at times.
Batman sucked, aside from select moments.
Aquaman had moments. . . of unintentional comedy.
Cyborg was the most interesting character. Too bad he was practically wasted.
Wonder Woman was there. Her first scene was fun. . . and she's pretty.
Speaking of pretty. . . why is Ma Kent hotter than Lois Lane? I don't fault the movie for that, but I do find it confusing.
Jeremy Irons can do better.
You got Joss Whedon in my Zack Snyder.
Final verdict is five out of ten. A safe middle of the road score for a painfully average film about a digital faced Superman, who's upper teeth look like pillows, fighting a generic enemy with a popular name. I'm disappointed, and Warner/DC should feel bad.
Bone Sickness
(2004 Video)
Why?
2 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
To put it nicely, this movie is bad. This is seriously worse than anything I have seen through my experience in 4 semesters of film school, and countless student film festivals. Bone Sickness could eventually prove useful as a teaching aid however, if it were used as a visual study on how not to make a film.
Below are two IMDb postings I made during and after the film. That may be a cheap cop out of a review, but hey. . . If they didn't try to make a real movie, why should I try to write a real review?
This movie may be too amateur for it's own good. I'm 11 minutes in and witnessed the most atrocious jump cut this side of the 1970s. Seriously. It is a still shot of an actress speaking lines, and it abruptly cuts mid sentence, skipping one or two words, and she continues to finish the sentence. This movie is shot on digital video, and edited with something akin to Final Cut or Avid. It is really inexcusable in this day and age. Even the lowest budget student production does not subject viewers to this kind of atrocious film editing. I thought this kind of mistake disappeared with the extinction of amateur film splicing. With modern technology there are literally hundreds of ways to fix this in post production, and most of them would take no more than five minutes, so I am baffled. My only conclusion is that they did not care about the film. If they did not care, why should I?
So I finished watching this thing. No. . . Just no. I understand that this was a no budget movie made amongst friends. So was Peter Jackson's Bad Taste, and Trey Parker's Cannibal The Musical. The only talent evident anywhere in Bone Sickness is in a handful of the effects. Paulin does not have a shred of talent as a film maker, and should burn his cameras. However, perhaps, I'm a bit harsh on him. He did pull together the people to make this possible, finished the thing, and got it distributed. . . . Maybe he should think about producing, and leave film making to film makers.
Is this the worst film I have ever seen? No. I can say that without any doubt. Though it does try very hard to earn that title.
Below are two IMDb postings I made during and after the film. That may be a cheap cop out of a review, but hey. . . If they didn't try to make a real movie, why should I try to write a real review?
This movie may be too amateur for it's own good. I'm 11 minutes in and witnessed the most atrocious jump cut this side of the 1970s. Seriously. It is a still shot of an actress speaking lines, and it abruptly cuts mid sentence, skipping one or two words, and she continues to finish the sentence. This movie is shot on digital video, and edited with something akin to Final Cut or Avid. It is really inexcusable in this day and age. Even the lowest budget student production does not subject viewers to this kind of atrocious film editing. I thought this kind of mistake disappeared with the extinction of amateur film splicing. With modern technology there are literally hundreds of ways to fix this in post production, and most of them would take no more than five minutes, so I am baffled. My only conclusion is that they did not care about the film. If they did not care, why should I?
So I finished watching this thing. No. . . Just no. I understand that this was a no budget movie made amongst friends. So was Peter Jackson's Bad Taste, and Trey Parker's Cannibal The Musical. The only talent evident anywhere in Bone Sickness is in a handful of the effects. Paulin does not have a shred of talent as a film maker, and should burn his cameras. However, perhaps, I'm a bit harsh on him. He did pull together the people to make this possible, finished the thing, and got it distributed. . . . Maybe he should think about producing, and leave film making to film makers.
Is this the worst film I have ever seen? No. I can say that without any doubt. Though it does try very hard to earn that title.
Dracula
(2009 Video)
What was this movie about?
1 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is as hard to watch as it is to review. It is even harder to follow just what exactly is going on in the film, let alone what it is "about".
This movie has something to do with Dracula, but I'm not exactly sure what that is. For the most part the film consists of half cocked dialog scenes, intercut amongst each other. Most common are scenes of characters speaking with Van Helsing in what appears to be the court yard of an apartment or seedy motel. The way these scenes are intercut makes up for most of the film's confusion. Each is obviously one long scene divided in segments of about 3 to 5 minutes each. Costumes are always the same in these scenes and the conversations resume where we last saw them, regardless of the passage of time. For example: One such scene is a man grilling meat at night complaining about his cheating wife. . . through the magic of editing, he appears to be doing this for days. Guy grilling, cut to Van Helsing talking during the day, cut to movie production office scene, cut to guy grilling at night, cut to random events in the day, cut to Van Helsing talking, cut to Guy grilling at night. It makes no sense.
To make matters worse some characters play multiple roles, which brings the confusion to levels previously unseen in the world of film. Combine that with the fact that one minute a main character will be talking business in Los Angeles, and the next scene has the same character enjoying dinner with his parents in New Jersey, and magically he reappears in LA with no rhyme or reason.
Another warning: It is not uncommon for main characters to have their homes shot at the same location. The same motel room serves as 2 or 3 different apartments with out so much as set dressing to differentiate between them.
In summation. The viewer can never be certain of what is happening where and when. I have seen pornographic films with better and more coherent plots. . . with far more engaging dialog and cinematography. If you are looking for a good movie, look somewhere else. If you have a taste for the absurd and a love for unintentional comedy, try it at your own risk. This may actually be the worst movie ever made. It is the worst Dracuala movie, horror movie, and vampire movie I have ever seen. You have been warned.
This movie has something to do with Dracula, but I'm not exactly sure what that is. For the most part the film consists of half cocked dialog scenes, intercut amongst each other. Most common are scenes of characters speaking with Van Helsing in what appears to be the court yard of an apartment or seedy motel. The way these scenes are intercut makes up for most of the film's confusion. Each is obviously one long scene divided in segments of about 3 to 5 minutes each. Costumes are always the same in these scenes and the conversations resume where we last saw them, regardless of the passage of time. For example: One such scene is a man grilling meat at night complaining about his cheating wife. . . through the magic of editing, he appears to be doing this for days. Guy grilling, cut to Van Helsing talking during the day, cut to movie production office scene, cut to guy grilling at night, cut to random events in the day, cut to Van Helsing talking, cut to Guy grilling at night. It makes no sense.
To make matters worse some characters play multiple roles, which brings the confusion to levels previously unseen in the world of film. Combine that with the fact that one minute a main character will be talking business in Los Angeles, and the next scene has the same character enjoying dinner with his parents in New Jersey, and magically he reappears in LA with no rhyme or reason.
Another warning: It is not uncommon for main characters to have their homes shot at the same location. The same motel room serves as 2 or 3 different apartments with out so much as set dressing to differentiate between them.
In summation. The viewer can never be certain of what is happening where and when. I have seen pornographic films with better and more coherent plots. . . with far more engaging dialog and cinematography. If you are looking for a good movie, look somewhere else. If you have a taste for the absurd and a love for unintentional comedy, try it at your own risk. This may actually be the worst movie ever made. It is the worst Dracuala movie, horror movie, and vampire movie I have ever seen. You have been warned.
Violent Shit
(1989)
This Stinker's Title Is Half Correct.
11 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This review is composed of a thread I began on the film's board, and kept replying to like a journal entry. I added the spoiler alert, but there is really not that much to spoil. This movie is about a nameless guy who hates genitals, Jesus, and himself. That is the entire story...
I'm only 3 minutes into this so far. . .so I can't really attest to the violence yet. However they are delivering nicely on the sh!t angle.
Jesus Christ! I'm five minutes in, and all I have seen is blurry handycam footage of a European kid playing with a ball, while the opening credits make some pretty outrageous claims. . . ."What's that, movie? . . . Written and directed you say?" Also, apparently this movie had someone on board who's title is "Special Hi-Wi Technician". As someone who has attended film school, I find it odd that this is the first time I have ever heard of any such crew title. Oh well, at least the sh!t isn't phoned in. . .theyre piling it on thick.. They couldn't possibly keep up this momentum for the duration of the "film".
17 minutes in, and it feels more like six hours. It has become apparent that the violence promised in the title is nothing more than sh!t as well. Though I don't think anyone would check out this "Violent Sh!tters Production" had they titled it "Sh!tty Sh!t". Damn this is going to be a chore to finish.
23 minutes in. I guess this is turning into a real time review of sorts. I heard the camera man laugh a couple of minutes ago. I would be more forgiving if the cinematography were not the worst character in the film. The movie showed a dude slice of a man's penis and jack blood out of the headless wiener, though. Thank you Germany.
42 minutes in, and the film has thrown an amazing curve ball. The cinematography has become worse. Now that the film takes place at night, all I can make out is a blackened space like limbo. Occasionally vehicle head lights can be seen, inter cut with footage of floating heads that have way too much dialog.
45 minutes. The movie is on it's third close up fake crotch mutilation. This time it's lady parts. I'm starting to realize that this is not really a movie, but rather VHS footage of not so special effects. It is really not "about" anything, and has no discernible characters. The August Underground films seem Oscar worthy in comparison.
58 minutes. Christians beware! I just finished watching a pointless, seemingly 3 hour, sequence of the killer disemboweling a crucified Jesus. Before anyone goes and gets excited, this movie is so boring that I began twirling a very sharp knife to keep myself occupied. As luck would have it, the hilt bounced off of my fingertips, and the edge grazed my Macbook screen. Now I have a quarter inch, paper thin, permanent reminder of this movie's epic sh!ttiness.
One hour. . . This movie is really starting to f#ck with me. Slow blurry video shot from a moving vehicle, in near darkness has been going on for about five minutes. To make matters worse, the sound track has traded in the amateurish synthesizer for an unknown heavy metal track, with a cock rock singer bellowing "The torture never stops". How fitting for a film that has a good footing in the race for worst movie of all time. Dammit. I still have part 2 and 3 to watch after this. I'm starting to wish that my knife had destroyed my monitor, or at least ended up severing an important vein in my neck or wrist. This movie is about as appealing as eating popcorn out of a homeless man's beard.
1 hour 8 minutes. Apparently human appendages are predominantly composed of clothes stuffed with pig intestines and fake blood. Bones would only be troublesome for the killer and his cardboard cleaver. Also, I couldn't help but notice that with each murder, the amount of liquid latex covered oatmeal on the killer's face increases. I guess that will have to count as character development. . . and story for that matter. The killer started picking at the sores on his face, and pulling out his own intestines (pulling karo covered pig tripe through a hole in his shirt). I can only hope that means the end of the film is coming very soon.
1 hour 13 minutes. It ended. . . .it actually ended. I would rather set my face on fire than recommend this film to my worst enemy. This so called "movie" is just a concoction of week effects strewn together with consumer grade video wipe transitions. "Violent"?. . . no, not really. I don't consider rubbing corn syrup and tripe on someone to be violence, and the film had no tone, seriously. "Sh!t"?. . . Absolutely. This is the first film I have seen where half of the title gives away the entire story. OK, bring on part 2. Can it really be much worse?
I'm only 3 minutes into this so far. . .so I can't really attest to the violence yet. However they are delivering nicely on the sh!t angle.
Jesus Christ! I'm five minutes in, and all I have seen is blurry handycam footage of a European kid playing with a ball, while the opening credits make some pretty outrageous claims. . . ."What's that, movie? . . . Written and directed you say?" Also, apparently this movie had someone on board who's title is "Special Hi-Wi Technician". As someone who has attended film school, I find it odd that this is the first time I have ever heard of any such crew title. Oh well, at least the sh!t isn't phoned in. . .theyre piling it on thick.. They couldn't possibly keep up this momentum for the duration of the "film".
17 minutes in, and it feels more like six hours. It has become apparent that the violence promised in the title is nothing more than sh!t as well. Though I don't think anyone would check out this "Violent Sh!tters Production" had they titled it "Sh!tty Sh!t". Damn this is going to be a chore to finish.
23 minutes in. I guess this is turning into a real time review of sorts. I heard the camera man laugh a couple of minutes ago. I would be more forgiving if the cinematography were not the worst character in the film. The movie showed a dude slice of a man's penis and jack blood out of the headless wiener, though. Thank you Germany.
42 minutes in, and the film has thrown an amazing curve ball. The cinematography has become worse. Now that the film takes place at night, all I can make out is a blackened space like limbo. Occasionally vehicle head lights can be seen, inter cut with footage of floating heads that have way too much dialog.
45 minutes. The movie is on it's third close up fake crotch mutilation. This time it's lady parts. I'm starting to realize that this is not really a movie, but rather VHS footage of not so special effects. It is really not "about" anything, and has no discernible characters. The August Underground films seem Oscar worthy in comparison.
58 minutes. Christians beware! I just finished watching a pointless, seemingly 3 hour, sequence of the killer disemboweling a crucified Jesus. Before anyone goes and gets excited, this movie is so boring that I began twirling a very sharp knife to keep myself occupied. As luck would have it, the hilt bounced off of my fingertips, and the edge grazed my Macbook screen. Now I have a quarter inch, paper thin, permanent reminder of this movie's epic sh!ttiness.
One hour. . . This movie is really starting to f#ck with me. Slow blurry video shot from a moving vehicle, in near darkness has been going on for about five minutes. To make matters worse, the sound track has traded in the amateurish synthesizer for an unknown heavy metal track, with a cock rock singer bellowing "The torture never stops". How fitting for a film that has a good footing in the race for worst movie of all time. Dammit. I still have part 2 and 3 to watch after this. I'm starting to wish that my knife had destroyed my monitor, or at least ended up severing an important vein in my neck or wrist. This movie is about as appealing as eating popcorn out of a homeless man's beard.
1 hour 8 minutes. Apparently human appendages are predominantly composed of clothes stuffed with pig intestines and fake blood. Bones would only be troublesome for the killer and his cardboard cleaver. Also, I couldn't help but notice that with each murder, the amount of liquid latex covered oatmeal on the killer's face increases. I guess that will have to count as character development. . . and story for that matter. The killer started picking at the sores on his face, and pulling out his own intestines (pulling karo covered pig tripe through a hole in his shirt). I can only hope that means the end of the film is coming very soon.
1 hour 13 minutes. It ended. . . .it actually ended. I would rather set my face on fire than recommend this film to my worst enemy. This so called "movie" is just a concoction of week effects strewn together with consumer grade video wipe transitions. "Violent"?. . . no, not really. I don't consider rubbing corn syrup and tripe on someone to be violence, and the film had no tone, seriously. "Sh!t"?. . . Absolutely. This is the first film I have seen where half of the title gives away the entire story. OK, bring on part 2. Can it really be much worse?
Juan of the Dead
(2011)
Viva Juan De Los Muertos
6 April 2014
This is the first Cuban film I have seen, and one of my new favorite Zombie comedies. With the modern horror genera over saturated with underwhelming living dead films they have become easy to ignore. Pictures are produced cheaper these days with high definition video and consumer grade CGI. I have seen countless cookie cutter films on this production level that are nothing more than bored actors reciting a terrible script. Juan De Los Muertos has everything these movies lack, most important of which is heart.
The comedy ranges from Three Stooges slapstick to Kevin Smith toilet humor. Nothing is sacred. If not for the fact that this film presents nothing in a serious manner, it would be downright offensive. Possessing a morbid sense of humor does help, but it is not a necessity.
Each character is quirky, unique, and fun. Even the most psychologically damaged are still likable. A few of them are sh!tty people who you still want to survive. I would liken it to throwing the characters of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, or East Bound and Down's Kenny Powers into a zombie apocalypse.
The practical effects are fantastic, and reminiscent of classic zombie films. The CGI, however, ranges from OK to terrible. Though, since the film's primary goal is to illicit laughter rather than dazzle you with special effects, the digital shortcomings of Juan De Los Muertos are of little consequence. There are some inventive sight gags at work that are not only original, but so damn funny that the cheesiness of the CGI does no harm. In fact, at times it ramps up the comedy, kicks seriousness in the pants, and keeps the tone ever fun.
This review was intentionally spoiler free. That was hard, because I really want to spread word of all the amazing things to be had in this film. However, I would do more justice to the film, and potential fans by not ruining anything. There are some awesome surprises. I mean it. I would highly recommend this film to anyone who loved Shaun of the Dead, Biozombie, or Peter Jackson's Dead Alive/Brain Dead. Viva Juan De Los Muertos!!!
The comedy ranges from Three Stooges slapstick to Kevin Smith toilet humor. Nothing is sacred. If not for the fact that this film presents nothing in a serious manner, it would be downright offensive. Possessing a morbid sense of humor does help, but it is not a necessity.
Each character is quirky, unique, and fun. Even the most psychologically damaged are still likable. A few of them are sh!tty people who you still want to survive. I would liken it to throwing the characters of It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, or East Bound and Down's Kenny Powers into a zombie apocalypse.
The practical effects are fantastic, and reminiscent of classic zombie films. The CGI, however, ranges from OK to terrible. Though, since the film's primary goal is to illicit laughter rather than dazzle you with special effects, the digital shortcomings of Juan De Los Muertos are of little consequence. There are some inventive sight gags at work that are not only original, but so damn funny that the cheesiness of the CGI does no harm. In fact, at times it ramps up the comedy, kicks seriousness in the pants, and keeps the tone ever fun.
This review was intentionally spoiler free. That was hard, because I really want to spread word of all the amazing things to be had in this film. However, I would do more justice to the film, and potential fans by not ruining anything. There are some awesome surprises. I mean it. I would highly recommend this film to anyone who loved Shaun of the Dead, Biozombie, or Peter Jackson's Dead Alive/Brain Dead. Viva Juan De Los Muertos!!!
The Starving Games
(2013)
My first Seltzer/Freidbergowitzgoldstien experience
6 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
(one star because there is no option for zero)
Let me start by saying that I have a passionate hatred for The Hunger Games. So, when someone told me there was a movie whose purpose was to make fun of it, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. After witnessing the first six minutes of The Starving Games, I quickly realized that I was in hell. The movie starts terribly and progressively gets worse from there. I must also admit that I avidly watch terrible films just to see how bad they are. Therefore my initial reaction was to finish the film to see how crappy it was as a whole. Try as I did, I could only make it through 45 minutes of this excruciatingly unfunny steel cage grudge match before tapping out.
With jokes consisting of a girl pooping, or said girl using a fire extinguisher to. . . wait for it. . .put out a fire, I feel that I could find more humor in self immolation. A good comedy must be a product of clever writing. The Starving Games, however, is written with all the finesse of a bull trampling a typewriter into manure laden mud. It would not surprise me to find out that this writing duo had never actually read a book. They obviously do not understand the definition of the terms spoof or satire. As a substitute for spoof we get things like a kid dressed as Harry Potter. It seriously only works on that one level. . ."hey that kid was dressed like Harry Potter."
The ultimate decision to turn this movie off is that I found myself hating it for the same reasons that I hate The Hunger Games. It is a poorly crafted cinematic mistake, ripe with uninteresting poorly acted characters, who plod through substance so heavily "borrowed", that in most civilized countries it is considered plagiarism. And don't forget boring. . . oh so boring and predictable.
Though unintentional, The Hunger Games proves to be the better comedy of the two. That at least coaxed up some hard guttural laughter, at times accompanied by leg slapping and shortness of breath. With The Starving Games, I found myself staring blankly at the screen until I came to the realization that I was in hell, there is no god, and Seltzer/Freidbergowitzgoldstien is the devil.
*Spoiler Alert* This movie has been proved to cause cancer in laboratory mice.
Let me start by saying that I have a passionate hatred for The Hunger Games. So, when someone told me there was a movie whose purpose was to make fun of it, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. After witnessing the first six minutes of The Starving Games, I quickly realized that I was in hell. The movie starts terribly and progressively gets worse from there. I must also admit that I avidly watch terrible films just to see how bad they are. Therefore my initial reaction was to finish the film to see how crappy it was as a whole. Try as I did, I could only make it through 45 minutes of this excruciatingly unfunny steel cage grudge match before tapping out.
With jokes consisting of a girl pooping, or said girl using a fire extinguisher to. . . wait for it. . .put out a fire, I feel that I could find more humor in self immolation. A good comedy must be a product of clever writing. The Starving Games, however, is written with all the finesse of a bull trampling a typewriter into manure laden mud. It would not surprise me to find out that this writing duo had never actually read a book. They obviously do not understand the definition of the terms spoof or satire. As a substitute for spoof we get things like a kid dressed as Harry Potter. It seriously only works on that one level. . ."hey that kid was dressed like Harry Potter."
The ultimate decision to turn this movie off is that I found myself hating it for the same reasons that I hate The Hunger Games. It is a poorly crafted cinematic mistake, ripe with uninteresting poorly acted characters, who plod through substance so heavily "borrowed", that in most civilized countries it is considered plagiarism. And don't forget boring. . . oh so boring and predictable.
Though unintentional, The Hunger Games proves to be the better comedy of the two. That at least coaxed up some hard guttural laughter, at times accompanied by leg slapping and shortness of breath. With The Starving Games, I found myself staring blankly at the screen until I came to the realization that I was in hell, there is no god, and Seltzer/Freidbergowitzgoldstien is the devil.
*Spoiler Alert* This movie has been proved to cause cancer in laboratory mice.
Tell Your Friends