Reviews

15 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Nothing good about this movie...
15 October 2010
HERE BE SPOILERS.

I'll be honest - the only reason I got this movie was because I was intrigued by the gruesome concept. So I watched it the other day, and was left feeling dirty, ashamed of myself, bored, and disappointed. There was very little in the way of scary moments in this film other than a few escape attempts by the victims. I found myself squeamishly anticipating the capture/torture/operation of the victims, but even that was a letdown, and once the centipede is created, it just gets boring.

This was essentially a low-rent version of Silence of the Lambs; a guy kidnaps people and puts them in his basement where he turns them into a perverse personal art project. This movie, however, has horrible acting and implausible situations.

The American chicks were so dumb and annoying that by the time their mouths were sewn to each other's asses, I was glad just to not have to listen to them talk any more. The cops were bumbling and stupid - what police officers would accept a drink from a possible murder suspect? And the weird scenes of the doctor training the centipede like it was a pet dog...was that supposed to be funny? It was just off-color and weird.

Bad, bad movie. Tom Six - you suck.
118 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
SPOILERS!!!! What I didn't like about this movie...
31 July 2008
The praise this movie is receiving is ridiculous. I, too, was manipulated by the hype and came out of the movie wanting to love it but I couldn't shake some doubts about the film. Here they are:

I HATED that cell-phone Bat-Vision crap. Liam Neeson taught Bruce Wayne how to be stealthy, quick, and sharp in Batman Begins, but here he resorts to some lame, way-too-easy gadgetry that was super annoying to watch on-screen.

The opening bank-heist was great, but every one of the Joker's schemes after that was way too implausible, and we don't question it. We just accept it because he's the Joker, but if you really think about it, how did he rig that entire hospital? What about rigging two ferries with hundreds of drums of gasoline?

Burning the money was dumb. How does he fund all his projects? How does he pay his men?

The Bat-Bike was lame and what was with the way it turned around, driving up the wall and doing a quick spin-around? What's wrong with skidding?

Morgan Freeman's resignation was stupid. After all he and Bruce have been through he quits just like that?

Throughout the movie, Batman beats up EVERY single person, big thugs, little thugs, etc, but when he fights the skinny, gawky Joker, The Joker almost throws him off the building? Batman would have made pulp of Joker in a microsecond.

And that stupid scene where Bruce Wayne accidentally fires the blades from his wrist-guard into the wall while examining his new weaponry? That was something out of a hokey Bond movie.

Maggie G. is not as beautiful as her character is supposed to be. Honestly, I thought Holmes was a better fit for the physique of the role.

I liked the movie overall and thought Ledger was great, but this film has received too many outstanding reviews and I think all of you need a wake-up call...It's good, but it will NOT win Best picture and does NOT deserve to be #1 all time on IMDb's list. It's the hype, and that's all...
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
AWESOME until the last act...SPOILERS ALERT!!!!
11 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILERS ALERT! Read no further if you haven't seen the film!!!

I am getting tired of seeing nothing by 10 star ratings for this film. Was nobody else as disappointed as I was by the ending? The story was brilliant from the opening until the point where Woody Harrelson visits Josh Brolin in the hospital. This is where the story just sort of trickles out and...stops. We never get the showdown that we so badly want to see between Brolin and Bardem.

Some of the scenes in this film were terrifying, true edge of your seat suspense. This movie starts off so well and keeps delivering genuine thrill after genuine thrill, but after abruptly killing off the hero and then trickling away into nothingness, I felt cheated, disappointed, and stupid for having sat through the entire film. The Coens failed to tie it up whatsoever. Instead they tried some stupid film school/David Lynch BS, and the movie suffers as a result. The book may have been disjointed and open-ended, but this is a movie and should have been better adapted for the screen.

If Jaws the movie had been given the same ending as Jaws the book, it would have been a monstrosity of an ending, and that is just what the Coens have produced here...
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining, but not as grand as it could have been...
3 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
**POSSIBLE SPOILERS** The Day After Tomorrow is an undeniably entertaining movie, with great special effects and a half-way decent story. However, this film should have been about the plight of all of mankind rather than the shared adventures of Jake Gyllenhall and his school friends; it could have been an epic science fiction story rather than a popcorn flick. Using global warming as the foundation for a movie about Dennis Quaid falling into a crevasse, a helicopter crash, a wolf attack, and a few storm sequences seems to trivialize the actual consequences of a large scale climate change. Global warming is an epic phenomenon and it should have been treated as such. For example, in the end, when the people are leaving New York, I would have liked to see the pack of wolves trot across a street (without snarling viciously or attacking anyone), thus signaling the return of wildlife to soon-to-be-deserted cities. With that said, I was still very entertained and enjoyed the movie's not-so-subtle criticism of George Bush and his cronies. The Day After Tomorrow is no classic, but it will certainly rule the box office for a few weeks.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It is what it is...
25 August 2003
I just watched Blood, Guts, Bullets, and Octane on DVD last night, and found myself rather bored from start to finish. The camera work is sloppy, slipping in and out of focus as it pans back and forth from character to character, zooming in and out, and so on...The dialogue scenes are way too long, and the action scenes leave you feeling cheated, due to the shaky-cam, fast editing style that tries to conceal the lack of blanks and squibs. A good action sequence is created by the actual action onscreen rather than jerky camera work and loud sound effects. This film shows very little real action. The story takes way too long to get started, and once it does, it becomes boring, with very little pay off at the end. However, I have to give Joe Carnahan credit for making this film on such a low budget; regardless of the story, simply planning and executing this shoot is an impressive achievement. Robert Rodriguez's El Mariachi still remains the most legendary low-budget action film ever made, with better writing, directing, cinematography, and special effects than Blood, Guts, Bullets and Octane. So to sum it up, check this movie out, but don't expect too much; it is what it is.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Awful, Filthy Movie
28 April 2003
I was rather excited about seeing this movie, as I had not seen a good new horror film in a long time. After the film, however, I was P***ED that I had spent money on it. I wanted to throw rotten tomatoes at the screen, choke the kid at the box office for having sold me the ticket I've cooled off since then, but I still maintain that this is the worst horror movie in many years to hit the big screen. It is a foul, perverted, depraved piece of work that never should have been made. House of 1000 Corpses is a blatant ripoff of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, with virtually every scenario and character cut-and-pasted from TCM to HO1000C. The choppy editing, the negative images, and the random S&M footage made the movie difficult to watch, and did not make it any scarier.

It's true that Texas Chainsaw Massacre did not have a message or statement of any value, but at the time, it was a brave, bold, and shocking step forward in horror movies that has stood the test of time. Thirty years later, we should expect to something that hasn't been done before (like The Blair Witch Project). Gratuitous gore and violence reached its peak in the '80s, and this wretched film is NOT going to bring it back.

Skip it.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slow, Boring, Stagnant, Stale, you name it...
1 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**!!SPOILERS AHEAD**!! The story of the Amityville Horror consists of a family moving into a haunted house where, a few years before, some people were murdered while they slept. For the first day or so after moving in, everything is fine; the kids play in the yard with the dog, and the husband makes love to his wife. Then strange things begin to happen; the wind blows stronger than usual, it gets cold in the house, flies buzz around, and the phones don't work. None of this is scary in the slightest respect, and we never even learn why this is happening. I guess this is just what haunted houses do.

The script is exceptionally lame, introducing characters and situations that never pay off, such as the missing fifteen hundred dollars, the little girl and her evil imaginary friend, the murderer who looks identical to the James Brolin character, etc. Lots of strange things happen, but we never actually see anything scary, unless you count the glowing pig eyes in the barn. Something can be said for not showing the monster until the end of the film, such as in Jaws, but to never show the audience anything is a sign of poor filmmaking indeed. This film borrows a lot from the Exorcist, with the priests and the Columbo-like detective ("Fadda, could I ax you some questions?") and what not, but it doesn't add up to anything. I couldn't believe the film was over at the end. The family just packs up and leaves. That's it. Nobody dies, no ghosts show up, and the house doesn't even catch on fire and explode (a typical ending in modern horror films when no other ending is obvious). Sure, the dad falls into a pit of goo in the basement, and it's raining really hard, but that just doesn't cut it. And the old "Give-me-a-break-it-was-made-in-the-70s" excuse doesn't work because Jaws, The Exorcist, and Halloween were all made in the '70s as well.

Surprisingly, the writer and director were not children (as one might suspect from watching this film) when they made The Amityville Horror. They were full-grown adults, aged 52 and 43, respectively. Yet they collaborated to make one of the slowest, most boring, most amateurish, and most childish horror films I have ever seen. Watch this movie only if you are an aspiring filmmaker who wants to know how NOT to make a horror film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good premise, but disappointing overall.
16 October 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**!!SPOILERS AHEAD!!** I had heard so many great things about this film that i had to go out and rent it to see for myself what all the hype was about. Well, I can't say I'm shocked that everyone involved in this movie has done nothing since 1998. To begin with, the dialogue was AWFUL! There is not one line of credible, intelligent dialogue in the entire film. Everything that Buddy says is something like "Groovy!" or "Let's go"(with a finger snap) or "Swell!," always with a tough guy tone of voice that Jeffrey Falcon fails to pull off. They were obviously trying to create a character like Ash in the Evil Dead trilogy, but they fail miserably. In Army of Darkness, while there are lots of silly one-liners, there is also the necessary amount of character development that "Six-String samurai lacks. The action was pretty lame, too. Every action scene was exactly the same, with Buddy jumping around and swinging his sword at bad guys, obviously not really hitting them. Nothing about the movie was exciting or suspenseful. The only moment I was eagerly anticipating was Buddy's arrival in Lost Vegas, but he never even gets there, so that glimmer of hope dies as well. I think the back story, with the Russians dropping the bomb, and Elvis becoming king of Lost Vegas, would have made a far more interesting story than this string of boring, virtually identical samurai fight scenes, but I guess they didn't have the budget for that. So, to sum it all up, don't see this movie. Read a good book or go to bed early instead.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Horrible Attempt at Documentary Filmmaking
28 September 2002
I had the misfortune of seeing Navajo Talking Picture in a documentary film class, and was apalled at how poorly made this film was. It starts out as a Navajo filmmaker's attempt to document the life of her grandmother, a traditional Navajo, who speaks no English and has maintained her culture, avoiding the ways of white people. But it turns into a wretched mess when the grandmother refuses to cooperate and is unwilling to be on camera. The film then becomes a documentary about Arlene Bowman (the filmmaker and protagonist) attempting to make a documentary about her grandmother. All the dialogue is obviously post-dubbed, out of sync and spoken in emotionless monotone, and the English voice-over translations are all done by the same person with no distinction between different characters. This clumsy audio work leaves the film with a highly phony feel, as if the "actors" are so aware of the camera that they are unable to act naturally, and are therefore subconciously performing for the camera. Bowman faces a number of problems throughout the film, and goes about solving them in long, boring scenes that seem to have been written in in order to move the story forward. In the final climactic scene, the grandmother agrees to be photographed, and "our hero" gets to make her film.

It all feels scripted, but the only reason that I feel that it must be real is that nobody in their right mind would go through all the trouble to stage such a boring, pointless, awful excuse for a story.

If you ever run across this film in a video store, spare others the boredom of sitting through it by placing the tape behind a row of videos where it will never be found.
0 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
great beginning, creepy ending, but the middle sags
6 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** This movie had some very scary and suspenseful moments. The opening scenes in which the truck is chasing the kids down the highway had me on the edge of my seat, and was also a well done nod to Spielberg's Duel. But once the movie started in with its Scream-like dialogue where characters say obvious things like "this is like the part in horror movies where...," it began to go down hill. And the Creeper doing backflips and Matrix-style karate moves after the cat lady scene had me sighing with shame. The ending shot in which the camera dollies into the creeper's workroom and we see that he has cut out Derry's eyes redeems the film a bit, but seeing too much of the monster earlier on (the Karate scene) really spoiled it. Salva had a chance to make a genuinely scary film but instead jumped on the bandwagon with this one. Maybe he'll do better with the sequel.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Annie Hall (1977)
okay, but not woody allen's best
25 August 2002
I had heard so much about this film and had seen several of Woody Allen's films when I finally rented Annie Hall. I was surprised to find that it was actually kind of boring. I didn't care about the love story, and i didn't understand what the big deal about Annie Hall was(why name the movie after her?). It had some laughs, with Woody Allen playing himself as usual, but I thought Manhattan and Bullets Over Broadway were far more interesting and funny (I admit I've only seen 6 of his films). I would recommend it, but don't expect this to be Woody Allen's best.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Wretched Mess of a Film
23 January 2002
Warning: Spoilers
A friend of mine recommended Vertical Limit, claiming it was a high octane, rollercoaster thrill ride, similar to Renny Harlin's Cliffhanger. I was sorely disappointed, as this movie is downright awful. **CONTAINS SPOILERS** The opening scene in which Chris O'Donnell has to cut the rope, thus sacrificing his father's life to save the lives of himself and his sister, is taken right out Cliffhanger. The acting is pretty mediocre, the special effects weren't great either as the blue screen shots were obviously fake, and the action scenes, which usually involved some sort of climbing equipment malfunctioning as the climbers dangle precariously from a rediculously high cliff, were hardly suspenseful. The editing is pretty atrocious too. Too many scenes cut from the characters hanging from a cliff with no clear way out of their predicament to them relaxing back at camp, without explaining how they got there. The scene of Chris O'Donnell leaping across a five hundred foot wide canyon happens so quickly that before we have a chance to laugh at it it's over. Bill Paxton starts out playing a believable nice guy but suddenly turns bad and starts killing his climbing partners for some reason. The rescue mission on which O'Donnell embarks to save his sister involves the climber carrying six canisters of nitroglycerin (which is always on the verge of exploding) up the mountain. Apparently they plan to blow their way through the mountain to save some idiots who fell into a crevasse. I don't think this is a standard rescue routine. Anyway, it is all very predictable, with lame characters, stupidly unrealistic situations, and boring action scenes. Overall, a terrible piece of filmmaking. I don't recommend it. 3/10
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark, Twisted, and Hilarious
3 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
**!CONTAINS SPOILERS!** To me, this was one of the best films of 2000. The acting, casting, and the direction are all great. Christian Bale was perfect for the role of Patrick Bateman, and I cannot imagine Leonardo Dicaprio(who was originally going to play the part) in this movie. He would have ruined it.

This movie is a hilarious satire of the 80s culture. Nothing in the movie is that graphic. There is some blood and violence, and while the sex is explicit, the scene with Bateman flexing his muscles while having sex with the two prostitutes is hilarious, as are all his speeches about commercial music of the time. The business card scene also rates high on my list.

Compared to the book, which is horrifying(but darkly funny as well) in its description of the murders, the movie is really rather tame.

I would recommend this film to anyone who is tired of all the brainless teen slasher and comedy movies coming out today, and would like to see something different.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One of the Best Bad Movies Ever
1 June 2000
Warning: Spoilers
The first time I saw Army of Darkness, I really didn't like it because I was actually expecting a George Romero type zombie film. However, I have seen it plenty of times since and now consider it one of my favorites. !!**THIS CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS**!! The reason I like it so much is because the film doesn't take itself seriously. Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell probably knew they were making a rather stupid movie and made it laughable rather than serious. If you watch carefully, there are inconsistencies in plot and continuity EVERYWHERE. Ash's shotgun comes out of nowhere after he climbs out of the pit, the demon climbs out of the pit even though it was crushed moments earlier, and Ash constantly fires more rounds than the gun holds. Even the back of the box doesn't describe the plot accurately. But you can tell that they had fun making this film and as a result it's fun to watch as well. I think it slows down and gets a little too silly in the middle, but picks up again for the ending battle. The S-Mart ending alone is worth renting this.

So if you like action/horror with plenty of laughs and one-liners, rent Army of Darkness, and if you like it, check out the Evil Dead prequels. 8/10
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I hated this movie!
1 June 2000
I heard about this movie through a friend and a few of us rented it a couple of weeks ago. The only reason we got it was because of the excessive gore it supposedly contains, and the fact that it was the film the Blair Witch Project is based on. I hated it. Not only was it not very graphic (I think I saw an edited down version), but it was really boring for the first 45 minutes or so, and even when the gory footage was shown, I was still bored. It was obviously fake as the camera got really shaky every time something graphic occurred so you can't tell what's happening. The characters were completely dislikeable and deserved what they got. The only parts that were hard to watch were the scenes of real animal torture and killing. Don't listen to what you hear about this movie. It's not worth it. 2/10
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed