Reviews

Holy COW, I was freaking out just a little, because I knew what was coming up next. I mean literally, scene for scene, right on down to the lady sliding down the wall by the water cooler. I was beginning to think I was in some sort of time slip, or a "glitch", or something similar. I knew - absolutely KNEW - I had seen this before, but it had been in English, and the show's theme wasn't Greek gods.

Looked it up, found out it's a remake of "Dead Set", and yup - that's where I'd seen it before. I've only watched the pilot so far, but other reviewers aren't kidding when they say it's a scene-for-scene remake. The characters even LOOK like the originals to a degree.

Anyway, glad I'm not in a time loop. I'll give this a go even if every single episode is a scene-for-scene remake, just because it's been awhile and it was good enough the first time that I don't mind watching again. It'll help me practice my Spanish, too.

If you didn't see "Dead Set", and either speak Spanish or don't mind subtitles, I'd definitely recommend this. It's pretty good all the way through.

If, like me, you happened to watch "The Endless" first, and then discovered later on that it was a sequel to this movie, you might want to avoid it. It's a decent enough story in its own right, and the acting was great, but it's not really my kind of story. "The Endless" was, however. They're just two totally different moods, and don't even really seem to be in the same storyverse. I loved "The Endless", and wish I'd never seen this one, that's how different they are. This doesn't really fill in any meaningful amount of backstory for the bulk of characters you see in "TE", only the two in the house with the guy chained to a pipe. That was somewhat interesting, but not really worth it.

Give it about 10 minutes. The entire rest of the movie has about the same tone and pacing, so you should know by then if you're going to want to watch the whole thing. The movie gives very scant hints of the supernatural stuff going on, but not nearly to the same extent that "The Endless" did. Too many unanswered questions for my tastes, but as I said, I'm sure some folks will enjoy it.

The plot and the acting were both adequate, and even very good in places. It had intermittent "Us" vibes here and there which were creepy enough. But what really drags my rating for this down is the camerawork.

"There Are Monsters" is what I call "quasi-found footage" - some scenes are supposed to be seen as if through the lens of one of the characters' camera, and for some scenes, it's obvious that no characters are recording it. If it were intended to be a bunch of amateurs, or kids, or anyone else who didn't know what they were doing, the camerawork might be somewhat excusable. But even in the "found" footage, the characters operating the cameras were supposed to be professional cameramen.

My ass they were. The movie was so shaky and blurry in so many places, it really took away from the decent work of the actors. No professional cameraman would produce work like that, even on a job they weren't taking all that seriously. As if that weren't bad enough, they continued the horrible camerawork even in scenes that weren't intended to be "found footage". For instance, the main female protagonist entered a bathroom stall at one point. She was completely alone, no other characters were in the booth to film her. It was a steady picture at some points, but a jumbled, chaotic slurry of motion and digital myopia for the most part. There was no excuse for that.

The only other thing I didn't like about it was the jump scares, but they didn't have more than maybe 5 of those. I just hate jump scares in their entirety, so that might be more of a "me" thing.

Over all, if extremely shaky camerawork doesn't bother you, then I would definitely recommend this for you. Otherwise, I'd give it a pass.

If you were irritated by the fact that Jack & Rose's path through the Titanic couldn't possibly have happened as they went through rooms that didn't even connect and doors that weren't even there and parts of the ship that were on entirely opposite sides without having to cross through the middle, then you won't like this movie.

It's definitely a made-for-TV type of movie and it's definitely modeled after "The Day after Tomorrow" (almost character-for-character). The science is rather atrocious, also, but if you yourself -are- scientifically illiterate or if you're just used to scientific illiteracy in cinema and therefore unphased by it, then you might like this flick. I was surprised to see SG1's Michael Shanks in what seemed to all appearances to be third-rate billing, but he was in it and he played as well as he ever does.

I'd recommend this if you're really kinda' reaching for something to watch, and you're not feeling too picky and SyFy made-for-TV quality is acceptable to you (I don't think it's a SyFy flick, but it's the same general quality). If you're into serious flicks, or if you don't care to see another "Day After Tomorrow", steer clear.

Evangelical Christians are letting you know they're better than you again. Pretentious, puerile propaganda pure and simple - though not a bad view for someone who is already into that mindset. Don't get me wrong - I don't have a problem with evangelical Christians per se. Some of my most loved family & friends are. It's just that I can't stomach propaganda, religious or otherwise. Especially not when it tries to pass itself off as legitimate, mainstream cinema. The only way I could ever consider watching this type of movie is if I were interested in seeing a dramatized depiction of outdated mythology, somewhat like many of these religious folks would view a movie about the Greek gods or Egyptian deities.

Had the cast and crew seemed any less sincere in their efforts to make the best flick they could, I would probably tear a film like this to shreds. But more important to me than having the best of acting, props, effect, etc... etc... et... is to come away from the film with the feeling that it wasn't just thrown together and half-heartedly produced. I do think the producer - the kinda' cute older gent playing the lead - likes making these movies partially as an excuse to get to mess with young dudes, and find it amusing how he is utterly unafraid to let it all hang out in his flicks (literally). Even so, I don't get the impression that's the entirety of his motivation - that seems more like just one of the "perks" to him.

That said, if you just want to know the pros and cons, here are my views on the matter:

Pros: - Realistic, believable plot - I have little doubt that sooner or later, humans will be tagged in just such a way, and that sooner or later someone, somewhere is going to take advantage of it for their own tyrannical ambitions; - While all the effects were cheap, they weren't utterly absurd like they tend to be in most films of similar budget. This guy really seems to know how to make the most with practically nothing, and to make it believable. Not that there were a lot of really special effects - the CGI was bare-bones minimal - but the look, feel and functionality of the props (automated voice greetings, videoconferencing, one or two of the implants after they'd been removed & destroyed, etc...) were good; - A message that people really do need to hear, about a topic we're almost certain to face not too far from now; - Paul Bright's exposed booty.

Cons: - Bad acting. Bad, bad, bad. At least for the most part. One or two of them were pretty good most all of the time, but all of them had their moments where they couldn't possibly have been any less believable. You really do have to just overlook it through much of the flick, so if that bothers you then you probably should avoid this one; - Unclear plot details - particularly regarding the man he video'd with and his boss lady. I understood the guy's role in the unseen back-story leading to the movie's current events, but not what he was supposed to be doing in the present and definitely not what role his boss lady was supposed to be playing; - Paul Bright's exposed booty. You're either going to like it or you're not, and after seeing similar in "Angora Ranch", it seems fairly clear he's just being exhibitionistic. I personally don't mind, but a lot of people would and so I figured you might as well hear about it now. It's not real frequent or anything, but for the short time it's there, it's _all_ "there", if you catch my drift.

I must say I was pleasantly surprised at how easy & enjoyable this one was to watch. You can tell right away that it's relatively low-budget, but one thing that's also pretty clear to me at least is that the actors were clearly trying their best to do a good job. Even the actors who weren't all that great - they at least clearly took it seriously. I'd rather see a bad actor who is serious about at least trying to do a good job than a wonderful actor who couldn't give a fig -any- day. I was particularly impressed with the leading actress (the one with the robotic hand). She nuanced some parts of the script in such a way that if this is still a relatively "new" career for her, then I'd love to see her work in 20 years because with a bit of time & experience, I think she has "greatness" potential.

Visually speaking, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that this was someone's "Bladerunner"-inspired attempt at making a live action "comic book" style movie. The sets, the lighting, the colors and even the character poses were all things that would actually look fairly decent in comic book ink. The "Plasticoat" billboard ad on the side of a building was very much an homage to Bladerunner - the actress even seemed to give the same smile.

The characters were fairly formulaic, and certain scenes were as well, but overall the creators of this flick did manage to make it interesting and actually seemed to have a few of those "original ideas" which so seem to elude movie writers these days.

My favorite part of the entire movie was Naomi, the holographic cat - she's not all that prominent in any given scene, but she is ever-present (even if only off to the side) and is ultimately much more critical than she's ever given credit for. She was a nifty idea and perhaps the most well-done special effect of the entire film. Her movements and interaction with the other characters were all very detailed - her sounds, her motions as a cat and her flickerings as a holograph as well as her color - all were nuanced to a degree you wouldn't expect for a film with such a low budget. Whoever made that special effect clearly has a talent for finessing the believable from the non-existent quantum- binary froth of the CGI realms. ;-)

Overall, I wouldn't recommend it for family night -or- to folks who take their science fiction seriously enough to make a distinction between "science fiction" and "sci-fi" - this film is definitely "sci-fi" for those who understand the difference. :-) But it is a pretty cute story and isn't difficult at all to sit through if you don't try to expect too much from it.

First off, the viewer should be aware that the movie they are about to watch is not going to be anything even remotely resembling a "good" horror flick. It's more or less a "just for fun" piece, the bulk of its appeal being in all the hot young skin (of either gender) being shown all over the place. Lots of yummy eye candy if you're up for that sort of thing, but there's no real quality to it. This is a film that you can tell was thrown together by people who were more interested in having fun making a movie than they were in making a high-quality movie.

That might sound like a criticism to some, but it isn't. There's nothing wrong with getting a crew together to throw something like this together once in awhile - I'd love to have been on the crew of this flick, in fact. :-) But the fun they surely must have had making it doesn't quite entirely translate into an equally enjoyable viewing experience. It is fun, that's for sure, and if you have time to waste and are not in the mood for serious or deep, "meaningful" horror, this is a good flick to watch. So little attention is paid to the actual plot & dialog, that it's really more the type of flick to have playing on background TVs in dance clubs and the like - what appeal is present is almost entirely visual.

The 5 stars are only because I don't honestly think they were trying to make a great movie - and they didn't. It's a good thing, though - that means they didn't take themselves too seriously, which you can tell when you watch it, which is why the silliness and craziness isn't as annoying as it is when more "serious" movie makers try similar tactics. It's a trashy, low-budget, low-quality "just for fun" eye candy flick. Nothing wrong with that, so long as you know what you're getting. I enjoyed it, might even watch it again sometime.

The description of this movie didn't sound quite that interesting to me, but I thought I'd give it a try anyway. It turned out to be a fairly decent film. For me once the movie was done, it evoked the sensation one gets when holding one mirror up to another and trying to see how many layers into the reflection you can manage to see - a reflection inside a reflection inside a reflection (etc... etc... etc... ad nauseum). Not in a visual sense, but an abstract one - You have the real director of the film making a movie about a director of a film who is inspired to complete the production of a film where the "real" director of that "real" (movie-world) film was making a movie about a director who used movie-making as a pretext for trapping and killing his victims.

It sounds much more complex in writing than it actually carries across on film. All of the actors in this did a very decent job - one of the hardest things for an actor to do afaic is to play the role of a character that is written to be a bad actor. The better the real actor is at it, the more truly "bad" their role would be acted. All of the actors here were fairly well up- to-snuff on their skills and seemed to manage the layered complexity of the plot quite well.

One of my favorite aspects of this is the way in which they set up the ending so early on. It's not something you realize until after you've seen the ending, but once you have, you realize that a mere one or two lines of dialog spoken in the early half of the film pretty much sealed the fate of some of the more tragic characters. I can't give details without spoilering it, but I can say it was set up quite nicely and very subtly - sometimes a director virtually hits you over the head with a brick to get you to notice "foreshadowing", but this one didn't do that.

There were quite a few f-bombs for those who mind, not any real noticeable nudity and the gore factor was really rather low. But it was an engaging story and an easy watch. It's a fairly decent addition to the growing number of pseudo "reality film" mockumentaries, particularly if you like psychological puzzlers.

For anyone who doesn't have kids, but who can get into some of these sci-fi "somewhat just for kids" stories, this is a real gem. It surprised me with how well it handled so many of the issues that would be involved with such a scenario - and I love that they didn't just gloss over the language barrier - they actually addressed it and had what I thought was a nifty solution (easy enough for kids to understand, but realistic enough to keep it in the realm of plausible). The gung-ho character of the commanding officer ordering the attacks was a bit unrealistic, but then there wouldn't have been much of a "crisis point" for the characters to overcome without it - that's the worst "problem" anyone might have with it from a grown-up perspective, and even that can be overlooked given the nature of human history as depicted in the movie.

All-in-all, it's one of those "Goldilocks" movies - not too graphic or intense for small children, and not too sickeningly-sweet and unrealistic for adults. I have no kids, and this is one I'd have gladly paid to see even just by myself. For families and solos alike, I heartily recommend it.

...what happened to the Entwives. :-) If you've never heard of the Ents from "Lord of the Rings", you won't catch the reference but if you have, that should say it all. ;-)

Seriously though, this was a very cute short. It's not exactly "family friendly" though - 2 f-bombs that I caught, though that and the gore is the worst of it. It's the kind of movie you wouldn't expect anyone to take seriously enough to put as much effort and work into as these people did. I mean sure, it's not "Casablanca" or even "Killer Clowns from Space", but everything was pretty neat & tidy & put together quite well. I think they should do a sequel - perhaps something where they show the trees in the forest with humans decorated for a tree holiday by a human- fed fire - I mean, there are so many directions one could take a stint like this. Seriously dudes, make a sequel! I think I see "cult favorite" in your future! ;-)

I know truly crappy movie quality when I see it, and I have to say that based on many of the other reviews, here, I was fully expecting this to be among that ilk of film. It's the strangest thing I've ever seen - the reviews are either glowing wonderful or glowing with damnation, no in- between. But really, it's just your average very-low-budget indie type film. I really rather enjoyed it. Granted, there were so many ways it could've been improved, but I think the creators and actors did about as good as they could with what they had been given. It has a sort of Twilight Zone/Alfred Hitchcock tone to it. But all in all, and especially for all the horrid reviews, I was very pleasantly surprised. Just watch the first 15-20 minutes if you're not sure, that should be enough to tell you whether or not you can stand to watch the rest of it. As low-budget as it was, it at least seems to have had some people behind it who actually tried doing a good job - I didn't get a sense of any of this as having been "tossed to the wind" or just carelessly, haphazardly thrown together. It can actually be a bit touching if you let yourself get carried down that route with it. Not the greatest, but certainly worth watching. The three stories are just right so that if you'd prefer it, you could technically watch them in separate viewings and not really miss a thing. So if you don't think you don't want to spend an entire hour-and-a-half on it all at once, don't - I think the 2nd & 3rd story will keep well until you're in the mood. This review would be so much more positive if not for feeling like I have to try to find some way to explain the rancor & bile - I just don't see what the justification is for some of the remarks. Granted, I -do- think some of the rave reviews early on were probably faked, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a horrible film - I don't approve of faked reviews, but even believing that to be the case, I can't really trash the movie over it. It's not a bad little set of flicks. Whimsical, basic, very simple story-telling.

Not too bad as far as sci-fi m-f-TV movies go. I must object, however, to the complaints by some critics regarding the manner in which the myth of the minotaur was changed to suit this film: If you don't think one should alter a myth to suit contemporary sensibilities, there is but one word that totally knocks that notion down: Vampires. If any myth has ever been changed to better suit a newer age, it's the vampire myth. And I don't see anyone objecting to how that's been changed so dramatically over the years. Minotaurs are no different with regard to how "inalienable" ancient myths of them go. In fact, revising myth to suit modern times is practically an _obligation_ of theater - if theater fails to speak to the audience of the day and it's not a period piece, then it isn't theater, period.

Speaking as someone who through no fault of his own was just about as strange as Joshua in this movie, I have to say this kid actor really got the part perfect. Even as a child younger than Joshua, I used to wonder how adults could seriously believe I and those my age were somehow "innocent", how easily they could all be "played" against one another if that's what you felt like doing.

I grew up somewhere along the way, and while it wasn't for lack of trying, I managed to make it without killing anyone. The kid I was - the kid Joshua is in the movie - is one of the primary reasons I'm too terrified to have kids. Seriously - when you get a smart one like that with a chip on his shoulder, it's just not safe.

If you want a reason to avoid parenthood, this is a good movie to watch. If you ever wondered just how sadistic and malicious a little kid can be, and how truly dangerous, this movie is spot-on. Oh sure, most kids could never be like Joshua, but then Joshua - and I - were never like "most kids". Seriously.

The pace is rather slow and it takes awhile before you really get to see Joshua for what he is, but once it gets there & Joshua begins taking off the kid gloves, and especially after the park beating with his father and you see them packing his things away, you realize just how terrified his parents should have been all along. Pay attention to the things they pack away, very closely. The creepy thing is how sickeningly sweet Joshua plays his role the entire time, even after you've figured him all out. He's not so blatant about his hostility, you can only really tell what he really feels by what he does, not by how he acts or what he says.

Definitely recommended for those who like "spawn of Satan" type "evil kid" flicks, though only if you don't mind a slightly slow pace and not all that much gore or actual brutality.

The actors - especially the mother - seemed quite sincere in their roles, but the story itself didn't really make any sense. It all seemed so random - just random ghosts at random times coming after random people in random ways and doing random things with them, all for no apparent reason. The characters were pretty much text-book cookie-cutter. There were entirely too many full-on face shots where the heads of the characters filled up the entire screen, back & forth between them. I never realized how annoying that could be, but I've never seen that kind of shot so over-used before. There is no discernible story, just a bunch of disjointed, discombobulated "fragments". Not very well plotted. If you don't care too much about story but just like seeing people scream & ghosts go, "Boo!", this will do it for you. But if you're looking for an interesting or engaging story of some sort, this really doesn't cut it.

I really enjoyed this movie, though I've gotta' admit the most appealing thing about it for me were the cgi renditions of the spliced spawn, i.e. "Dren". The story itself had its ups and its downs - if that's all it had to sell it, I'd say to avoid it. The characters are fairly cookie-cutter, though for what they're intended to be they are acted quite well. I knew it had Dr. McKay but felt his role should've been a bit more frequent. Brody gave his usual stellar performance, giving the "sincere but quite emotionally troubled" look he's so good at giving. One could say Polley's performance was a bit flat and sterile, but that's really very much how the character is supposed to be, so she did quite well. The actress playing the human aspects of Dren was quite talented, managing a lot with facial expressions, body language and tone. My primary complaint would be the rapid-aging process - I know they have to make the character old enough to sell the sexual aspect of it, but "she's maturing from zygote to blossoming full-grown woman in just 2 days" is a bit too absurd, even for a low-quality flick. "5 years later" and "20 years later" subtitles are much better as far as forming a higher-quality plot. It was also quite unrealistic that all of the different parts from all of the different species were in perfect working order and Dren instinctively knew how to use them - in a real splice of this nature, she'd be a misshapen, clumsy ox of a character, not one so full of elegant assembly & grace. At least not for the scientist's very first attempt at such a thing - a few deformed fetuses would have been just the ticket.

Still, in the end I found it to be an enjoyable experience. However, if cgi doesn't do much for you, then you probably won't like it as much as I did. I'd say it's still worth a view, though - in spite of the shallowness of the characters and the plot flaws, it _does_ actually managed to ask some questions which we in our zest for technological advancement really should be asking before we go anywhere near that far. It's not a very powerfully-conveyed message, but it's there. Overall experience is 2 thumbs, overall quality is 8 stars.

This was a rather disappointing experience. Scott Leet gave a terrific performance, there was nothing about his acting I'd have changed in the least. But the script was so sanitized as to make the movie basically useless to anyone who actually wants to know about Bill Bonin, the Freeway Killer. They might just as well have used muppets for all the more realistically it portrayed the people and events associated with the film. I don't get why they're so afraid to at least just _acknowledge_ the full depth of depravity of characters such as Bonin. They wouldn't even need to show fake rape scenes or anything, just acknowledge that the sexual element WAS his motivation. The defining feature about William George Bonin is that he was a serial lust killer - a very specific kind of serial killer - and you would never have known it if all you had to go on was this movie. Going by this movie, you couldn't even really tell he was gay. It's ridiculous. Again, the actor was fantastic - the script, however, sucked. If you're in the mood for Mary Poppins with a mustache, this is for you. If you're in the mood for truth and realism, you won't find it here. No thumbs, 1 star.