Obliviax's Reviews

Conjurer (2008)

2/10

8 November 2008

"Conjurer" is, in its own way, a triumph. It's difficult to find such an uncompromisingly boring film in any genre, much less horror. Sure, the film relies on all the same tropes as 99.9% of the "haunted area" pieces, but "Conjurer" really shines in its ability to cause fits of uncontrollable laughter and/or comas.

Should you ever find yourself in the mood for a horror film that includes such terrifying elements as the discussion of paint swatches, the planting of cabbages, and healthy trees in broad daylight, "Conjurer" is just what you need.

Alternately, you could read an issue of "Better Homes & Gardens".

10 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War (2007)

3/10

There's nothing new under the sun...

17 January 2008

... and that cliché is especially true of action films. That doesn't mean, however, that there are no enjoyable action films being made. "War" succeeds in being a darn good action film without ever descending into the realm of "purely insulting to the viewer" (if that's what you're after, I'd recommend the stunningly awful "Shoot 'Em Up").

There are gangs, guns, chasing, mayhem, and a great deal of people hurting other people - everything you could want in an action film. Statham and Li are, as always, delightful. The action scenes are well put together and recall the time before gratuitous wire stunts and MTV-brand "shakey-cam". All in all, "War" is an excellent way to enjoy a standard action film premise in a new way.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Hatchet (2006)

7/10

Much better than most, but...

1 January 2008

The tag-line "Old School American Horror" is a little misleading. While it's true that "Hatchet" recalls the mad gore of the 1980s, the "horror" factor is actually absent. Watching the film feels more like viewing a condensed reel of slasher kills with a few drunk and fun-loving friends - certainly not a bad thing, but not exactly a horror movie either. That being said, it's obvious that the people involved in the production have a real love for the genre. Kane Hodder's monster antics are always a delight, and Adam Green will definitely be a name to watch in the future.

In summary, I'd certainly recommend the film for anyone who gets a kick out of the slasher craze of the 80s, but be sure you're in the mood for goofy fun and not an actual horror flick.

60 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I Am Legend (2007)

1/10

No, no you are not.

23 December 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Whenever a book is adapted into a film, there is some dread. Some deviations from the source material are unavoidable, but clever scripting and a good cast can, in some instances, still make a good film. This is not one of those instances.

The charmingly blue-collar Robert Neville is gone, replaced with soldier/scientist Will Smith. The virus, rather than creating vampires, apparently turns people into poorly-textured CGI abominations. Gone even is the nightly terror of having the vampires standing about on his lawn, taunting him. Despite being able to smell blood from a great distance off and move like only modern CGI monsters can, the vampires "don't know where he lives". As a matter of fact, the only holdovers from the book are the name of the character and the idea of a virus turning people into something. It is, in that sense, very similar to the "work" the director did on "Constantine (2005)".

Now, you may wonder if the film is worthwhile if you haven't read the book, and thus have nothing for it to spoil. The answer is ... still a resounding no. If you haven't read the book, this film will simply insult your intelligence and waste your time rather than insulting your intelligence, wasting your time, and butchering a great read.

There isn't enough time or prose to explain all the reasons why the movie-going public shouldn't pay to see this utter dreck. I implore you to skip it, for the sake of your mind and well-being. This film may, indeed, become a legend, but only in the sense that a great many people paid a shocking amount of money to see something so indescribably wretched.

17 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Beneath Still Waters (2005)

2/10

How could this go so wrong?

15 October 2006

As a longtime Yuzna fan, I was absolutely delighted when I heard of this project. I happened upon the novel on which this film is based many years ago, and it's always stuck with me - there are some genuinely creepy ideas (and moments) in there. Great director, good source material... what could possibly go wrong?

A great many things, apparently.

The acting and dialogue are stilted, the atmosphere (which should just create itself, given the setting) simply isn't there, and the dreadful scene-chewing performance of Patrick Gordon as the villain of the piece deflates any sense of dread one may have had. Even the one decent monster effect is wasted in a brief and poorly-sequenced shot. As much as it pains me to say, Mr. Yuzna seems to have hit a bit of a slump. Do yourself a favour - skip this one and watch "Beyond Re-Animator" instead.

12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

It Waits (2005)

2/10

It lurks... it prowls... it _sucks_.

7 October 2006

"It Waits" inspires the same kind of fear that rice cakes do. Not only is it the same garbage as always, it's bad garbage. Rife with every standard post-"X-Files" pseudo-horror trope (look! it's a native American legend! honest!) but with the added bonus of having a soundtrack straight out of a 1992 romantic comedy/drama, this film is insulting to the viewer in every way possible. The only (and I do mean _only_) reason I didn't give this film a 1/10 is because "666: The Demon Child" is worse. I beg you, the viewer, not to waste your time watching this kind of thing. We can't keep settling for these bland horror-placebos. It's time that we stand up and demand that real horror film-makers have their chance to shine.

I had to buy "Deadbirds" from a video rental store that was closing, and "It Waits" gets international airtime on digital cable. There truly is no justice in the world.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghost Lake (2004 Video)

1/10

Oh. Sweet. Jesus.

9 April 2006

There are very few horror films in which I can find no redeeming quality - and "Ghost Lake" has the dubious honour of being one of them. Although it doesn't feature the same level of technical ineptitude as, say, "666: The Demon Child", its unspeakably annoying "actors", awful dialogue (which, I'm sorry to say, is perfectly audible at all times), and pitiful visual effects all add up to a thoroughly reprehensible waste of an hour and three quarters.

Add to all that the fact that the plot was gaffed entirely from a Matthew Costello novel entitled "Beneath Still Waters" (which, as luck would have it, is being adapted by the lovely Brian Yuzna) and you have a film that you simply can't like for any reason at all. Really.

Well, that's not completely true. In the picture's defence, the scenes involving forcible expulsion of water from the mouths of various people are awfully amusing... for entirely the wrong reasons, of course. Please avoid this dreadful thing.

27 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Syngenor (1990)

7/10

A vote of 7/10 needs some explanation...

17 March 2006

As a horror/sci-fi, this film is a peerless failure. It's yet another "Alien" rip-off created in the early 1990s when rubber monster suits became more affordable. The acting, direction, and screenplay are all awful - to say nothing of the aforementioned bargain basement creature effect. "Syngenor" does, however, deserve an 8/10 for pure entertainment value. Rarely have I laughed so hard at a film. If you want to watch a real movie, avoid "Syngenor" at all costs. If, on the other hand, you want an evening of hilarity, gather up some friends, buy the spirits of your choice, and enjoy "Syngenor" in all its absurd glory. Goofy dialogue, ridiculous plot devices, monsters who jig wildly when being shot... "Syngenor" truly is a giant among B-grade sci-fi schlock.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

666: The Demon Child (2004 Video)

1/10

The world deserves to be warned.

20 February 2006

Before you read my comments, please try to understand that I try to see the good in all horror films. "Elves", for instance, was at least funny. I own a DVD of "The Stuff". I'm not one to write off a film just because it has a low budget or a silly premise. However, I have never, in all my years of rabid horror film consumption, seen a movie as bad as "666: The Demon Child". Not only do we have the typical low-budget issues (lousy acting, poorly constructed creature effects, et cetera), we have a host of technical issues of which the production crew really should be ashamed. Through much of the film, the dialogue is inaudible. What can be heard is disjointed, non-sensical, and downright awful. The editing, lighting and story are similarly piteous. I cannot make my point clear enough: I have _never_ seen a film as bad as this. Not "House of the Dead", not "Strangeland", not "Silent Night, Deadly Night 4"... not even "Werewolf". Please spare yourself the agony. You would be better served to sniff glue for an hour and a half.

4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Obliviax

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed