Reviews

66 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tales from the Hood 3 (2020 Video)
7/10
All and all a return to form for the series and a good fallow up to the first
9 October 2020
The original Tales From the Hood is a cult classic for good reason. It is my second fave horror anthology(ABCs of Death just! beating it) and is a horror film I love very fondly. If you haven't seen it, see it!

Part 2 was full of bad camera work, worse acting, and some of the most bonkers stuff you could think of to put on screen. It is a Z grade film, that gets everything so wrong on a technical level that it becomes oddly charming. In other words it is a pure so bad it's good and I find it hilarious. A lot of people hate it(and I can see why!) but I love it for much the same reason so many people like Troll 2.

But that of course asks, what kind of film would part 3 be? A cult classic social commentary dark horror film like the original, or a trash fire comedy miss step like part 2?

Well part 3 feels very much like it was made in response to the bad feed back part 2 got. The film plays itself VERY safe. Only one of the four stories is even actually a commentary on racism. The rest could take place in any old anthology series. All the stories are a lot more down to Earth and much less over the top then anything was in part 2, or even the original. This does make the film pretty predictable. Since it is playing things so held back and safe you will be able to call out the plot twists well before they happen. A lot of people are going to complain that this film is very paint by numbers and formulaic.

BUT along with playing things much more by the numbers the film makes itself much more competently. Camera work, good, acting good, pacing, good. Nothing is AMAZING! But there are no bad miss steps anywhere besides some weak CGI here and there. I do feel the one story about racism, the second one, is pretty darn good and feels like it would have been at home in the first film. The third story, though as said it could be from any horror anthology series, is still a good story that is well done and charming. It also has the first queer character for the series! Cool! :) The other two stories though predictable are by no means bad. So yes, this is an anthology with not a single bad story! Which is pretty good in my book.

Ya, you can nit pick it(the idea of this like six year old telling a grown man about a story where a man has sex with a blowup doll is pretty wonderfully absurd), but if you do you'll be just hating it for hating it sake.

No, this is a light going, turn your mind off, grab some Halloween candy with friends, kind of horror film. It's time killer, but very well done time killer and I think fans of the original will be over all pleased.

6.8 out of 10.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After Earth (2013)
3/10
Just a bad idea when you think about it
8 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Alright, so in the distant future man is at war with an alien race that hunts by fear. Said alien race is close range and of course since it does hunt by fear could not see us if we were in say a tank, or vehicle of some kind. So, all we would need to take them out is vehicles or just simply a gun. We no longer have guns or use vehicles for war because... ummmm.... ya, there is no reason. Instead we use these really close range blades and go toe to toe with the things because, ummmm, ya we just do.

So, simply because man kind is really, really stupid we are losing a war against this alien race and have been forced into trying to ignore fear. This has made a race of people who try to ignore their emotions. Or at least this is what is suggested. Since we only really get to know Will and his kid, we only have them to go off of. But Will acts like a robot and he gets mad at his kid whenever he shows any emotion, so I'm going to assume they come from a very military based world that is very against open emotions. Interesting, maybe, but does it make a good movie? Well, in short you got this robot dad who doesn't want to feel emotions talking to his kid in a point form kind of way as the kid learns the value of being an emotionless robot so he can save his dad and himself from an abandoned Earth. So, you got two guys that show hardly any human like aspects and almost get killed for 90 min straight.

These guys hardly give a darn about their own lives. Why should I? It's almost impossible to relate to them or care about them. There is a part about mid way through where both of them start to break down and do start crying and stuff, but by then I already don't care. The movie just feels so blasted slow as a result. It's boring, it's just plain boring.

Plus the world turns to ice every night because...ummmmm...I'm sure there's some kind of reason.

Ya, you know, a lot of this movie had me questioning the logic. Can you blame me though? When the acting from the two leads is as bland as it was all you can really do is question the logic of the film.

3 out of 10, some cool space ships and a cool alien world at the start of the film that we hardly see. I would suggest not seeing it.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
it's as wonderfully bad as you think it is
9 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Oh boy, oh boy! Got this for free at the local library and it was well worth every penny. :) Yes, this is a movie with Lincoln running around with super human strength taking out vampires everywhere he goes with his trusty axe-gun! And yes, it is played 100% straight and the film makers seem to have no idea just how moronic this really is. As a result, this is a so bad it's awesome movie that is on par with such cheese fest as Jack Frost and Postal.

Oh my, where do I get started? Cons: 1. The action scenes are so over the top that it's insane. Specifically a stampede scene mid way through the film in which a vampire is tossing around horses as if they were rag dolls. Oh, you have to see this movie just for this scene.

2. Vampires can become invisible, but they sure do like becoming visible again to let Lincoln kill them. Actually, they never use this power in combat. They go out of site, pop back in site to let themselves be killed, and then wonder why they keep losing. Maybe if you actually stayed invisible, that would help. :) 3. As stated Lincoln has super strength but it only pops up once in the entire film and has no impact on the plot. It also of course makes no sense. Yahoo! The fact that his axe also happens to be a gun is just kind of there too.

4. Vampires can't harm each other for some reason...but yet at the end of the movie when the plot calls for it they can ignore that rule because for some reason...

5. The entire film just feels overly stylized in this very cartoon way. Think Batman and Robin only more CGI based.

The pros? Every bad thing comes together just right making this a moronic blast of a film. You'll laugh yourself silly at this train wreck.

Proper rating, 1 out of 10.

Rating based on how much fun you'll get out of it, 7 out of 10. :)
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mama (I) (2013)
3/10
What could have been...
27 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This has the same thing wrong with it that a lot of bad horror does. It tries to hard to be scary. Endless, cheap jump scares. Things redone from other films 100 times before that used to be scary but are now just warn out. And let's not forget a poorly made CGI bad guy. Yahoo!

I wish these main stream horror directors would just say screw you to being scary and actually try to tell a good story. But no, we got to add more run of the mill jump scares to this sucker.

Also, a scene rips off the game Fatal Frame.

There is also a lot of plot holes. The ghost for example is clearly a good one at the start of the film. It protected and cared for the two kids for five years straight and it killed one guy, a man that was about to kill them. Not actually evil there. But then she goes evil because...? Well the film suggests that she's jealous of the new parents. But if that's the case, why does she wait so long to strike? Her power seems endless at the end of the film. It would of been nice if she had a motive because you can't simply say she's evil due to her literally saving the kids lives. Oh, and did I mention she spends most of the film trying to find her lost baby only to destroy the things bones? Why? Beats me. It's just random.

The Annabel character also makes no sense. Yes, I get it, she doesn't want to be a mother, but why does she have to act so distant and mean towards the kids? Just cause you don't want to be a mother doesn't mean you should randomly act like a dick towards some kids you just met. She has no reason to act this way. Sure, she comes to care for them by the end(for unclear reasons) but by then I, the viewer, already see her as a dick.

There are only two good things about this. Isabelle Nélisse acting was very impressive with how she moved and acted like an animal. It was so off, but interesting. And the dream scene, which is wonderfully over stylized.

This could have been so, SO much better as the idea of two kids being raised in the wild and then having to live a normal life can be made into such an interesting story. Read The Room to see what can be done with an idea like this. Instead, screw that original and thought provoking idea, let's slap some random scary ghost in it! BOO!

3 out of 10. Don't bother.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
He's in two car crashes and hit by a car all within the first 30 min
16 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
And, he has nothing to show for any of this. Ya, all these Die Hard films are over the top, but when John can be in two car crashes and be hit dead on by a car and has not been hurt a bit, it's like the guy is in Doom's God mode.

But, that's a really small issue over all. There are two main problems here. Number one, very bad camera work, making a few of the action scenes VERY hard to fallow. The car chase scene at the start for example, I think you would have to see it twice to get it.

The second issue is there is a mystery element. For most of the film you're not really sure what's going on. In fact the head villain does not reveal himself until the ending of the film. The cons of this is two fold, number one, it feels like there is no main bad guy until the ending of the film where he shows up, and two, since you don't know what's going on until well past the midway point, all the action scenes feel senseless and just there. Oh, we have to run from the bad guys because they are chasing us. Why are they chasing us? Ummmmm, I think it has something to do with some file, not sure. Oh, okay.

So, there's really no context for a lot of the stuff that happens. As a result, the action might be big and in your face, but it sure does feel bland.

There's a few stunning slow mow shots near the end and the ending itself when the bad guy shows himself is pretty good, but by then chances are the blandness of the film has put you to sleep.

Rent it if you're interested.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Nothing else like it
3 February 2013
26 directors all doing whatever they want for a straight 2 hours. The result is a massive, and I mean MASSIVE tribute film to every kind of horror flick there is.

Some of the shorts feel like splatter comedies like Dead Alive and Evil Dead 2(the short A comes to mind), while others seem like a run of the mill slasher like Friday the 13th(the short B comes to mind). Some are first person point of view, some are over the top exploitation, some are dark and disturbing. A couple are just random.

A lot of them have a twisted, childish sense of comedy, making this a great experience if you are seeing this with some friends and got some pop and chips. Actually, that's really the best way to see this.

The ending credit song, 'Horror Movie' is also an awesome song and a couple of the shorts like L and V are EXTREMELY well done.

If you are a horror fan and have seen quite a lot of the indie kind, then this is a must see.
17 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
You can still make a so bad it's good movie
29 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Well, this was the most badly made film that was oddly funny that I've seen since Postal. Dahmer and Gacy are cloned, break out, kill people, and a mad man sent by God hunts them down along with evil ninjas! This is a very cartoon like horror film, like a Japan splatter flick. Think a pretty tame version of robo-geisha.

Only here, half the kills happen off screen and we simply hear about them in news reports. Ya, that was kind of odd. Felt like the makers of the film were trying to slam media and news in general. Well, I guess it is fair to nit pick current news, but when the smartest thing you can present for your own side of media is a girl screaming the f word for no less then ten minutes or Dahmer raping a guy to cheesy love music, you don't really have that much to complain about.

You will get a few laughs, but all and all, this obviously is a very poor movie. Best part of the flick was God.

I would suggest it for a dumb movie night with friends.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst sequel since Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
3 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This, this was pretty bad.

The biggest flaw in this is that it's clearly trying to be more faithful to the games, which the original film wasn't really. The original kind of set up its' own world and its' own rules.

The problem here is all the spots that are more faithful to the games, go against plot points of the first film. As such, it contradicts the film and makes it into a confusing mess.

Now, the only Silent Hill game I played was Shattered Memories, which I admit was pretty good plot wise, but it was a puzzle game, and I always get stumped in them, so I haven't really hunted down the rest of the games.

It's still clear though what parts fit with the games, but they make no sense here. For starters, the first film made it clear the only reason the cult lived for so long after the town was set on fire was because they were hiding in the church. But, at the end of the film the evil broke into the church and killed them all. They were all dead, which the film made very clear. And even if they weren't, there was nowhere left to run to or hide. They were screwed. Here they are still alive, just because. It ignores the entire ending of the first film.

Further more, now the cult is trying to bring forth an evil God. Sure, it was likely doing this in the game, but since when was it doing this in the movie's world. The cult from the first film would have burned to death everyone in the cult from the second film for trying to do such a thing. They were extreme Christians, bringing forth a demon God doesn't really fit with their goals.

And on-top of that, in the first one the film was unclear if the girl had powers and the demons were her doing, or if the Devil had really come forth to claim the town's souls. You could read the film in different ways. Here, oh, Alessa has super powers, it's all her doing. It's all spelled out and you feel like you are being talked down to.

All the characters talk in point form, most only existing to dump plot points. The first 40 min feels like nothing but exposition. The film keeps telling us the plot point for point instead of showing us anything.

Also, why was the key inside of the crazy guy? Was there any reason for that? One of the worst acted films I have ever seen, and I see a lot of Z grade films, so please, just stay away from Silent Hill.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A instant classic, on par with Scream and the other greats
15 April 2012
This film is stuffed with sly dark comedy, likable characters, a twisty turny plot that just gets more smart as it goes, some good gore, and some good jump scares.

The climax is a step shy of blowing you right out of your seat. It's so insane! I can't say what happens in the last 30 min, but it will blow your mind.

The main great thing of this film though is it takes old horror stereotypes and makes it that you love them. The stoner, the jock, the virgin, are all here. All of them are altered slightly though to make them more like real people and more like people you can cheer for.

Get ready to laugh your head one moment and turn away in fear the next. You've never seen a horror movie like this before, trust me.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Antichrist (2009)
6/10
An art house movie that shouldn't be an art house movie.
1 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with this movie is really an odd one and hard to explain.

Okay, art house is what this movie it. It is 100% theme and art based and does not make what said theme is clear. The plot and characters are ignored to help the symbolic value of the film.

That's fine. 2001 and Halloween do the exact same thing. No problem there.

The problem is though the plot is as fallows, a married couple trying to deal with the death of their child slowly fall apart and try in the end to kill each other. That means that the plot at its heart should be a character drama.

The problem is, the characters of this film aren't characters, but symbolic props used to make a comment. They don't even have names! This means that ALL of their actions are random(everything they do is only to help the theme and makes no sense plot wise). As such, they don't come off as real people.

The girl character attacks the man character for no reason. None. She just does so to do so. As such, you find the characters impossible to relate to and the entire film falls apart.

The end result is a film that feels slow and you can't connect with. Do to not connecting with it it's impossible to find the film disturbing or graphic. It only feels disjointed and pointless.

The only way one could enjoy the film is if they read a book before seeing the film saying what the theme of the film was. That though makes the film pointless. I would rather just read the book.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Really, really bad
4 December 2010
This is really just a badly made film, but to go into detail, Nicolas Cage does his worst acting job to date(honestly, the guy can do a lot better). The CGI would have been impressive about 10 years ago, so special effects wise it just looks horrid.

The plot is beyond rushed. The first three minutes of film have about 40 minutes of plot line jammed into them! This makes it hard to get into the film, and because the thing is going through plot points like a machine gun the characters and the story itself is underdeveloped.

It tries painfully hard to be funny and falls on its face every time. The smartest things they can come up with are fart jokes.

The bad guys want to raise an army of the dead for no reason. Ya, the film is so rushed with its plot it doesn't even bother to give the villain a motive.

Lastly, the film tries to explain away magic with science that will make any sci-fi fan cry.

Over all, this is simply a badly acted and made film, and oh ya, the sound track is terrible.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Braindead (1992)
10/10
Simply a great film
26 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
So, yes, Dead Alive! Said by well all horror fans to be the most blood filled film ever, period (can't say for sure, haven't seen Tokyo Gore Police yet), it was made in the 90s and was directed by Peter Jackson, that's right, the guy that made The Lord Of the Rings.

Do to how blood filled this movie is, it was going to become a cult classic no matter what, weather it was good or bad. Lucky for me it was good, actually one of the most enjoyable horror films I've seen in years and in many ways comparable to the Evil Dead films, which is one of the best horror series there is.

Anyways, the plot is Lionel is shy, nervous, and a tad dumb. His mom is over powering and given the amount of work she has him do, he doesn't have a life of his own. Do to him being, well, a push over, he doesn't have the guts to stand up to his mom or set his life straight. When his mom is bit by a rat monkey(ya, I'm not making that up) she becomes a zombie. Lionel though, being one to always ignore his problems, simply tries to ignore the fact that she is a zombie and tries to have a normal life. Things get more and more out of control though as zombie mom starts turning other towns' people into zombies and before Lionel knows it, he's got a basement full of the undead.

This is what's called a splatter comedy. Pretty much they have a tone of blood and slap stick comedy and the idea is the film is supposed to be so over the top with its violence and random ball plot that you can't help but find it funny. You'll laugh at a lot of parts not cause they are funny per say, but because they are downright so odd. Like, this has a zombie baby running around, and I don't know why, but that's really funny! What's interesting about this film though is despite the tones of blood and gore, it actually still has a theme and a message to the story. Don't ignore your problems in life. If you ignore your problems they are only going to get worse until one day you wake up surrounded by flesh eating zombies! The most interesting scenes in this by far are the ones where Lionel helplessly tries to ignore the zombie issue and have a normal life. There's one scene where he has all the zombies at the dinner table and is trying to have a normal meal with them. It's just odd.

Another interesting thing about the film is it tries really hard to change the zombie mythology and make zombies its own. Ever since Night of The Living Dead zombies have pretty much always been done the same way. It's not like with vampires where the film can do whatever it wants with them. Zombies have become very ridged in film. So, it's pretty uncommon to see a film play around with them as this one does.

The zombies in this spread by bites, and by cutting your skin. So if one gets its nails in you, you'll still become a zombie. Also, these zombies don't die if you shoot them in the head. Each body part of theirs can live on its own. If you cut off a hand, that hand will get up and come after you. So, they are next to unstoppable.

Lastly they don't kill to feed. Their attacks are emotion based. When someone first becomes a zombie in the film they will likely kill anything in site, but if you tie them down and try to calm them down, they'll actually become nice after awhile. There are a few scenes where Lionel walks around them and they just ignore him. They only really become violent again near the end.

This is an interesting idea because it's not like in other zombie films where when someone you love has become a zombie they are nothing like what they used to be. In this, they are still who they used to be, they're just also dead and are very violent. This makes it a lot harder for Lionel to except that his mom is dead, and actually adds a lot to the story.

Lastly, one of the coolest things about this movie is its filming style and set design. It REALLY feels like you are watching Bugs Bunny. This is as cartoon like as a film with live actors can become. The playful camera movement, the colourful set designs, and the crazy violence just makes it feel like an animated movie. If Bugs Bunny did pop up mid way in the movie, he would blend in and you wouldn't even notice the guy.

As such the camera work and set design are both amazing. It is painfully funny, the hero is actually a really nice guy you can't help but love, and over all its just a really creative and fun little movie.

I give it a 10 out of 10. It's a must for anyone that likes splatter comedy. If you enjoyed Shaun of the Dead and Evil Dead 2, you MUST see this film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If you want to see Will Ferrell drink pee then this is the film for you!
25 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I think that kind of says it all. This is a horrible gross out and random comedy that always goes for the most lowest of low jokes. There are countless numbers of tasteless cracks about sex or poop, sometimes both, none of which are funny.

If that wasn't enough, the beyond random plot is so horribly crazy that no one could ever make sense of it. The funny thing though, are the things that make the least sense were meant to be the serious parts in the film! For example, the character Holly can translate for Chaka, who is a being that speaks in an unknown language that has not been heard in one can only assume 10,000 years. Holly though magically knows this language, for no apparent reason what so ever. She just starts translating, and no explanation is given.

Will Ferrel walks across lava to get his tech device, walks right on the lava itself! and is left unburned or harmed in anyway. That's just sloppy.

A giant crab pops out of nowhere and then suddenly explodes for no reason.

That's all this film is, one random moment after the other, with nothing but the lowest grade sense of humour to pull it all together.

This isn't funny, it doesn't even have a plot. You could make more sense out of the random parts of a Scary Movie sequel. Honestly, it's that bad.

I had to stop about an hour and ten min in. Why did I see that far into it?
36 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Avatar (2009)
10/10
Without question
18 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Without question this is the greatest action film, and the greatest science fiction film ever. For a long, long, LONG time I thought nothing could ever compare to Terminator 2. Well, if anyone could surpass it, it would be the man that made the original film, and that's what James Cameron has done.

Anyone complaining about no character development has NOT seen the film. An hour and 50 min of the film is spent on ONLY character development. These are some of the most well rounded and in depth characters I've seen in a film. Sigourney Weaver literally breaths her part, as does Stephen Lang, and man, what a great bad guy he makes. In fact to call this an action/science fiction is pretty dishonest. 50% of the film is character drama.

The visuals are indeed the best ever. The war scenes near the end are simply stunning. The Na'vi I felt looked a bit off at first, but they fit perfectly in the alien world made for them.

The action of the film is mind blowing, and the second half of the film will likely cause you to stand up and cheer. It was very hard for me not to.

By the end, the entire theater applauded, I have never been to a showing of a film and seen that before, but my God this film earned it.

Stunning sites, great action, and really some of the best acting in a film I've ever seen. Everyone in this film should get an Oscar. EVERYONE In short, you must see this film, and if you've seen it already, SEE IT AGAIN!
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A cartoon horror film
1 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine if you will the Bugs Bunny And Tweety Show doing a Halloween special that is acted out by a live cast. That really is all Drag Me To Hell is.

Sam Raimi returns to his splatter horror comedy flicks(Evil Dead 2) with a vengeance and if you loved thoughs old movies, or just love B horror or grindhouse in general, then you will LOVE this.

But that's what it comes down to, you'll either get the joke or you wont. I saw this with my family, and they all hated it, while I loved it from start to end.

So, ask yourself, do you like random crazy stuff hitting the screen every second, do you like blood flying everywhere, do you think the idea of a killer cloth is brilliant, and do you like the idea of seeing someone try to gum a girl to death? If the answer to all these questions is yes, well then why are you not seeing this film?
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beowulf (2007)
3/10
Proof that a gimmick is still just a gimmick
2 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film was on my avoid at all costs list for quite some time. Why? Cause the film felt like one massive gimmick after another. Oh, it's in CGI! Oh, it's 3D! Oh, the DVD is UNRATED! All the adds sold it on these gimmicks and good visuals, but there was never a statement on the actual plot or why this movie was good? So, the adds didn't sell the movie, they were selling the tools to sell the movie. That right there made me think it would be trash, and was I wrong?

The hero, who can't stop saying his own name and must fight all his enemies but naked(one of the most random things I have ever seen) is just silly.

The plot is dull and the action scenes simply aren't engaging in anyway. The ending is also plan and predictable. Grendel, who should be one of the films main selling points, is killed off in 30 minutes! Not only that, you can't understand one blasted thing he says So in all, I should have stayed with my gut. A gimmick in the end is only a gimmick and it shouldn't be a mistaken quality for a film.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I'm going to go over the cons first BUT
28 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
But that doesn't mean I hate the film, though the cons do come more easily to mind then the pros. I think it's do to there being more cons then pros, but the pros are very high, so I guess you could say it balances itself out. Well, anyways, let's get started:

Cons: This is Transformers part 3 not part 2: At the start of the film Prime tells us that the government is working with the autobots in a group known as nest. Nest is formed of many different autobots and in the first 10 min we meet them all, but the film never introduces any of them. It pretty much assumes that we already know all these characters, though I don't see how. Then 5 min later it dumps all these extra nest characters and the actual film starts. It feels like the nest autobots would have been the heroes from part 2 and the opening is simply a recap to say what happened to them and then we move onto the third film, only there is no second film. There's this motorcycle autobot, and this autobot with massive blades coming out of his hands, but does the film ever bother to tell you these characters names or anything at all about them, no. They just pop up and then are gone again. Really, the motorcycle bot had ONE line, what was the point of even putting her in there. And the sad thing is only long time fans of the series are even going to know who this autobot was supposed to be.

Random powers: Out of the blue, or at least it feels that way to me, transformers can suddenly teleport and move objects with their mind. There is no reason for these powers or no explanation for them, they are simply there.

Barricade is still missing: We all remember how Barricade simply disappeared in the first one with really no reason why. I was really wanting, and kind of expecting, for him to show back up, but he's still just gone.

Random plot points: Transformer ghosts!

Decepticon girl bot: Once again, another bot that goes the way of Barricade. She simply disappears for no reason. I really don't believe the car wreck would have killed her, she's a blasted transformer! I don't know why this series simply keeps on forgetting about its characters.

And now the pros: The Action: Much better done in this one.

The special effects: Kind of a no brainier, but it can not be said enough that the visuals in this series are simply ground braking.

Scorponok! It may have been only 50 seconds of film but when Scorponok busted out of the sand I nearly got up and cheered. That's what I'm talking about, a character that was simply dropped in the last film popping up out of nowhere and kind of saying, I'm back! Why couldn't the same thing be done for Barricade? Scorponok was the best part of the film.

The comedy: MUCH of it does fall flat and MUCH of it is in bad taste, but the first was just as bad with its comedy with Jazz. I still none the less laughed a bit.

So, a high 6. Rounding up I would say seven. My cons make the film seem horrid, but I'm still glad I saw it and it should be a film seen on the big screen.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just very badly done
31 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Some horrid CGI, a plot that is more like a bad punch line on super hero films then an actual story line, and one of the most silly looking characters on screen(Hyde).

Simply, badly done. Every plot turn is more moronic then the last and every special effect is more sloppily done. They must have ran out of a budget after the first 15 minutes.

For anyone to think this plot concept could work as anything besides so bad it's good, is rather amusing in of itself.

Only see to have a nice little chuckle at all the wrong spots.

Oh, and a very, very 'there's going to be a part 2!' ending to cap it all off.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
There is one reason why this film is worth your money, and only one...
23 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
And that one reason is the Arnold guest appearance. I can honestly say I have no idea how they did that. That sure did not look like a CGI face to me and he was entered into the film seamlessly, and the five min that he is in, and terminator beat playing in the back, just made the whole film worth while.

Other then that the action felt like a hit and miss. Some action scenes were grade A, like this action set piece in the water and the ending fight with the T-800, while other action set pieces, like the truck scene, just seemed to drag. Maybe the adds gave to much of that scene away so it couldn't surprise me like it should have.

The other problem I had at least is the humans seemed to be doing to well in this war. The flash forwards in the other films showed them on the brink of death, living off of rats and pure smarts, but in this they had jets and submarines at their finger tips, and because of this I never got the feeling that man kind was a step shy of dieing out.

Still, none the less the characters were well done, and when an action scene does get hit right, it goes out of the park.

The lowest in the series, but still a good part to the series.

PS. The PG-13 doesn't hurt the film at all. All the blood that was needed was in it. Adding any more would have just seemed forced.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Guan-Di is his name!
14 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
In a way, I have been waiting to see this film for 15 years, ever since I saw Army Of Darkness for the first time. In a way this is and is not Evil Dead 4. Well to be honest it is not part 4, but since number 4 will NEVER happen, it's best to pretend it is just so the series doesn't die off as the trilogy it is.

The plot is simple: Small town kidnaps Bruce Campbell( of Evil Dead fame) and tricks him into fighting a God of war and death. The film nodes to ALL of Bruce Campbell films and is obviously made for his fan base, but it makes by far the most nodes to The Evil Dead films, to the extent where it even remakes two of its scenes, has many of its cast members return, and seems to say a one liner from the series about every five or six lines of dialog.

In other words the nodes are 'just' thick enough that you can call it Evil Dead 4 and not look like a moron. So, I am very thankful to 'The Chin' for making this kind of, but really not, part 4.

It's fun, silly, and light hearted. It is something you can kick back with, but it does have some flaws. Mostly the thing is to blasted short! The ending just seems to come out of nowhere. Also, the comedy is very uneven. A lot of it works, but some of it just falls flat.

All and all I rate it a 7 and to all that shake their head at me for calling this Evil Dead 4 when even Bruce Campbell says it isn't, this is as much a part of Evil Dead as AVP: Requiem was a part of Aliens and Predator, so there ya go.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Good, sick, fun
18 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
No, it is not on par with any of the films, but it is just a skip and a jump shy of being on par in my mind with the second entry(in my mind the weakest of the three films. Bash me if you must).

The show has its flaws, mostly being a plot hole here and there, and Blade is no where near to as strong as he should be(he almost gets killed in each fight that he's in, and hath the time someone has to step in and save his but!) being the strongest problems.

The pros is the show does keep the same feel of the films, unlike some other series out there(The Terminator series jumps to mind. That just screwed over everything.) What is also neat is how the series just goes all out. It is indeed one of the most blood filled TV shows I have ever seen. In fact, if you took all three films and smacked them together, the show would still have 5 times more blood.

The action for a TV show is also Grade A. The fight scene between Marcus and a Pure Blood is just plain amazing and crazy! Also, some interesting characters, and unlike the films, Blade isn't the only one to kill a tone. Also gives Blade some more back story and makes him a bit more interesting.

See on DVD set after you see the other films. That way it will fit in better and feel more like the forth film then just some TV show.

Cheers!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Halloween (2007)
3/10
Rob Zombie Strikes Again!
24 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
A few things should be noted before you read this review. I'm not a fan of Zombie as a director. All of his films have been sub par for me, and the only reason I saw this was because I'm having a bit of a gore fest and I heard that this version of Halloween did in fact have some blood in it.

I'm also not a big fan of the original. I thought the pace was a bit slow, BUT none the less the original Halloween was a film with a smart concept. IE. to show what evil would be like if it was simply a force of nature.

It was a unique interpretation of what evil could be like. This was not some killer with a motive to his crimes. This was not something that could be explained or reasoned with, it was just evil, and that was it.

It was such a simple, yet interesting idea. So many films try to explain away inhuman acts, and Halloween just said screw it and didn't explain a thing. For that alone I understand why it is held so highly, even if I couldn't get into it.

Anyways, If you have seen Halloween the original, then you've seen this. This isn't a recreation of Halloween. All this is, is a two bit back story stapled onto the Halloween we already have. Myers is given a back story, which obviously isn't needed because why doe Myers even need a motive? Once the back story is done(I admit it is a long back story, but only cause it's dragged out) the original Halloween starts. Entire scenes are shamefully recreated. Lines from the original are used instead of new dialog. Really, the only 'new' things this film brings to the table is blood(which isn't needed, despite my gore fest), nudity, the two note back story, and a rape scene, which fits in with Halloween about as well as a flying pig in Friday the 13th.

Other then that, every scene from the original is simply reused, and poorly.

The scenes that Rob does add come off as jokes. There is an actual scene, not kidding, that plays Love Hurts to make us feel sorry for Myers. There Myers is, crying his eyes out, and about to kill his whole family, and the song Love Hurts is blaring over the film. I have never seen such a cheap scam to get a tear from the viewer.

The list goes on and on for flaws in this film, but I'll just stop it there. Happy Halloween, oh, I mean Christmas. Man, even the release date was screwed up.
63 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Is this the end, or just the start?
15 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone, on Earth knows about The Simpsons, and everyone also knows that the series has been going a bit down hill lately. The 'newer' Simpsons is by no means bad, but when compared to the older stuff it simply doesn't hold up as well. The flaws seem to be reusing of plot lines, over and over, more jokes, but them not being thought threw as well(it's machine gun humor,get off as many gags as fast as you can, and often it doesn't work) and jumping on the band wagon on a couple of things.

The question is, how does the movie play. Does it fallow the flaws of 'new' Simpsons because the well is simply to dry, does it somehow go back to the good old days, does it end the series on a high note, or is it the last nail in the coffin, or does the series not end at all.

Well, the film doesn't swing back to the good old days, BUT it shows the 'new' style can be good if done right, very, VERY good.

Plot lines are reused like crazy in the film, heck, the Simpsons once again move to a new location for a bit, but a lot of the plot is jacked up to an over the top level, which oddly makes it feel epic in a way. This makes the plot stand out and 'seem' like something new.

The comedy style is the machine gun brand, but where the flaw was in the show with a lot of the gags being rushed and not working because of it, this time around they pull off the pace. Every joke, despite the speed of them all, pays off well. I think it's due to the shear amount of writers. Once one of them couldn't come up with any more 'fast' jokes, another one picked up the slack and they all somehow banded together and made it work.

Then there was the last flaw, the band wagon. Many 'newer' episodes dealt with issues in todays world and went along with trends going on, and often they didn't pull it off to well and came off as, well, out of place. The film deals with todays problems, but this time they thought things out, and it comes off like a really kind hearted and nice South Park bit. It works, oddly, but it still does.

So, this is NOT classic Simpsons. This is the 'newer' Simpsons, but fine polished. It shows that even though things have changed, the well isn't dry yet and the series can still work, darn well! It's obvious from the end that this is not meant to be the end of the series, but for once a lot of old school fans may not see that as a bad thing. This is a new start for the series and has raised the bar for the show.

Bravo in making the new stuff work, and yes the film is funny, smart, and quick witted. Enjoy.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wolf Creek (2005)
4/10
I don't get it?
18 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I really didn't get this film and can't describe it as a horror movie. It's not horror in any way, shape or form and can only be described as a weak torture film. Why do I not see it as a horror? Because it's not. It's not scary, but horrors don't have to be scary, but still, it just feels like just death and weak characters slapped onto the screen. I wouldn't really call that horror, would you?

So, the first thing I didn't get about the film was the horror aspect. It feels like it takes forever before anything actually even happens. I was almost asleep by the time the plot started and the girl found herself tied up. After the film does get going though there just isn't enough pay off for the wait. It just isn't that interesting, and I think I know why, which brings us to the second thing I did not understand.

The characters, IE the heroes of the film are so very dumb it is beyond words. This makes it hard for you to care for them, so when the film does get going and their lives are on the line you just wont be that into it. I just can't see how anyone could be this dumb. One of the girls runs back to the killer's hideout to get a car, okay, I get that, but after she finds a car she sticks around in his hideout for 20 straight minutes simply looking around. When you're life is on the line you don't just stand around in a killer's home twiddling your thumbs. Stupidity like this goes beyond words and the characters act like this throughout the entire film.

The next thing that is bad about the film, but this I was able to buy into, unlike how dumb the characters were, was the villain. He is simply not intimidating at all. When he first shows up he's kind, nice, tells jokes, etc. When he does become the killer him being a nice guy is still fresh in your mind. Him suddenly being evil just doesn't fit with the way he originally acted. He just doesn't work on a scary level. The scenes he wasn't in were more interesting.

But the worst thing about the film, and this I still can't make heads or tails of it, is the ending. There isn't one. The last survivor escapes and never sees the killer again. That's it, that's all. There is no final showdown, there is no last confrontation, and there is no climax. A film without a climax or ending feels like a waste of time. I'm sorry, but it just does.

I don't care if that's how it happened in real life, it's a horrible way to end a film and I don't understand how anyone could even see it like an ending. I feel like I saw a film where the ending was cut right out of it.

Oh well, I'm sure it wasn't that good of an ending anyways.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Confused?
5 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In order to try and turn Pirates into the greatest/biggest epic of all time the makers of this film have all decided to give it the most epic plot of all time. To bad the plot is to massive for its own good.

Believe it or not, but it would take me at least twenty pages to summarize the plot. Yes, it has that much to it. I'm not even going to bother to try and explain it. Short to say, there is a new plot point about once every ten minutes, and sometimes three or four all at the same time. This makes the film next to impossible to fallow. By the end I was so lost I just didn't care anymore.

Also, many plot points were simply added to add spice and were not thought threw. There is a massive goddess subplot that ends up going no where and when they at last bring forth the goddess she does nothing more then explode into crabs and doesn't really help anyone out at all, making the whole plot line unneeded. It simply had no pay off.

Also, since a lot of the story lines weren't thought threw they come to moronic conclusions. The ending with Will is so dumb I don't even know where to start. Plus, there's the ending to the love story which has Will and Elizabeth getting married in mid battle. The scene is so corny I can't even put it into words. It felt like a school play with a big budget at that point.

Lastly, there are no more heroes in the series. Everyone is now stabbing each other in the backs to get what they want and they all secretly want to kill each other. Will, who in the first film was a noble man trying to save the love of his life, has now become a heartless backstabber who only wishes to save Jack just so he can kill him and get his ship. Elizabeth is also heartless and betrays all she meets. These are not the heroes you came to care for at the start of the series. They're all just greedy brats in things for their own gain. Will use to be a likable guy. Now he just comes off as, well, mean.

Other then that there is not much to say. The film simply is a confusing end to what could have been a great series. Sad really.
24 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed