68 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Dumb,pedantic, Philosophy 101 filled with flaws. Sadly predictable.
26 October 2019
Who am I to critique the great Jerome Bixby? The idea is interesting, the setting and acting very good but the premise is flawed in many ways.

Instead of finding fault with it's attempted assassination of religion, I will simply point out some missed opportunities.

"Hey buddy, go ahead and speak some of the many languages you learned.

Let me see you go hunt outside for a week, or build a fire.

The wear and tear n your body would have been immense. I realize you dont scar, but bones don't hear perfectly and you don't even have a limp.

Also, you seem pretty calm for a guy who would have thousands of years of post traumatic stress."

A more educated biologist or anthropologist could probably point out more educated and esoteric flaws. These are just thoughts right after seeing the movie.

But the ultimate insult is it didnt seem believable. Not for a second. And it was presented a nice premise with no real scientific scrutiny.

Lastly, this is a theme that has been done over and over. Specifically in the Star Trek episode 'Requiem for Methuselah.'

Plus, without spoilers, the odds of him running into people he knew from the past are astronomical.

Dumb. Move on. Watch something smarter like "Frailty".
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wow. Really disappointed.
24 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Well shot, well acted, no story. I mean, really, no story. Nothing really happens. Sure, there are a few doll murders, but wow.... It was like they had a short story that wasnt very interesting and they padded it to 80 minutes. No gore, no scares, no tension, no resolution, and bad make up.

In the middle of the movie, they switch main characters.

The costumes were very good, the cinematography was very good, the acting was very good considering what the actors were given. But you never care about ANY of the characters.

Really, avoid this one.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Escape Room (I) (2017)
Interesting idea, doesn't really go anywhere
18 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For a movie that really takes place in only 1 room, it's not too bad. There are a few decent performance and the girls are great to look at but it never really delivers anything new.

I'm tickled pink to see Skeet Ulrich and Sean Young back in action and the main 4 actors were pretty good but the story just kind of lays there and never really grabs you.

Pros: The 2 girls are really pretty. The 2 guys do a competent job. Not bad for a movie that probably cost pennies to make. The actors made the best with what they were given.

Cons Inconsistent story and no real surprises. More padding than a training bra. It's an hour long movie stretched into 86 minutes through use of extreme slow motion. Plus, the main characters could have done a lot more to fight the 'monster'. They had a whole room full of potential weapons, lighters, plates, 1 chair, furniture etc. Screaming and swearing at demonically possessed killers never seems to slow them down.
22 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Void (I) (2016)
No. Do not bother. Seriously disappointed.
24 April 2017
There are certainly worse movies out there. I mean, it was shot competently, the acting was fine, there was some atmosphere...

But there is no story.

I was totally taken in by the reviews and again I could kick myself in the ass for believing what I read on the Internet.

Other people have done a better job of describing the faults of this movie so I will just say this.

A scary movie must have a story... a beginning, a middle and end and a resolution (And sometimes, even a non resolution is a resolution.

But this?

You cannot make a movie with a vague or absent story line and hope the audience will 'fill in the gaps with what they personally think is scary'.

You cant just hope the good special effects and the BLARING music will cover up for a lack of story.

Nothing is explained here. - Are the bad guys/monsters Satanists, Aliens? Demons? - Why are they doing what they are doing? - What does the past of the characters have to do with what is happening?

No. I'm not falling for it. It is a well made, incomplete movie that takes advantage of younger, naive viewers who never saw Hellraiser, Assault on Precinct 13, Society, or any zombie movie made before 2004.

Producer 1: "Hey, let's make a horror movie, here is the script." Producer 2: "But this is only 12 pages? Producer 1: "Kids these days are too stupid to know the difference and if we add loud music and some good special effects they wont even know I wrote this 12 page movie in 15 minutes.

This movie did not end so much as run out of film. Maybe the projectionist forgot to load the last reel of film. It was like the entire production fell down a trap door.

Horribly, seriously disappointed.
10 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Much better than the Reviews indicate 6.5/10 (Minor Spoilers)
26 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I had tons of expectations because I love the original

And this movie isn't in the same league. But its been 18 years and 3 major members of the original cast have passed away.....

Dan Aykroyd is an amazing writer, but many times he needs someone to edit out his more outlandish ideas. Ghostbusters originally was darker and had teams of paranormal investigators traveling through time and to alternate dimensions. In this movie, there wasn't anyone to pare away some of Dan's weird and extraneous ideas. Consequently, there is some stuff that just seems weird and out of place. Like a magical Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats...

The Good 1) AMAZING, Blues performers - Holy Crap, the number of top Blues musicians and singers is legendary. 60 years from now, people are going to be watching the musical performances on Youtube and wonder who the hell was able to get almost EVERY blues legend on the same stage at once. 2) Almost everyone from the original comes back. Including the great Katheryn Bigelow as the Nun. 3) Stays true to the original in scope and tone. It still feels like the same atmosphere and world of the first one. "My Watch Broke!" "God works in mysterious ways" etc.

The Bad 1) The characters of Cab and Mighty Mac are worthless and don't add much to the story. Mighty Mac barely sings and doesn't add anything. Cab at least was Curtis' son so he belongs there, but he really doesn't add much. The Kid could have worked better if he was a harmonica prodigy from the start (Instead the Kid picks up a harmonica during a live performance and figures out he is a natural. How convenient) The Russians and the White Supremacists are also barely used and have no screen time. Why bother? 2) Supernatural Elements - OK the first movie had some supernatural stuff, but we knew it was God was protecting them. Now, we have a Cajun Witch Queen turning people into rats?! Someone should have been there to edit out Aykroyd's more crazy stuff. 3) Lack of Mission - The first one they were desperate to save their orphanage. They were driven. In this one, they are just a band trying to get back together. There is a small subplot where Elwood is supposed to help rehabilitate the Kid but it wasn't explored very much. 4) More of an Emphasis on the music than on the comedy - This isn't necessarily a bad thing but while the second movie has more music, it is not as funny.

I read where this movie was rated as the fourth worst sequel of all time. It does not deserve that.

It's a good movie and, after reading the reviews, much better than expected. The original Blues Brothers was one of the best movies of the last 50 years. At least this sequel didn't screw things up.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sunshine (2007)
Not only wanted them to die, I wanted to kill them myself
23 December 2016

Somewhere at a table in an overpriced bar

Misguided Movie Pitchman: "So here's the idea. We take a really thin story and dress it up with tons of special effects, shadows, jump cuts and psychedelic video shots, add a few competent actors but make them play minor characters, give the lead role to an actor who has a total of 2 facial expressions, add some blaring music and some shiny, futuristic props and make a movie!"

Misguided Producer: "Great, but I also want it to look pretentious and somehow make fun of religion."

Misguided Movie Pitchman: "OK, we'll make the story more complicated so people will be afraid to criticize it for fear of being told they don't understand it. And we'll add a villain who believes in God and have that guy be a real jerk."

Misguided Producer: "GREAT! Here's 26 million, MAKE... THAT... MOVIE!"

With 15 minutes left to go in this movie, I wanted to kill the characters myself and to hell with the fate of the Earth.

The director thinks he can create suspense out of bad acting and a lackluster story, by adding loud, stressful music. There are no surprises, very little character development and absolutely no character empathy. In fact, after an hour, you actually want bad things to happen to the characters for wasting your time.

The only reason this movie gets a 4 is because of the set design and the special effects, neither of which is enough to propel this movie into tolerable territory

The worst part of this movie, other than the plodding, glacial pace and the obnoxious music-video style editing, was Cillian Murphy, who is more mannequin than actor. I cannot believe someone actually cast this pretty-boy surfer dude wannabe as a physicist. (OMG!) His performance runs the gamut from slightly bemused and smug to moderately bemused and smug. The voice of the computer had more range and emotional impact.

Do yourself a favor, watch 'Moon' with Sam Rockwell. It was made for a 5th of the price and is 5 times better than this mess of a movie.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not worth it. Nihilistic, anti religion and a little dumb
17 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm only giving this movie a 5 because of the good acting. Otherwise, it is a 3.5.

The problem is how the characters react to the story line. They make really poor, almost unbelievable decisions. Several times in the movie I was distracted and baffled by some of these character decisions.

There is an anti religion theme running through this movie but it's not too bothersome because it's hard to be insulted by a movie so silly.

The Super Religious Zealots are very one dimensional. They embody almost everything wrong with religious fundamentalism and their actions are so evil it's hard to see how any religion would justify them.

The Good Guys of the movie make really bad decisions, and then make things worse by making even worse decisions. It gets frustrating.

But the real problem with this movie is. well, it is largely empty. The director pads the running time with pensive shots of clouds and barren landscapes. A lot of this movie could be watched in fast forward.

The atmosphere is creepy but plodding. The acting, however, is quite good. I just wish they had a little more meat in the story for these guys to chomp into.

One point; Obviously, one or two of these people appear to be psychic. Why didn't they follow up on this? (Or were the people not psychic but merely good guessers?) Who knows, it went unexplored.

There was also almost an anti capitalist vibe where everyone had an oppressive boss and no one had insurance. Isn't this a Canadian movie?

The ending was just plain hollow, silly, unresolved and lacking.

Don't be fooled by the reviews. There are plenty of better movies to see out there.

This movie rips off some of 'The Devil's Rain'. The Devil's Rain was a 1970s cheesy movie of the week with William Shatner and Ernest Borgnine and it is better in many ways than this unsatisfying, story.

Another similar movie is 'Kill List', which handles this territory much better.
12 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not very good
2 September 2015
Hope and Glory was delicious, sweet, sad and charming. This sequel, well, seems like a sequel in name only.

Some characters from the previous movie show up, but only in very, very minor and brief, non consequential roles.

The main story is a little boring and uneventful, like a bland episode of MASH. Pity, I really wanted to like this movie. There just isn't a lot of meat on the table.

Tasmin Egarton was GORGEOUS as was Vanessa Kirby. Callum Turner and Caleb Landry Jones did a very good job with what they had, there just wasn't much of a story.

The movie didn't just end as much as run out of script... I was actually surprised when the end credits appeared.

Sad. I wanted more.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Time Lapse (2014)
NO NO NO... Not worth it. Don't start watching it thinking it'll get better
19 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
1) A TOTAL rip off of a Twilight Zone episode and not as good. 2) Good acting and an adorable girl make you suffer through it hoping it will have a good twist ending. (See #4) 3) Silly, one dimensional characters, make obvious dumb decisions. 4) In the end it all comes down TO A GIRL TRYING TO GET HER LOSER BOYFRIEND TO PROPOSE MARRIAGE? Are you kidding me? THIS is the ending they came up with?

Well shot considering the budget, well acted considering the story, and it does make you interested enough to stay until the end. But don't fall for it. I was literal angry at the resolution.

The Twilight Zone episode is much better and it isn't even a very good episode.

How this movie got such a high rating is beyond me and frankly, is the only reason I wrote this review.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Futureworld (1976)
Ugh. Horrendous. Almost unwatchable.
7 July 2015
Take all of the bad cinematography of Made for TV movies, add some 1970s corporate paranoia, throw in some unrelated techno babble,add an evil scientist and cram in as many bad sound effects from Star Trek, Willy Wonka, Lost in Space and every bad scifi movie from the 1960s and viola, you have Futureworld.

Im not even mentioning the silly special effects because Im sure they were pretty whiz-bang back in 1976. But the truth is you can have great Scifi without dating yourself with special effects. 1951's The Day The Earth Stood Still is a perfect example.

Horribly predictable. Tortuously slow, has almost no relation to Westworld other than they both take place in the future and have pleasure robots.

I love a bad movie, but this goes beyond bad.

Some of the dialog is so bad you will laugh out loud.

The Evil Corporate Executive with a gun discovers Peter Fonda on the phone. Evil Corporate Executive: "Put the phone down". Peter Fonda to Evil Corporate Executive: "You're a part of it?" Evil Corporate Executive: (LAUGHING) "Yes, of course I am!"

Someone on IMDb gave this movie a glowing review so I watched it. Ugh.

Logan's Run, made at the same time, has many flaws and has not aged very well, but it is still much better than this flick.
12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Star Trek: Voyager: Sacred Ground (1996)
Season 3, Episode 7
How DARE someone write something Atheists disagree with!
7 June 2015
I am a serious Trekker. I watched TOS when it aired on NBC when I was 5 years old.

In every episode, the writer has 43 to 50 minutes to set up an adventure, show struggles and resolve it, that's all. Star Trek is famous for having everything work itself out in that time period (or a little more in a double episode).

There is ALWAYS a scientific explanation, even if they have to make up new words and new concepts to explain it.

But Life isn't always like that.

This episode takes a bold step and presents us with a situation where there appears to be no logical or scientific reason for the resolution. THIS DRIVES ATHEIST SCI-FI KNOW IT ALLS INSANE.

See, people who watch Star Trek tend to think they are smarter than most of the public. They embrace science, almost as much as a spiritual person embraces a religion and will lose their minds if anyone presents something different from their view of science as being the answer to every question Life presents. (so much for scientific detachment and open mindedness.)

Now, just because we don't understand something does not mean we should attribute a magical answer to it, but I believe there are many issues science cannot answer and will never answer. I do not believe this is totally a materialistic world. My point is, a lot of Atheists embrace Science as the answer to everything. These atheists do not want Star Trek to deviate from it's Science-Fiction roots. And the many low reviews and spirituality bashing of this episode bear testament to this. But I think this is a great episode. In the end of this episode, a usual champion of science is left humbled. She listens to the doctor hypothesize how Kes was cured, but the Captain, seems to know better. She seems to have been a witness to something that Science cannot explain. THAT my friends is a mature writer. That is someone who has seen something in Life. For when my fellow scientific and Atheist friends tell me I am a fool for not seeing things as they do, I can only smile and say, "Well, maybe I have seen some things in Life that you have not."
8 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad. Horrible lyrics. Screams of Self Indulgent, Gay Off Broadway Theater
31 May 2015
Wow. I had really high hopes. The makeup and art direction were excellent. GREAT costuming.

The story, music and lyrics were atrocious, self indulgent and pedantic and the whole production screamed of low budget, gay, off Broadway theater.

Imagine if Tim Burton lost a bet and was forced to direct a movie written by a 15 year old with a circus clown fetish.

But the worst part of this story is that the libretto/Lyrics lacked any sort of meter or cohesiveness. The lyrics stubbornly refuse to rhyme or even stay relevant to the song. There is no sense of structure to the song. AND then the author repeats these mistakes as if to highlight them. My Imitation of the fault in the lyrics

"Reds are Red Violets are blue, no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water." no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water." no one is going to help the sheep remain in the light that muddies the water."

No meter, no rhyme, poor structure.

Very little to see here. Poor Paul Sorvino.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
pretty good, then ruined by whiny feminists
26 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Well, well. Looks like someone gave a movie camera to a feminist.

Original story. Started out very well. And then the girls started talking.

The movies goes downhill from there.

If they had edited out 10 or 12 lines from this movie, I would have given it a 7.5 instead of a 5.

But they brought in this whole angle about how no one listens to women and they are oppressed and forced to obey men.

At first I really identified with the women/prisoners but in the end I was begging for them to get bumped off. This is a tremendous irony because instead of developing sympathy for the oppressed women, we end up wanting them to be killed... quickly and quietly. By the last 10 minutes I suspect even the Pope would want to smack them.

The worst part is the protohumanoid monster, who in the end spares the bitchy protagonist as it is revealed that the monster too, is a woman complete with a suckling baby monster.

I kept waiting for the film maker to insert anti male scenes of the perpetrators sexually assaulting the prisoners or leaving the toilet seat up, but was spared, thank God.

The movie makes a big deal about screaming. "We scream so that others know we are alive."

Three quarters of the way through the movie, I was screaming for the film projectionist to have a heart attack and spare us the ending .

Another decent movie ruined by Left Wing "I am a victim" overtones.

Do yourself a favor. Skip this one. If this movie was made 30 or 40 years ago it may have been relevant, but in an age where women are given special treatment under the law and graduate from college in greater numbers than men, not so much.

Oh God, when will film makers stop trying to teach us social lessons and get back to entertainment?
13 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
13 Sins (2014)
Another example of people in the film voting on IMDb
15 January 2015
Well acted, well shot RIP OFF and PREDICTABLE movie.

If ever there was evidence that people involved in the production voted for a movie, this is it.

It's not a horrible movie, it's just one we have seen several times previously.

If you have lived under a rock and not seen a horror movie since 1945 then this might be a good one to see.

What are they going to do next? Make a movie about a killer who keeps his mummified mother in the basement and call it NOT PSYCHO? How about a movie where we think the serial killer is dead only to see him rise up from where he was shot? Or a movie with a Giant Lizard attacking a Japanese city?

A waste of good acting and direction, ruined by a well known and predictable story. I was fooled by the reviews. Don't let it happen to you.
7 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Calvary (2014)
Why do I believe the glowing reviews I read?
15 September 2014
In a way, IMDb is contaminated by people in the movie industry.

These movie people pretend to be regular people and write glowing reviews of their own crappy movies as if they were un-involved, unbiased people.

Like an idiot, I read these reviews, believe them, see the movie, and end up venting my anger in these counter-reviews.

The other people who reviewed this and gave it a 3, 4 or 5, (you know, real movie goers and mot PR or marketing men) are spot on; it is a great acting performance in a tinny, one dimensional, predictable and boring story.

I was not only disappointed with the ending, I was angry.

Do not bother... It is a negative, nihilistic, anti human story with 1 really nice guy with a cute daughter. Everyone else is human garbage like turds floating in a punch bowl.
6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Would have been a 9 if not for BAD CGI
13 September 2013
What a coup! They got the lead actor of one of the silliest horror movies ever and do a sequel 51 years later!

I'm a biased reviewer because I enjoyed the original movie from 1959. I've seen it on MST3k and unriffed as well and I truly believe it is not as bad as its reputation.

The 1959 version was marred by laughingly bad special effects where they put fake fur and very fake fangs on coon hounds and tried to pass them off as giant shrews. In fact, The Killer Shrews has been included in almost every 'so-bad-it's-good' movie list for several decades.

A great irony is the new version is also almost sunk by really, really bad computer generated killer shrews. Man, do they look lousy! They have no natural movements and the sense of proportion is WAY off. They might have been better off with coon hounds.

This is a campy, tongue-in-cheek homage done by someone who really knows the old movie. The set of the old movie is lovingly recreated complete with endless liquor bottles, comically sparse furniture and minimal set design. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously. John Schneider especially seems to be having a blast with the over-the-top dialog.

James Best, character actor for over 60 years is the real gem here. He was great in the original and he shines here too. He is surprisingly believable and steers this wacky, tacky little movie along, preventing it from getting caught up showcasing the silly, 1 dimensional background characters, most of whom, thankfully,become Bad CGI Shrew Food.

I confess I loved the original and maybe I'm not the most objective reviewer, but I really enjoyed this goofy little movie... more than I expected.

If you set your expectations correctly, you should enjoy it as well. It is a low budget, Made-for-SyFy-Channel type movie that wont win any awards for acting or screen writing but it is silly, funny, true to the original and more entertaining than I expected.
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
AmeriQua (2013)
I wanted to like this, I really did. It tries to be an 80s rom-com
11 September 2013
There was a lot of potential; Alec Baldwin, beautiful scenery, Alessandra Mastronardi one of the most beautiful girls I've seen in a while... but the movie really goes nowhere.

A rich kid is given 5k and then cut off from his allowance. On a lark, he goes to Italy and is immediately robbed. He manages to steal the van the thieves drove unaware that there are some mysterious and important papers in the van. He visits a guy he met along the way and alleged hilarity ensues in what is supposed to be a 1) Coming of Age 2) Fish out of Water 3) Love Story that ends with dumb, illogical antics that seem stolen right out of Crocodile Dundee Part 3. The lead, Robert F. Kennedy III started off well but seemed to lose his bearings during the movie. Then, they added the warring Mafia clans, a jerk-off hit-man, an American girl studying abroad who may or may not like the main guy.... Meh, it gets a little messy. Plus, there is the whole "Was-it-a-dream?!" thing at the end. Really? Really??

As a guy, if a wife/girlfriend forced me to watch this with them, it'd be OK. But not even the superhot Italian girl or Eva Amurri can get me to watch this again. C-.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nice, simple, cute story moves slowly but girl is great.
2 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There were times I didn't like this movie. It moves very slowly and the story is a far fetched. But I can't help but like it. I kept cheering for the two leads to get together even though the whole thing seemed silly.

Some of the characters were amazingly one dimensional, (Tahn, Buldo and George) and some of the villagers seemed unrealistic, PLUS, the whole kidnapping/rescue thing was ridiculous.....

But I could put up with it for the scene of them getting together.

Ended well, enjoyable, moves slowly, but eventually worth it. The girl is the movie.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dear God No! (2011)
A lot to like, but the gore factor gets a little silly
28 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Obviously, someone on this development team has seen "Dead Alive", the fantastic, over-the-top gorefest from early in Peter Jackson's career. There are several allusions that made me smile.

Without giving too much away, everyone like Tabasco sauce but no one wants a bowl of it. And that is the problem.

The bad guys really didn't suffer enough either. The movie spends 85% of the time showing us how extremely evil these biker are. The bikers even kill a victim a la The Manson Family so by the end of the movie we are all screaming for their blood. Then, the entire cast is killed off by a mutated monster. The end. Unsatisfying.

Also, is it me or did the monster look exactly like Bigfoot from 'The 6 Million Dollar Man'?

I did like this movie. It was a great homage. It's campy and over the top. Even though it aims to be a little tongue-in-cheek copy of 70s Grindhouse, with a little tuning this movie could have actually been a better film.

I enjoyed it. But I only recommended it for Gorehounds and crazy film people. Girls will ABHOR this movie so be warned.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Jug Face (2013)
It goes nowhere... don't be fooled.
12 July 2013
The emperor has no clothes.

It is next to impossible to have a scary movie with nothing scary.

The people who believe that 'less is more' are fooling themselves. Crap like Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity try to substitute style for substance under the guise that people will fill in the omissions of the movie with their own imagination. Well that is BS.

The lead actress is excellent. All of the performances were exemplary. BUT there is no real monster, almost no back story and almost no resolution.

I don't want to give anything away but this movie didn't resolve itself so much as dissolve into credits.

OK, it's one thing to criticize so I will make up a scarier ending.

Something freaking scary and mean comes out of the pit and eviscerates the victims in front of the whole clan. The chick runs away with the potter and while in the big city, the monster rips up the potter in front of hundreds of people. The girl becomes resigned and goes back to goober holler and kills almost everyone in the clan to get out of being the sacrifice. The END. THERE. THAT is a better ending.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
SPOILER Good performances ruined by non ending
9 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Crazy religious types always talk about how Hollywood is trying to send an anti religious, secular only message... and it always sounds like silliness. And then there's this movie. It was doing pretty well up until the last 5 minutes. It was silly fun and CRAIG ROBINSON ABSOLUTELY STOLE THE SHOW. Anna Kendrick and John Francis Daley were very good together. Good solid acting. But she kills Satan AND God? And God is just this obnoxious Asian guy who fights dirty? And after God dies the Earth is suddenly a paradise? Also, if you a had experienced a lot of tragedies thrust upon you by God and then he suddenly appears in front of you, wouldn't you have something to say... a million questions to ask?

I would have given this a 7.5 but instead it is a 5 which is a SHAME because Craig Robinson's performance was wasted. He was funny, evil and charismatic at the same time.

Really dumb resolution, even for an agnostic audience. It's just a dumb story in the end. Boo... Booo! The non ending makes it a waste of time.
2 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not bad. Imperfect but charming.
29 May 2013
The best thing about this flick is the real people. Almost all of these actors seemed like regular folks. The accents were 100% genuine. I especially liked how everyone was very opinionated about the Yankees vs. Mets thing.

I loved how the movie gave you the feeling of what it's like to be in NYC and go from one adventure to another.

The 2 leads were fantastic; interesting, funny, and easy to relate to. They stole the movie.

The only thing wrong with the movie was it's lack of ending. Plus, the introduction of romance seemed like an attempt to show some sort of resolution. It came off as cute but a little hackneyed.

Well made, well acted, keeps you interested then... it's over and you're like, "So are they dating? Are they gonna get into Shea stadium? Was the blonde chick cool or an a jerk?" etc

This is a surprisingly charming movie. You end up rooting for the characters even though there isn't too much to the story.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Facility (2012)
No. No. No. great acting wasted on lack of story
26 May 2013
No. We aren't falling for it. This is just a poor retread of 28 Days.

A bunch of people go to a remote facility to become human guinea pigs for some secret, unknown drug. Good premise, right?

Wrong. We are expecting the people on the drug to do some really freaky things.... maybe mutations, maybe hallucinations or visions, right?

No. Nothing like that. Just some short of breath people with skin rashes running around with no indication of what is going on.

The problem is the pacing. The movie moves like molasses. Plus, there isn't even enough molasses to make waiting worth it.

Here's my summary; A diverse group of English get a mystery drug, they run around like a Benny Hill skit, there is a tiny bit of violence and then BOOM, the movie is over and we miss most of the denouement.

Guys, it's a well acted, well produced movie. But those aren't a substitute for a story. Booo! Booo!
11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Monsters (2010)
Not a movie, a travelogue, avoid. No Action whatsoever. Boring.
22 July 2012
I'm not even going to go into the story. This movie is boring. Hardly anything happens. It looks like it was made for 35 bucks. The acting was pretty good but the STORY was absent. There is no real conflict. It's a movie called 'Monsters' with BARELY any frigging monsters, just a cute girl and a guy on a boat and in a jungle. Is this what passes for a story these days?

I can't help but think that it is too easy to get movies made these days. Did they even HAVE a script?

I was suckered into watching this because of a movie review on this site. Geez, the guy acted like this movie was made by Kubrick himself.

This movie actually made a top 50 list of 2010. What the hell has happened to the artistic knowledge of this country?

Please, trust me, don't waste your time. Go watch 'Frailty' or ANY Twilight Zone episode. Hell, even The Outer Limits episodes beat this. Nothing. Nada. The end.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Take Shelter (2011)
Geez, another 'non ending.' Great acting ruined by bad ending
22 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I will spell it out for you

Having lived in the Mid West, Tornado Alley USA for 25 years and having spent 15 years on an Atlantic beach, I can tell you that tornadoes pop up very quickly and unexpectedly where hurricanes and Atlantic storms have a TON of warning time.

The idea that they were surprised by a giant storm in Myrtle Beach is hogwash. Also, the movie sets us up wanting us to believe that the main character is going to have an 'I told you so' moment with the townspeople is totally lost here. Instead of being Noah and the Ark this movie is a retread of the 'Death in Teheren' story where the protagonist thinks he is escaping Death by moving to Teheren and we find out Death had planned to collect him in Teheran all of the time and that he was doomed by his own self fulfilling prophecy. But what REALLY enrages me about this film is the ambiguous ending. There is a trend in film writing today where the writer wimps out and does not write a true, comprehensive ending and 'wants us to fill in the blanks.' This is just lazy writing and actually makes the movie unpalatable. A perfect example of this is 'Kill List.' Worst of all, both of the movies were GREAT until the nebulous endings. The lead actors in Take Shelter were amazing. The cinematography was gorgeous, the pacing was slow but forgivable. But the ending sank it. What a shame. The people who rave about this movie come off like pedantic, film school drop outs. It's like the townspeople in The Emperor has no clothes.

Take Shelter looks like an art house movie, but in reality the ending makes it as legit as a floating crap game in a county jail house.

Lastly, even if you explore the multiple endings the writer is trying to foist upon us, there are plot holes everywhere. What about the dog? Was that just an example of foreboding doom? What about the dream with his wife, the knife and a fly? Was that supposed to represent the beach? Why did all of his dreams take place in Ohio and not an alternate location? What was up with the birds? They weren't seagulls.

If you REALLY want to see where this idiot writer (Yes, idiot and I'll say it to his face) got his idea, check out the VASTLY superior Twilight Zone episode called 'Twenty Two.'

I hate that I mostly write reviews of movies that disappoint, but I was a fool and read the reviews of this movie and fell prey to self important film snobs.

When will this lousy trend of non endings stop? Dammit, Dammit, Dammit! The writer urinated in the champagne punch. WHAT A WASTE!
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed