Change Your Image
Cheajk
Reviews
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
A movie without a purpose or demand
This feels like a bad SyFy movie.
I have no idea why this was made, how I wound up watching it, and why it has a 6.1 rating.
It feels like a 3-4 that should be passed over. I don't think it even makes for good background noise. It's unoriginal, uneventful, uninspired, boring.
I haven't finished watching it yet, but so far there's nothing beyond oppressed black doctor. That feels like the only reason this movie got made. There's no reason for this to be marketed as a vampire movie. I think it's a drama. I think the audience for this would be people who enjoy costume dramas/period dramas. I have no idea why it's sold as fantasy/horror. Maybe horrific for a <10 year old? Is this any scarier than a Twilight Zone episode? I can't imagine a theater full of preteens watching this. Though I can't imagine a theater full of anyone watching this - I assume it was straight to pad some streaming service.
It's competently filmed. It's darkly lit. It has unengaging, bland, sets.
Feels kinda like the C-team came in for a long weekend after Master & Commander wrapped, found some refurbished script, slapped "VAMPIRES", and, "OPPRESSION", on it, and funded a bot army to stoke the ignorant masses into eating it up.
And why is it 2 hours long? Streaming services like long movies? I thought maybe foreign market, but apparently it bombed at $13m domestic/$6m international on a $45m budget.
If you like costume dramas though, maybe give it a shot. I'd go ahead and make heavy use of fast forward if the urge comes up; I'm not sure it would be an exaggeration to say that there are no critical scenes in this movie. It could probably be shortened to 10-15 minutes.
Camp Daze (2005)
Worth a watch + recommend. Camp Daze / Camp Slaughter
This isn't a great movie or anything, but if you like something along the lines of Sleepaway Camp, I think this is worth watching & being remembered 20 years from now.
I think what keeps this movie relevant 20 years later is the effort that went into it. It's not low budget trash - it's more than a group of 4 people with a camera and laptop to edit, making improv found footage.
I think this is on a level above that style of movie. And probably better than some of the Puppet Master/Children of the Corn style movies, or some of the Full Moon stuff.
I think the argument could be made that this is as-good as the Friday the 13th movies. IMO, Camp Daze has a lot more plot to it, and a lot more of interest to me. I'd rather watch this, than Friday the 13th.
I'm surprised at the low ratings on IMDB, but it's also 15 years later, and I didn't pay $10 to watch what I expected to be a mainstream movie. The worst bits are probably the acting, some technical difficulties with sound & editing, and I wish one of the characters was omitted. But whoever wrote it was at least passionate about it, and that was enough for me.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
Needs a Jar-Jar Binks edit
It's hard to review the movie, because the Wayans brother is so repellent. I skipped forward through the first half of the movie with heavy dialogue involving him. I have no idea how a decision could be made to cast him as an actor, especially in a movie like this. I don't understand what they were going for. I guess they didn't either.
I wonder what the year 2000 was like, and what trend this was trying to ride the coattails of.
The bad CGI was the easiest part for me to look past. The lack of plot was the hardest. I wasn't bothered by the lack of dungeons and dragons connection- it felt similar to something like a generic King Arthur fantasy in that regard, to me.
Overall pretty boring, unpleasant, etc. I'd like to see an alternate edit.
The Faculty (1998)
Wasted opportunity. Cool cover
I think I'd describe this as not a very good movie, that's worth watching once or twice.
I think it's the modern version of something like Nightmare on Elm Street - not very good. Maybe just dipping its toes into a puddle of interest every now and then. A movie that you're really hoping will get better as you're watching it.
The production quality really shoulders the dead weight of everything else. The camera work, sets, costumes, etc. Were well done. It feels like a Hollywood movie.
The writing is terrible in too many areas. Just awful. I wonder if the screenwriters were responsible, or if it was studio intervention. The kissing scene, garage/basement, football game, I'm sure there were other places worth groaning at. Wasn't the drug called "snart"? Unbelievable plot, a lack of reality-based scenarios. Both minutiae, and larger concepts, were not just ignored, but addressed with extreme incompetence. Again- the only thing that saved the movie at those points for me were things like the lighting, audio, & sets being done to a very high level of professionalism. Fancy paintbrush syndrome: when a group of people without style, taste, competence, etc., hire the best production crews available to mask the substance.
The casting department found every popular young actor though. It is at least something to focus on when the movie hits its lows. For better or worse.
The director made Spy Kids 2, and From Dusk till Dawn. I think I can see how The Faculty shares a lineage.
There are 3 writers, which I think is often a bad sign. One is Williamson- known for Scream/Scream 2. Kimmel- known for nothing. And Wetcher, known for nothing.
In hindsight I think this is absolutely a Scream-style movie. And I wish it was more of a mainstream movie - less low-class tropes, more thrill, adventure, and plot development.
I think this is a 3-4 movie. I'm surprised to see it trending upwards with a 6.6. I'm guessing the cast really curved that score. I can see giving this movie a 6; anything beyond that is not a reflection of what's on screen imo.
On the plus side, I'll be more receptive if it ever gets a remake. I liked the brief introduction of the cycles of pod-people legends too. Dracula 2000ish.
If I could instantly change anything about this movie, it would be:
- make it longer (was surprised it was 1:44, it felt like it was moving)
-heavily focus on 3-4 kids, remove a couple of the classmates. I don't think the many bullying scenes serve a purpose
-remove the 10-15 occasions where the script gets really bad
-recast it. The worst was something like Josh Hartnett's acting & hair, one-note mean girl, hit-or-miss hot teacher, consistently distractingly-damaged fake lesbian, irrelevant football team sucking screentime away from interesting activities (condolences to the actors who had to work with this script)
-I thought terminator did great, I wish Southern Girl was the main lead, male science teacher and One-Scene Nurse were great boosts
Maybe this movie would do well with a young Goonies-style cast. I was going to suggest 12-16 year olds, but maybe there is a reason that age group is not typically cast. Maybe it turns the movie into a too-dramatic coming of age feel, or a Disney/Mean Girls feel.
(after checking, the actors in Goonies were actually around 12-16, so I guess it can be done. I'd rather watch that, then this Urban Legend 1998 style movie)
So let's go back to 1985 & make a movie.
Dracula 2000 (2000)
Not bad, worth a shot
I think the ending was strong. The worst for me was the heist scene. Everything else was pretty enjoyable.
I wonder who was responsible for that?
I think the casting was very good for the male and female leads. I thought Van Helsing would be improved with a bit more strength or vigor, but it seemed to be a good choice for what they chose to do.
I liked the novel effort with the plot.
The worst parts of the movie for me were the period music, some of the action was choppy/low-budget, and I didn't like the actress chosen for the first love-interest employee. And I think there were a couple times it felt a bit cheap, but overall I think it was fine in that regard.
If I could change anything, I would reduce some of the action scenes (or scenes hunting down the turned thieves), and add some more plot to the introduction (Dracula on the ship), and more Van Helsing plot (I wish he was a bit more active or engaged). I don't think the male lead was outstanding, but I think he did a good job of holding the spotlight on the story of the female lead & Judas/Dracula.
I would enjoy a prequel to this.
I'm surprised this hasn't received more attention. It seems like a forgotten gem of the 90's. Maybe it needs a bit more time to see a similar trend of 80's movie nostalgia.
I'd call this better than the first Riddick movie. And maybe better than the first Blade movie; I don't remember much about Blade. People seem to unironically like the Riddick movie, I'm not sure why they're afraid to like Dracula 2000. IMO Riddick was washed out, dark, and inconsequential. I was impressed with how often Dracula 2000 kept me engaged and interested in the plot. I'm not sure it's worth celebrating, but I'd watch it again.
Drop Zone (1994)
Well I learned why Wesley Snipes never became a Hollywood lead
I think that's the only reason to watch this movie.
That's the whole review.
Arguable whether it's worth watching. Probably not. It's better than anything I'd expect to go straight to cable.
It made $62m on a $45m budget ($29 from US/Canada). Which seems about right. I might've expected less.
The only reason I watched it was due to Terminal Velocity. Which wasn't very good either.
DZ could be shortened to maybe 3-5 scenes. The open. 1 skydive scene. 3 minutes of the end.
I wonder if it was Snipes, or the director, who was responsible for some of the worse bits of the movie. There was bad writing, casting, acting, editing.
But the real downfall is the lack of entertainment or fun. Feels long. Like >2-2.5 hours (but only 1:40). I was trying to identify which bits felt like padding (the middle third), but the beginning too, and the end. Snipes and another character break into "annoying" more than welcomed.
It feels like right after the crew of Pocket Ninjas finished shooting, the cast of DZ arrived to the set, and they churned out an R rated comedy thriller. That bizarre feeling of a disconnect from reality - the same immaturity, or something. Like the director and writers don't function in common society. The feeling you get sometimes when watching adults write/direct a cash-grab cheap kids movie.
I thought maybe it could be related to the production company; but it was Paramount. Maybe Paramount is worse than I assumed.
I thought maybe it could be related to the success of Blade. But Blade came out later, in 1998.
It is almost interesting, how boring the scenes were, in contrast to the events (sky diving should be fun, right? Heists should be engaging. Mysteries should be intriguing). But the movie is so boring and slow, that I was just hoping for it to end.
I wish it was easier to make great movies.
Rollercoaster (1977)
Feels like a movie on quaaludes
Is this a typical example of movies in 1977?
It seemed terrible. I think there was something like a 7 minute introduction without talking. And not much happens until the 13 minute mark.
I don't think I'm advocating for Michael Bay. I'm just saying... the run time's 1:58. What are we doing?
Maybe the director sucks, or Henry Fonda was washed up by this point, and it's a D movie, like something you'd come across in the backpages of tubi, as streaming filler.
I've got no idea what the point of this movie was supposed to be. It feels like there are no stakes. Like I should be watching at 1.5x speed, and cut out every moment of silence.
The last 90 minutes are better than the first, but I don't think it's worth watching. I'm not sure why it has a 6.4/10; feels like a 4/10.
Sinister 2 (2015)
Reminds me of the complaints regarding the trashy Rob Zombie Halloween remake
I guess just because you *have* made a good horror movie, doesn't mean you will the 2nd time.
Probably not worth watching. Maybe once. Could use an edit, cutting out 10-30 minutes. Could probably just watch all the scenes with the ghost kids and horror-related plot, and turn it off.
The second movie lost the tone of the first.
I'd guess that most reviews of this movie, focus on the first. How much better the first was, and how much this movie veered off course.
It seems like the mistakes were:
the one dimensional evil villain ex-husband
the choice to write in sympathetic squatters?
An over reliance on screentime of the previous movies. Maybe they wanted it to "be scarier"
the casting of the female lead
While watching the first, I was thinking about what an accomplishment it was to make such a thin movie meet the running time while not feeling boring.
In the second, I was just hoping they'd cut scenes. Starting from the introduction in the grocery store.
I'm surprised it's rated R. Seems like they made poor choices targeting an audience.
The ending is so bad. I guess they just wanted to cash out on movie #2. Why not shift 10-15 minutes from the prior bloat, to after the climax?
In a word, disappointing. Could've been a fairly enjoyable, story-rich, adult-aimed, horror franchise. It was nice to watch a horror movie without jump scares and gore. Maybe horror is better done in 30-60 minute anthologies.
Into the Night (1985)
Forgettable
I don't think there's any reason to watch this movie.
It's fine.
I can't think of much to say.
Give it a shot if there's nothing else. It isn't terrible.
I mostly wanted to comment my surprise at the high IMDB rating of 6.4. I thought 4-5.5 was more appropriate.
I assume the boobs add a star. And some people are interested in Goldblum/Pfeiffer.
I was fairly into the first quarter of the movie.
I'm not sure where things slowed down. Probably when the first car, the Toyota, is towed in the alley. Maybe after the boat scene.
I think it had a unique vibe going up until the scene where Goldblum sits at the green light next to the police car. It felt like it could go anywhere from David Lynch to In the Mouth of Madness.
After that, it felt very repetitive. Just filler scenes repeated to run out the clock. I don't think they made good use of 1:55.
I had a very hard time following the plot. Part of that is my fault, for doing other things while watching. But the movie lacks stakes. Goldblum will emerge victorious, Pfeiffer will be as meaningless at 1:55 as she was at 0:20.
Persians, change of car, repeat. Throw in an odd scene of an old man "dying", which tries to fool you into believing there was a planned plot all along. It feels like you could reorder most of the scenes and not change much.
Maybe it felt like an episode of Columbo or something, but with just the side story scenes stitched together.
I think it's fair to describe this movie as boring, or bland, or flat. I was digging the vibe in the beginning. I was hoping for something weird. Instead it turned into the most basic plot of a 1970's/1980's "action" movie I guess. There are a lot of action scenes in this movie. But I don't think people would describe this as an action movie. Nor as a thriller. I'm not sure what you call a "mild thriller", or just uninspired progressional events.
It lacked liveliness. I was reminded of the most boring bits of The Fly. I'll concede it's a movie about insomnia. But it's a bit bizarre to watch such a bland, long, "action" movie. Or a crime/thriller with such poor plot. I doubt I'll remember 90% of this movie 2 weeks from now.
I enjoyed the filming locations and shots of LA in the 1980's.
District 9 (2009)
Thought I was watching some Asylum ripoff
I thought this was a Hollywood movie. I guess it's a low-budget knock-you-over-the-head propaganda on repeat.
Should've just left the bugs on the ship and left them to their own devices.
It'd be pretty funny if humans sent a spaceship filled with chimpanzees to another planet, the chimps killed all the humans aboard, and the other planet assumed they were intelligent astronauts.
Feels really low budget, like a bad-er Cloverfield.
Feels like it was written by a group of middle schoolers.
Nothing else to say. This movie should be considered torture to play at 1x speed or without skipping. Character limit.
Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
Find the fast forward button
I guess what's killed these movies, is that good special effects are common enough now, that there's nothing special about them/no reason to see a movie for them.
It made @$4m in Brazil. $1.5 Argentina. $4 Colombia. $7 Mexico. $50 China. $17 SK. $21 Japan. $13 SEA. $28 UK/Spain/France/Germany. I don't get why it was set in Mexico- doesn't seem like the right financial decision was made.
I don't understand how the casting department has kept their jobs through this series. Seems like they'd benefit greatly from shifting $10m from special effects to casting bigger stars, or at least bringing people back consecutively. If they're going to have magical terminators, they may as well hand-wave away bringing back actors so that there's some thread tying these movies all together.
The short-haired woman is a really bad actor. At least Arnold is a charismatically bad actor. The motel scene felt like watching a practice shot. I skipped past the scene talking about her survival.
I wonder why they made it 2 hours long. Maybe the foreign market feel like long movies offer a better value. Felt like it'd never end. Just a diverse group of independent scenes stuck together with no backbone.
I wonder why American companies don't just branch off some divisions to create movies solely for foreigners? Maybe the audiences will only watch them if they're "American".
I think if I could go back in time I wouldn't watch it.
Thunderball (1965)
This is the worst one so far, right? Is this the one that jumped the shark?
I've been watching all the Bond movies chronologically.
To be fair, in dual window, while I do something else.
This one (Thunderball) has been the first that I feel negatively about.
If you asked me to rewatch the others, I'd say 'sure'. Thunderball felt entirely forgettable, like a chore, unenjoyable.
I guess it'd be cool in 1965? I recognized the Vulcan bomber, that was probably cool at the time.
The women felt bland/boring, and didn't look unique to me. I couldn't name a single bad guy.
The plot felt poorly presented. I had no idea what was going on. Someone stole a box from the Vulcan. Bond shot a bunch of people. For some reason they were at a health spa with hijinks. Someone got plastic surgery to impersonate someone else. Bond fights a guy in his hotel (with the CIA shoehorned in for some reason). Woman steps on a sea urchin or something. Somehow they end up in a life raft & sky hook'd up by a plane, which would've been great, but it looked a lot like a dummy.
There's a lot of boring action scenes involving water. Please, no. Please no Waterworld. A lot of sharks got injured/killed for this poor movie.
The opening car scene felt over the top childish (with the water cannons).
We've seen the Spectre betrayal of henchmen before.
Maybe my dislike is because the prior film (Goldfinger, with Oddjob), was better developed & more memorable.
These have been coming out each year. 1962, 63, 64, 65. The next, YOLT, is 67, then 69, 71, 73. So maybe they learned to cut back a little.
Again, my bad for not devoting my attention to it. I think that would hurt my enjoyment more though.
WarGames (1983)
Strong 80's movie
Not a lot to strongly hate in this movie. Some of the acting is pretty phony. As if the actors were average people being told to 'act'.
The realism is pretty thin. I think if you go in blind it'll be a pleasant enough experience.
Stargate (1994)
I don't get it
I don't understand the Stargate hype. But if you love it, then I'm glad for you.
This was my first time watching anything Stargate related. The plot was so spotty, that I assumed it must've been based on a book, or came after the tv series, but apparently not. I guess it was made to be a stand alone.
I was expecting more story, character, etc. Maybe that's on me for being a dummy and wanting to be spoon-fed. But what I saw seemed more like... poor time management. And then I assume fans retcon their own meaning to characters, and to the plot, to make something out of nothing, like Star Wars.
I wanted to see more Egypt, and the gate itself. Maybe more detail on Ra's technology + history and that story. I really didn't care about the slave people (or whatever you want to call the native population). Or the love story(?) that seemed really poorly developed/rushed/half-baked. I thought way too much screen time was given to the period of time in which they communicate with hand signals.
I didn't care about the guy whose kid killed themself either. I had to rewind it to make sure it was the same guy after his haircut. It seemed so... unnecessary(?). I'm sure some scifi fan could tell me how meaningful it was that he got over his kid's death and willingness to go on a one-way mission etc.. but it just feels like something an artist would say to defend a crummily executed story.
I dunno. I guess I neither liked the humanity aspect of it, nor the fight scenes, and outside of that, I'm not sure how much left there is to appreciate.
I think a lot of that had to do with the initial scene- where we're introduced to the female egyptologist and never see her again or much of the stargate :/ And how we get dumped into this guy's life with his kid & we're just supposed to care about that.
After this, I tried to watch the 2008 Stargate movie.. and ... I mean.. if you think that this movie and that movie are connected ....... I just don't get it. A **lot** must've happened in the tv series, and I am not gonna sit through that.
If you love Stargate, awesome. For me, I needed more cool Egypt stuff, less incommunicable natives, and less empty fight scenes.
But I recommend giving it a try.
Outland (1981)
Did you all watch this recently?
This movie was so boring.
I don't know if the reviews are fueled by nostalgia, or what. I'm not a western fan; maybe that explains some of it.
I do not think this movie holds up. I don't think it's worth keeping around, or watching. If you find yourself bored out of your mind, and wanting to shut it off, I'd suggest doing so. I don't think there's any payoff waiting for you aside from more disappointment.
I don't hate Connery. I like old movies. But man, this movie is like watching ambien which also looks bad. Nothing happens, there's nothing to care about, there's no interesting action. It's feels like watching an elevator episode where you're trapped in this bland, sterile environment lacking imagination. And on top of that, nothing happens. And on top of that, the actors would rather be anywhere else, and they're generic actor #1, acting against #2.
Someone else commented that it could use a remake. I don't think it would hurt, but this plot sucks. I don't think there's much to work with. Just let it die & save the hard drive space for something else.
If you love this movie, awesome, I'm glad it's there for you. I just don't think it has much mainstream appeal to the average audience.
The Three Musketeers (1948)
Not bad, just hard to follow
I think it's worth watching.
Complaints:
1) it's long. 2 hours long.
2) I had no idea what was going on for 90% of the movie.
I think it aged well. I would've believed it was made in the 70's.
I think it'd benefit from some cue card inserts explaining the scenes. Or reading a synopsis beforehand.
Maybe people in 1948 were more familiar with the three musketeer story. And were more familiar with 1600's history. I was not. I haven't read the book or seen a musketeers movie, and I can't remember much of history class.
It was a fun enough high energy watch, but from scene 1 I was not following the plot.
Clue (1985)
Fascinating
Loud, unpleasant Gilmore Girls. Don't understand how it has a 7 star rating. Please just slow down.
Such an odd movie. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Maybe it's the combination of famous actors, with such a bizarre pacing.
I don't think I enjoyed it. But it's so intriguing. I can't put my finger on why. I wouldn't call it a good movie. The sets are nice. It's interesting to observe.
Maybe the script is the problem. And the directing. I think I'd like it more if the dialogue was slowed down; it'd probably feel more natural. It kind of feels like a vaudeville act or something. Just people spitting out lines- not really "performing".
The outrageous ending sums it up perfectly. It's a wild ride. Like someone tried to cram 1:45 into 1:30. Most movies I feel are made for the audience. Clue feels like it's made for some other reason, and I'm just a guest peaking through a curtain, watching it carry on.
You know the movie trope, of a mother coming home to a house full of young kids having a birthday party. And she opens the door, and it's chaos everywhere- kids are screaming, playing, fighting, throwing things, laughing, running.. I'm the mother, and Clue is the chaos. It exists on its own. I crack the door just enough to peak in at it, and it's been going full-throttle the whole time, with or without me. And continues on when I slam the door closed. Really something else.
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Watch the original first.
I don't even like old movies & didn't consider the original a masterpiece, but this is .... a 2-3/10.
Watch the original.
Contact (1997)
Cringe. Good if you like cringe.
Really doesn't seem to hold up in 2020, and has extremely little to offer.
Bad acting, bad plot, not exceptionally made. I don't understand the reputation this movie has. It just seems like bad scifi.
Forbidden Power (2018)
Good movie
Liked the movie. Didn't understand it all, but it was powerful. Good characters, want to see more. Thank you.
I came back to say that this is a film that comes to mind frequently. It has a lot to say, and something about it has stuck with me.
I definitely recommend watching it. A refreshing change from the typical, bland, high-budget Hollywood junk.