Reviews

First of all, unlike the majority of the reviewers on here, I actually watched the whole thing. Since South Korea has actually made some pretty interesting stuff in the past 10 or so years, I was was expecting something decent. Well, it was decent. But it was also tedious, confusing, dull and what's worse in an apocalyptic story-no literal BANG at the end to at least make slogging through this mess worthwhile. So, if you're expecting exciting scenes of destruction and mayhem, look elsewhere.

The acting was fine and photography fine. Everything was just...fine. But frankly this could have been done far more effectively as a regular movie than a miniseries. There's simply no excuse for this subject matter to be boring.

That was my response at the end of this movie.

"WHAT?!"

I watched this entire 1hr and 39 minutes of crap because there were only a few reviews. The majority were glowingly positive, and yet it had a rating of 2.9. This meant a lot more people needed to leave some actual reviews, as this was obviously not fairly rated "10" alongside the greatest films of all time. So I hope you appreciate that I managed to sit through the whole thing, when honestly my opinion within the first 10 minutes never changed.

Had the filmmakers chosen to attempt a retelling of the true story this movie was "based" upon, it might've been better. However, they chose instead to spend horrendous amounts of time helping us get to know the people who are going to eventually meet the title character...instead of letting us in on the Piglady herself-the one person who is actually interesting. No, of the 1hr and 39 minutes, about 1hr and 25 minutes is spent listening to boring, interminable, dumb conversations between really unlikeable and annoying people.

The acting is below awful, the script puerile and direction seems to be distracted by grandeurs of another movie. The photography is either too dark or too fuzzy and the only positive thing I can say about it to give it a 2 is that the special effects weren't bad for a movie this awful.

And if you actually make it to the end, you'll understand my reaction. Because it's just suddenly...and??? If you love true crime stories, stay far away because there are NO explanations or endings.

Believe the low rating over the "10" reviews. I'm certain there were an awful lot of people too exhausted by disgust to do more than give it a rating and move on with their lives.

Generally, I thoroughly enjoy movies with promising dumb titles like this one, and I'm a fan of the Killer Tomato series-every single stupid one of them. So I'm forgiving of low budgets, questionable acting and silly special effects in exchange for a funny script, creative storytelling and frequent poor taste.

Unfortunately, "Attack of the Killer Donuts" came up really short.

The idea itself was fine. The acting was fine. In fact, over-acting might have helped. But the biggest problem was that the script wasn't the least bit funny. Or even silly-which was the biggest sin in a movie like this. The killer donuts weren't funny-we've seen and heard the same high-pitched chipmunk voices before with tomatoes and spiders. There's no particular charisma between the actors and there seems to be a loss of direction on how they're supposed to respond to their situations...should they play it for laughs or play it straight? And poor C. Thomas Howell. I don't know whether to feel pity for him or to admire him for jumping into the fray with such abandon.

In the entire film I chuckled exactly once, and didn't laugh at all. I really wanted to, but it just wasn't funny. There was way too much talking and too little action. Even the ending took for EVER to wrap up with a predictable and boring finale.

It's really too bad. Apparently there's a sequel, but I don't think I'll worry about trying to find it.

You know, I was just ALMOST willing to grudgingly give this poorly acted, dumb thing masquerading as a thriller a 3 rating...up until the Southern speaking creepy preacher came out of nowhere speaking of fire and brimstone and evils of the flesh. Then I was like, nah. The only thing that kept it from a 1 is that I generally reserve that for "worst" status, and while this was pretty awful, it wasn't the worst.

I simply could not keep up with what was happening, then again, I didn't care about any of the characters enough to pay that close attention. I was bored from the beginning. The action sequences were too dark and fuzzy to know what was happening, but maybe that was to hide the poor special effects. The low budget was obvious, however the camera quality was good-but the jerky, poorly edited camera work ruined it. Amateur acting all around, but the female detective was particularly bad. The male lead would have been tolerable except for the yelling and constant fits of anger, which must be attributed to a truly hideous script. Even the jump scares weren't jumpy. And in a scene where the father is being obviously attacked, the mother and daughter rather calmly stand back and observe-until THEY get threatened. And the ending just seems to take forever to wrap up.

Frankly, it was a chore to make it all the way through this thing but I was determined to review it. The ones that gave it super high scores? Yeah, I find those HIGHLY suspicious.

When desperately looking for movies on ScreamBox with at least a 5.0 rating, I came upon this Australian indie with a whopping 7.1 on IMDB. Enthusiastically, I queued it up expecting something great. I was fooled.

Upon further inspection, the 7.1 came from 10 people. No one had reviewed it in writing. The only "critical" review link went to a dead page. These were not good signs. So I decided it was my duty to future potential viewers to at least give them SOMETHING to go on, and hope it would encourage others to contribute as well. Besides, I tend to like Australian indie films no matter the budget...and this one was only $10,000. And according to the incredibly long Trivia section, a lot of work went into making the most of it.

The look of the film is actually pretty good. The use of outdoor scenery and more professionally executed photography than one would expect in a low budget makes it look like a much bigger production. The story itself was okay, but there are issues too overwhelming to help lift this little film into true 7.1 rating status (in my opinion, of course).

First off, the acting is sub par. The main actor is particularly poor and hard to like. This is a short story at best, and as the Trivia admits, scenes were padded on and on and on to reach 80 minutes. And it takes 60 of those 80 to finally get interesting. But then, as the movie gets closer to the end it gets dumber until it reaches a ridiculous finale. I literally yelled at the TV, "That's IT??"

I really wanted to like this movie, I truly did. And I give it points for making that $10,000 look like $50,000 and for keeping me watching until that very dire, lousy ending.. I think they can do better next time.

The title of this film just screams,"Come on! I'm a low budget movie that's just for fun!" But unfortunately it never really lives up to its promise.

Shot in black and white, the zombie effects are as one would expect from a low budget indie. The acting is better than most movies on this level, but still only marginal at best. There were so many opportunities for humor that were blown, and it seemed to struggle with whether it wanted to be serious or not. The ghost/comic relief character simply didn't work for me and only became a distraction. I laughed one time-when an unseen character enthusiastically uses trucker lingo on the radio. This could have been a running gag, but it was there and gone. My biggest gripe is with the sound. Throughout the film I was constantly having to turn the volume up during speaking parts and turning it down during action scenes. This gets really annoying after a while, and the quality was unpleasant to boot.

However, I did manage to watch to the end. But it was mostly in the hope that it would improve like I really hoped it would. It's really a shame because there was promise, but ultimately the inability to deliver with the main culprit being a disappointing and dumb script. Better luck next time.

The ONLY reason I actually watched this movie all the way through was to fairly leave a review. And the only reason I felt the need to leave a review is because there was only one on here and it was a 1, but it had an overall rating of 6.4. So I checked the critics reviews-all four of 'em-and they weren't any help, either. So I watched it. And it was a struggle.

First off, understanding that this Kentucky-based opus was made on a $15,000 budget should be warning enough that this will not be a film to get overly excited about. But going in with an open mind, I was hopeful that I'd be pleasantly surprised. I was not.

The title character is a takeoff on Frankenstein, but in this version we're talking about a $15,00 budget. So throw out reanimating dead body parts. Instead, replace it with a young lady strapped to a chair with a helmet attached to a bunch of wires. Dr. Stein is going to reanimate her memories into the young lady so she can inhabit the young lady's body.

The acting is abhorrent. The script is infantile. The special effects not special. The scenery looks like it was used in a high school play and the story gets so muddled toward the end that at one point I actually yelled at the TV, "What the f-- is even going ON??"

On the positive side, however, the music was appropriate and above par for this production.

Overall this was pretty bad. The only way it got a 6.4 was if those involved with the film gave it high scores-but were unwilling to commit to actual words. I'm sure those involved were quite proud of their work, and as someone who appreciates those who chase their dreams, I appreciate the effort that went into this movie. Sadly, it's still a real stinker and I have to be honest for future potential viewers. Enter at your own risk.

Here's the thing: I tend to enjoy movies that are intentionally bad-especially ones that are making fun of other movies that are bad, but weren't intentionally so. "Insectula!" is such a film, and it had the makings of something I'd want to have in my collection along with the Larry Blamire movies. But unfortunately, what started out well just couldn't maintain the idea to the end.

Starting as a 1950s monster movie-Ed Wood-ish intro, the film could have done better by going black and white, although the unusual cinematography almost appears like colorization. Not sure if that's what they were going for but I found it distracting.

Still, it hums along fine and silly until the third act, where the film seems to lose it's focus as well as it's time era, as the 50s now is peppered with cursing, nipple piercings, contemporary apartments and modern military equipment. This causes the movie to really fall apart, as well as the long stretches of nothing humorous or interesting happening. It's a shame, as this could have been a much better film.

Wow. It's rare I can't find one single redeeming feature to provide more than one star, but this stinker deserves no better. I was hoping that Jack Plotnick's involvement would help, but although he's hysterical doing trans comedy, as a straight actor with absolutely nothing creative to work with, he was as useless and awful as the rest of the cast. Maybe if he played the character as Evie THAT would have saved this piece of dreck. At least then it would have been a comedy. The scientist fish out of water with the Marines scenario was I suppose meant to be amusing, but only came off as sad.

Instead, the only funny stuff was the basement-rate CGI. Honestly, they could have saved even more money by just having rubber toy monsters being moved by visible hands. I mean, we're talking "Birdemic"-type special effects here. Just dire.

And the military representation was plain insulting. INSULTING. It pissed me off, and I was never in the military. I can imagine how an actual SEAL feels about it. Apparently none of the minuscule budget was spent on research. Into ANYTHING.

This truly is a bad film. Bad script, bad "effects," bad acting, bad photography, bad direction, just bad bad bad. I was really hoping for humor. But that was bad, too. Avoid this one at all costs.

Jack Plotnick...I hope the check didn't bounce.

Frankly, the hit or miss carousel that is the Shudder playlist is more miss than hit. I've never heard of a good 85% of the movies on there, and I watch a lot of horror films. "Vicious Fun" was one such movie, so I didn't know what to expect, but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't great, but it did keep me entertained. With one exception, the acting was quite good and it rose above a somewhat mediocre script-although the serial killer support group plot was inspired.

But I'm in agreement with many reviewers here that the biggest problem was the casting of Evan Marsh in the lead. He wasn't funny, he had no particular comic timing and his character was annoying and juvenile. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor-but he was bad in this film and it dragged down what could have been a much better picture. Ari Mullen and Amber Goldfarb were quite good with the right touch of humor. But everything Marsh did and said just fell with a thud. A different actor with a better reading could have made a huge difference and lifted this movie up.

In addition, the film became a little stagnant and uneven midway. Although the police were humorous, far too much time was spent with them and away from the main story and characters. Once the serial killers re-entered the story, it picked back up again. Plus, the ending was too far-fetched, given the problems with Marsh-although character-wise it made sense.

I enjoy horror comedies, but they can be a challenge for filmmakers to reach that right mix to where the viewer can enjoy each separately and together. This one had glimmers of getting it right, and with a few changes I think it would be deserving of a higher rating overall. A nice effort.

I re-joined Netflix for the 20th time for this? Well, at least "Nyad" was okay.

I expected "Leave the World Behind" to be a thrilling, thought-provoking film, bouyed with great performances by excellent actors. I was not familiar with the book, so all I had to go by was the description.

I haven't truly disliked a movie with such potential this much in years. Yes, the actors did fine. The occasional special effects were...fine. But there was so much to hate that anything that was only fine could not overcome it. Truly unlikeable characters-Julia Roberts' in particular-made it miserable throughout. Insipid decision making, mind numbing vacuousness of obvious major occurrences, and every single time something FINALLY interesting would happen, they'd slam on the breaks for more interminable conversation. The world as you know it is ending, you pompous, spoiled idiots-and you want to sit around and argue and complain about being inconvenienced?? And I am in complete agreement with many reviewers here that this was the WORST. ENDING. EVER. I think I cursed in astonishment at my TV for a good 10minutes.

I give it a generous 5 only because of the "fine" stuff. But being so aggravated by what should have been a really good film, that's the best I can do.

"Mosquito" is a perfect example of a movie that's so bad it's good. I can't in all honesty give it any higher than a 5 because of the "so bad" issues, but the "so good" parts prop it up. Low budget, dire acting, ridiculous script. But with the exception of the flying skeeters, the low budget special effects are actually not that bad. And in spite of the low budget, you get the feeling that everyone involved gave it the old college try and threw everything they could into it. As a result, I literally applauded at a couple of scenes for their over-the-topness, and laughed my butt off through most of the film.

So yeah, as far as movie making goes, it was bad. But I enjoyed the dumb thing and was thoroughly entertained and movies are meant to entertain so in that, it succeeded. So, it's not so bad.

Wow. But not in a good way. I finally make it to the end of the movie and said out loud to myself, "That's it?" But I didn't exactly know what "it" was.

First of all, waving tentacles around does not a Lovecraftian story make. And the rubber masked "creature"-which looked like a cross between Creature From the Black Lagoon-Humanoids From the Deep-and Gremlins with a squid bottom -was funny. I literally laughed out loud. THIS was the terrifying buildup? The dark scenes were so dark I couldn't see what was happening and the light scenes had a weird color filter that was distracting. The acting was amateurish, nothing made much sense due to editing that was all over the place, the special effects had nothing special about them and was an absolute chore to get through the whole thing. Just a waste of time and not a single moment of actual suspense or dread. I actually enjoy lots of bad horror movies...but this one doesn't have a single redeeming quality to make it endearing. This is just bad.

I'd never heard of this movie when it was released but saw it online and although Nicholas Cage can be hit and miss, figured I'd give it a shot. When an actor is in a movie about themselves ("Being John Malkovich"), it's largely going to depend on their willingness to really throw themselves out there, and Cage doesn't disappoint. This essentially is a buddy movie with Cage and Paco Pascal, whose character the government thinks is a major drug dealer and kidnapper.

There's drama, explosions, car chases, shooting...but the scene at the wall while the guys are blitzed on acid is pure comedy gold and my favorite movie moment in a while. PURE. GOLD.

I would actually rate it higher, but things start getting a little muddy in the third act and it becomes less interesting and harder to follow. The ending is unsatisfying and thrown together, and the other characters don't add much. Tiffany Haddish is flat out wasted. I frankly could have watched an entire movie just with Cage and Pascal only.

I rarely give reviews to movies I haven't watched all the way through, but I felt a responsibility to explain my rating and the reason I couldn't finish it. Both reasons are the same: Nicholas Cage. Now, I actually like Cage and some of his movies are enjoyable. "Raising Arizona" is one of my aaa-time favorites, and more recently, "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent" is a hidden gem. But in "Army of One"....ugh.

Cage plays real life Gary Faulkner, who claimed that God told him to capture Osama bin Laden. Cage's impossibly annoying nasal voice might be forgiven if Faulkner actually talked like that, but surfer dude laid back-type does not equal what Cage came up with. It's just plain weird and awful. And when Cage erupts into his famously crazy screaming fits which seem to make it in all his films now, he loses the weird voice, only to slide back into it when he quiets back down. You can't win either way.

The film doesn't work as a comedy, drama or even a satire. It doesn't work at all, but it sits squarely on Cage's shoulders, as well as the director's. I was surprised that it was rated somewhat positively, but it seems those who gave it questionably high ratings are more forgiving of an actor for whom they can find no fault. I get that. I don't agree, but I get it.

With the exception of Pancho Moler's interesting characterization of Dr. Satan, the acting in this movie is truly atrocious, and it's only due to Moler that this even gets a 3. Gaines, Soles and Todd are bad as well. It was a supreme struggle to make it all the way through this dreck but I don't like doing a review without giving it a chance to improve. This one didn't. And all the people who gave this a 10 are either part of the crew or family members, or have no concept of movie ratings. So you're saying THIS film is equal to say "Citizen Kane?" Heck, Gaines was better in "Children of the Corn"...and I HATED him in "Chilren of the Corn." He was terribly miscast here, and pairing him with an "actor" who's supposed to be his son in spite of the fact they are physical opposites and look almost the same age makes no sense. But no one comes off good here (except perhaps (except perhaps Moler), and the kills aren't particularly interesting albeit kind of gruesome. I frankly couldn't wait for as many people to die as possible for this dull affront to filmmaking to finally end. The direction was confusing and weird, with characters at times speaking without audio in apparent angst which-had the acting been at least adequate-might have been dramatic but in this case it's just stupid. And the shaky camera just needs to stop. I actually nodded off during the climax of the movie and had to go back and see what I missed, but I didn't really miss anything. This is not a good movie. And definitely not a 10.

It is rare for me to write a review without really seeing the movie. And although I was prepared for a low budget, technically challenged film, I couldn't make it past the first 10minutes because I COULDN'T HEAR THE FREAKING DIALOGUE. Not just because it was low while everything else was normal, but because it sounded like the actors were speaking into a mic through four thick scarves around their faces. All I heard was low mumbling and that was it. Am I the only one who had this issue? Is it an Amazon Prime Video problem? I can overlook a lot when it comes to low budget indies because every now and then you find a diamond in the rough and the inkling of future talent. But the sound guy blew this for everyone. So was this a good movie ultimately? Dunno. Couldn't hear it.

Here's the thing: When one rates a movie 10/10, this indicates that the reviewer believes it to be the BEST MOVIE EVER...or at least one of a very few in the history of cinema to earn such an honor. When there are incredulous legions of reviewers who think this silly piece of fluff is the BEST MOVIE EVER and the majority has only reviewed one movie-THIS one-simply can't be taken seriously. While I don't believe it to be a 1/10, I can appreciate those who rated it so low in order to chop the trees of 10s down to a reasonable rating, and why I hope my generous 4 will help as well.

Will Ferrell looks older than Pierce Brosnan, who's playing his father, and he really needs to start playing roles in his age range. Rachel McAdams seems adrift here. She can play comedy, but there is precious little to laugh at with this stinker. It's just not particularly funny, but predictable, dull and unrealistic. I really struggled to make it to the end, but I don't like to leave a review without watching the film to the end...no matter how painful it may be.

If you love Ferrell, you might enjoy it. Otherwise, don't go by the reviews here and give it a pass.

I'm not a comics person, so I wasn't aware of the story to begin with. But after finally seeing "The Dark Knight " and being blown away, I figured I'd try this one. The biggest problem is how freaking long this thing is. Back in the day there'd be intermissions for a 3 1/2 hour movie. And frankly the only thing that kept me watching was Jackie Earle Haley. It's unfortunate that his face is behind a mask almost the entire film, as Haley has such an expressive face and eyes and his time in the prison was the best thing in the movie. I've always been a fan of his and it's unfortunate he doesn't get more meaty roles. The rest of the movie is entertaining but just. Too. LONG.

I really don't agree that "Movie 43" is the worst movie ever made. It's also not the best. I gave it a 5 because it's so-so. I actually chuckled once or twice. It kept me reasonably engaged and I didn't yell at the screen once. If you go into it not expecting much then you won't be disappointed.

I like almost every Christopher Nolan film and love his visuals. Complicated is cool. "Inception" took a few viewings but now it's one of my favorites. "Tenet" could have been the same, but lead actor John David Washington absolutely killed it for me. Dull, unemotional, uninteresting, sucking the life out of every scene he's in...which is almost all of them. What was Nolan thinking with this guy? In my mind's eye I kept trying to insert Idris Elba or Chiwetel Ejiofor in the part, but it didn't help. What a shame. Although the story was incredibly complex and hard to follow much of the time, a better lead actor could have gotten me much more invested and willing to maybe even give it another try.

How can a zombie comedy with so many good actors end up being unfunny with completely underused talent? I had such high hopes for this movie, but in order for the dry humor to work, the script has to be humorous to begin with. Even the running gags were tired and dumb. The one creative bit with zombies looking at their cellphones at least gave me a tiny chuckle, but that was it for the whole film. Bill Murray looks bored and must've either needed the money or owed someone, and in spite of the cast, even they can't save this turkey. Honestly, pass on this one.