Reviews

I just streamed this... and wished that I hadn't. I'm a fan of horror movies, it doesn't matter what the year or subject matter. Unfortunately, the number of bad horror movies I've seen far outweighs the good movies. And IT'S ALIVE falls firmly in the bad category. It feels very much like a dated, tired '70s waste of film, without any of the campy or cheesy appeal that similar movies from the time have.

Essentially, the visual effects are terrible. The story is ridiculous and the twists and turns are stupid. The acting is irritating and underwhelming. The camera work is at times very amateurish. There are no scares, no creepiness or fright. The notion that this tiny "terror" could take out a room of adults is preposterous. And even though Junior only seems to take a chunk out of several victims cheeks, somehow he kills again and again. Bloody milk, anyone? It's nonsense.

Even if you enjoy bad movies, I find it hard to believe you could enjoy this. This movie is terrible. It's schlock without being entertaining, it's cheeze without humor or fun, it's dated without any charm or campiness.

Found footage horror is kind of a double-edged sword. When it's done pretty well it can be very entertaining. The problem is, most the time it's not done very well (I include Blair Witch in this because when I saw it in the theater half the people walked out). And thanks too Netflix and Prime, I've seen very many bad found footage movies. So many of these movies have unlikable characters that you can't invest in, mind numbingly shallow plots, and very little to offer creatively.

And I would argue that found footage plus comedy is even harder to pull off. Many horror films like Thanksgiving go for satire that just turns out to be cringe. Comedy and horror are hard to pull off creatively. DEADSTREAM does it, though.

This is an entertaining movie. There's a lot going on. The take on the streamer/ influencer culture is bombastic and on point. The idea of the whole nature of fame and followers (regardless of what era you're in) is done very well. You even get a redemption theme going in there. And of course, there are nods to various horror standards from multiple genres.

Two things set this movie apart for the rest of the herd. First is the blend of horror and comedy, that manages to thread the needle between laughter and scares very well. Our first impression of the protagonist is that he might be interesting andl funny, but he's probably a jerk. But he has charisma that grows on you, and as the story progresses there's some sympathy and likeability to be found there. A guy confronting his fears publicly, even if it is for views, still seems kind of brave and admirable. The fact that he shows genuine remorse later in the movie, even if only briefly, helps to round him out as a character.

The second standout aspect to this movie is the practical effects. Some of these effects are very funny, for example when a putrified head explodes all over the face of the protagonist. Others, especially in the second half of the film, are creepy.

Overall, the movie's ability to balance tension and humor, all while developing a unique movie within a woefully crowded genre, is no small feat. The charm lies not just in the scares it delivers (which are less jump scare than just plain creepy), but also in its comedic self-awareness, and the feeling of heart it brings to its storytelling, making it a standout horror movie.

8/10.

Summary: ridiculous, unbelievable, cringe, tedious, confused

I'm having a hard time understanding how it is that Eli Roth continues to get movies made.

If you can remember Eli Ruth's "Hostel", then it is likely that every time he puts out another movie, you wonder "what happened??" After such high expectations, Roth has failed to deliver time and time again. This movie is no exception to his long trend of terrible, cringe horror movies that never hit the mark.

Incidentally, I wstched this the first day it appeared on Netflix, not knowing that Eli Roth was the director. Had I known this was Eli Roth film, I would have turned it off after the first 20 minutes because I could have guessed what I was going to get the rest of the way.

First of all, what is this movie trying to be? Horror, slasher, comedy, satire? Doesn't do any of those well.

For example, the opening scenes of the film take place at a Walmart-esque Superstore. There's a labored attempt to satirize the whole Black Friday culture (which incidentally doesn't really exist anymore because of online.. Chaotic Black Friday sales haven't been even remotely like this for years). Customers are willing to kill each other for waffle irons.... My, Such biting commentary about consumerism. (Eyeroll) The teens as well as the customers at the store are all extremely cringe and very poor caricatures. When people start to get killed, it's tedious. It's confusing. It seems like there's an attempt made to set the groundwork for 50 possible villains, but it's just a jumbled mess that's not entertaining.

The plot is something that you would expect from the middle schooler. It's ... Terrible. There's no coherence or depth. As per usual Eli Roth movies, the emphasis is on shock value and graphic violence, rather than a compelling narrative. The storyline meanders from one silly situation to the next, and it's overly reliant on clichéd horror tropes. Even so, horror tropes can be executed in new and interesting ways... but that's not the case here, as the film entirely fails to offer a fresh or engaging take on the genre.

The fact that the town continues to have its Thanksgiving parade while there's an obvious spree killer on the loose as an indication of how farcical the plot is.

The acting performances in "Thanksgiving" are exaggerated and forced. This is yet another thing that contributes overall lack of believability. None of the characters evoke empathy or interest. About the only interesting thing regarding any of the characters is that Rick Hoffman appeared in "Hostel". Really, that's it.

Even the killings, which are gratuitous, are ridiculous to the point that it distracts from any sense of horror or shock. While I'd say that the movie's graphic violence and shock factor are pointlessly excessive, they're probably the highlight. But again, that's not saying much.

And then there's the Killer. The Killer is often in two places at once. The Killer has a strange ability to change costumes in the blink of an eye. The Killer's motivation is standard horror movie stuff. The Killer also has an unclear resolution... almost as if the groundwork has been laid for a sequel. Please no, please no sequel.

At one point, the killer says, "no one appreciates subtlety any more". Eli Roth is laboring under the misconception that he's being clever. As usual, he aspires to a higher level of movie making that he is just not capable of reaching.

Even though I watched this for free I feel like I deserve compensation. 2/10.

This is another mindless romp starring Milla J and directed by Paul Anderson. It doesn't even matter that it's based on a video game (for those who don't know, video games have had historically bad film adaptations). If anything, having a story to draw from should be an advantage here... Because at least there would be a story. But this film has painfully little story. The film editing is choppy and irritating. Ron Perlman's hair is inexplicable. The acting is nothing special. And the ending is... well clearly they were planning on this becoming a big franchise with sequels. The credits scene reinforces this idea. Thankfully, the movie did badly so we won't be subjected to another farce.

The only thing this movie has going for it is the special effects, and a few of the monsters. That said, there are countless movies you can watch and have an actual plot, great effects and equally good or better monsters.

Browsing through these other reviews, it's hilarious to see some people (fanboys) giving this movie a 9 or 10... Go look at the top 250 movies on IMDb and tell me again how this movie is in any way comparable to any of them. Hint = it's not. Giving this movie a five-star rating would be generous.

Ultimately, this movie feels like a poor mashup of films like Dune, Tremors, Reign of Fire, and little rip-offs here and there (Gladiator... the little figurines)... and yet is hugely inferior to all of them. I watched this for free, and I still feel like I was ripped off.

"Fire of Love" is a visually stunning documentary that immerses viewers in the awe-inspiring world of volcanoes. The film succeeds in delivering breathtaking footage of volcanic eruptions and their aftermath. The intensity and power of these natural phenomena are masterfully conveyed, making the experience truly memorable.

The filmmakers' dedication to capturing the raw beauty and terrifying force of volcanoes is commendable. The use of slow-motion shots and time-lapse sequences adds depth and enhances the sensory experience, creating a captivating atmosphere. The intense colors, vibrant contrasts, and striking textures draw audiences into a mesmerizing world where nature's fury takes center stage.

However, the film's one drawback is its narration, which regrettably detracts from its overall quality. The narrator has a monotonous voice and lackluster delivery, which drains the film of some energy and excitement. In a documentary that thrives on showcasing nature's power, a more enthusiastic and engaging narrator could have elevated the film to new heights. It's hard to believe that anyone could have previewed this film before release and thought "well, the narration is fine".

Distractingly bad narration, but the stunning images prevail.

I am a long-time horror fan. I love slasher flicks, especially the original Halloween and the Michael Myers character. The first few Friday the 13th movies were classics. As I was looking for something to watch on Netflix, and this showed up. I hadn't seen this in forever. Since that previous viewing, I've seen many, many horror films... and many, many of them were terrible. "Jason X" stands alongside some of the worst I've seen. Not even 7 minutes in and I wondered why I was watching this again.

Briefly... does this movie think it's being funny with the premise? Because it's not. The plot is nonsense, with many plot and logic holes. Outer space... okaaaaaaaay. The acting is weak. This "super Jason" is ridiculous.

You'll see a lot of 7/10 and 8/10 reviews for this movie. Horror fans are an interesting lot. Why have to make do with more garbage films than probably any other genre. And we're more forgiving for franchises we enjoyed in the past. This explains some of the reviews... I'm guilty of enjoy crap films too. But this is beyond that for me.

Long gone is the sense of fear and terror that you might have felt when Jason was stalking teenagers in the woods at Camp Crystal Lake. This is a parody, essentially, and it's bad at that, too. What you have here is a lame attempt at maintaining a pulse in this long-time franchise on life support... it would have been better for everyone if they had pulled the plug on this movie before they started.

The summary says it all. This is yet another found footage waste of time with a group of irritating, racist/homophobic/misogynistic characters that can't get killed off quickly enough. Other downers include the weak plot, the awful sound editing (the growling sounds like it was recorded in a metal garbage can... listen with headphones for the full effect), the irritating "static, distorted video when the ghost/demon/monster is about the appear" effect.

I don't see how anyone watching this could have sympathy or connection to the characters in this movie. Aside from the camera guy and the black guy, the others are all awful, irritating jerks. Who has friends like these people? Maybe all the deplorable jerks hang out with all the other deplorable jerks, and leave the rest of us alone? If you have friends like these guys, the I suggest you watch this movie all the way through as it mount have a therapeutic effect for you when you see them getting killed.

You could basically swap most of the movie out with a similar chunk of film from another found footage movie and it wouldn't matter... there's about 10 minutes worth of plot invested in this, so watch the beginning when they're warned to not go into the woods, and then the last couple of minutes and forget everything in between... and won't won't have missed much.

If you've seen any of the many bad horror/found footage movies of the last 10 years, then you've seen this before... only it was probably done much better elsewhere.

It seems like one of the hardest things to get out of Hollywood or an indie producer is a decent horror movie. "Satanic" is yet another in a long line of below par, forgettable horror movies made in the past 10 years. But at least it's not another crappy found footage film.

The production values on this movie are pretty good... again, no shaky, hokey found footage documentary-style garbage. Sound editing is pretty solid. The movie poster is ridiculous, but the movie looks and sounds pretty good.

But the story is weak... the story that picks up with Alice in the hotel makes no sense, and there's not much attempt to explain any of it. And these characters are awful. From the start, the four travelers come across as a bunch of self-absorbed, arrogant jerks. Seth the "goth" guy is particularly punchable. David and Elise are okay, but the former is pretty unbearable at the start. The tighten up a bit and get better as the trouble starts hitting them, but by that point I really had lost all interest in them. Some people have mentioned Sarah Hyland as being a star of some sort, but I've never heard of her or seen her show, and in this movie she's just your average "good girl" that you get in a horror movie... ends up being the Scream Queen. But she's not all that impressive... more irritating towards the end than anything else, really.

And the ending... meh.

If you don't expect much from your horror movies and are a very generous sort, it's possible you could give this a 4, I suppose. I was originally going to give this a 1, but that's not fair given the number of staggeringly awful horror films out there (like "American Poltergeist", "Ouija Experiment 2", etc).

This movie is awful. There's not a redeeming quality about it, apart from it being less than an hour and 20 minutes long. The acting was pathetic, the whole Lizzie Borden thing was laughable and completely irrelevant, the "effects" were... nevermind, if I write more about the specifics I will be putting more effort into this review than the cast and crew put into the movie.

But I've got to say, selling this movie as having anything to do with the Lizzie Borden story is shameful. There is nothing about this movie that ties it in to the Borden house/history. Sorry, director, but having a woman in vaguely 1890s-style clothing doesn't lend credibility to your movie. Also, this is supposed to be the Borden house, but it's 100% not at all anything like the real location (which is still located in Fall River). Spend 30 seconds on Google and search "Lizzie Borden house" and it becomes painfully obvious that, not only are the filmmakers so lazy they didn't bother to find a house that in any way resembled the real thing, but they also probably don't know anything about Borden apart from vaguely hearing that there was someone murdered with an axe and "let's make a movie!" There's a sauna and a swimming pool in this movie, for %#^@'s sake! Really, it's entirely pathetic.

Hilariously, an axe is shown but not even used in the movie, that I could tell.

The cluelessness of the writer/director is something I'd expect in a grade school book report where the kid didn't read the book.

If you should ever see a positive review for this movie, you can put money on the fact that is was written by either A} a cast member, B) a crew member, or C) a relative/friend of A or B.

I wish I knew why people think they should make movies when they don't have a story, don't have decent actors, don't have a budget, and don't have the ability to make a movie look in any way like a legitimate, watchable movie should look.

Could the person who wrote the positive review please ask them? I ask this because you obviously know someone in the cast or crew, because no one else would give this mess a rating over 3 stars.

Some low points... the opening sequence seems to have nothing to do with the movie... the concept of someone murdering contestants in a reality type show is tedious now, and simply lame here... the acting is better not discussed, because there's not enough of it to comment on... no one in this entire movie is likable... WAY too long.

Cheap, poorly acted, boring, overlong, cringe-worthy, probably bad for your health to watch. Otherwise, great stuff.

Awful, charmless, amateur, inane, lousy, inept, tedious, failure. But other than that, great stuff.

The attempt at nostalgia for 1980s horror films is a total failure here. The dialogue, especially, is laughably lame. It's like someone watched a bunch of clichéd 1980s parodies and lifted words out of that. Whatever charm those old films had is completely absent here.

Yes, it's a very low budget attempt at a movie. And I suppose the effects should be consider "okay" given that, but "low budget" is not a valid excuse for a movie being so bad. If you can't make a movie and make it right, then don't make it at all.

At least it's short!

Boring, to the point that "boring" becomes an understatement. In no way scary. Poorly acted. Dreadful effects. A complete waste of time.

The acting is mostly high school drama class level, starting with the priest, continuing with the "flashback" teens and right on through with most of the rest of the cast, reaching a low with the Entity (demon). Leah Cooper and Duncan Malcolm are fine, but the rest... no.

The Entity (Michelle Coverley) could use acting lessons... MANY acting lessons. There's nothing intimidating, scary or convincing about her acting. She's awful, almost as if she was trying to do a parody, but couldn't even pull that off. She's distractingly bad, and it makes you wonder how they could have watched her and thought that it was "good to go". Maybe if they had used some audio processing to add some menace to her voice she wouldn't have been so bad. Maybe. We won't know (thankfully).

The "effects" are a joke.

There's no way anyone likes this film with more than 3 stars without being attached to the film in some way, either as a cast/crew member or a relative/friend. There's just no way.

Basically, "low budget" is no excuse. If you can't afford decent actors, a good story, or decent effects, then you shouldn't make the movie in the first place. You don't get a ribbon just for trying. Don't do it if you can't do it right. And for the record, there are any number of low budget films that did do it right. This will never be confused with those.

This movie is awful. There's your one-word summary, just to be clear... AWFUL. Not, "oh, it's so scary, it's awful" awful, or "the gore is awful" awful, but "dreadfully bad, ill-conceived, complete disaster, bore fest" awful.

The plot is laughable... the whole crazy redneck abduction killing thing is played out anyway, and in this case, so poorly done that you'll either find yourself laughing about it all, or cringing (I was cringing).

To be fair, Sherine Chalhie does a decent job, seeming way above the others in the film in acting ability... the others are local theater group level, if that.

I watched this for free on Amazon Prime, and still like I paid too much... I'll never get that wasted time back.

Others have said already just how truly awful this film is. Basically, read the one star reviews and you'll get it. Anyone giving this over one star... well, people sometimes forget to take their medication.

I would say there should be some sort of self-torture achievement medal mailed to you if you manage to watch this movie all the way through. I quickly found myself skipping forward looking for something... anything... redeeming, but was completely disappointed.

That early coke-snorting sex scene could be shown in high school to break the wills of teenagers and feel them with an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and loathing for the world. Showering only washes a fraction of the viewing shame away.

I don't even think this is better than the all-around awful "Dracula's Angel" (which at least had some comedy value given the super low "animation" budget, and tour-de-force bad acting).