Reviews

I have been a fan of the Hellraiser movies 1 and 2. They were directed by the author of the Hellraiser books, Clive Barker. They worked for me. But then the franchise following became extremely lame. Usually some sort of mystery having a few people in a turmoil, then the Cenobites show up. Movie over.

But today I just watched the 10th installment (I must have missed 3 or 4 in between), and it surprised me. It went right into the Hellraiser mythos from the beginning and continued through to the end. Some decent detective story genre thrown in with a relatively good twist. The story concepts seemed really close to what Clive would have written. The ending could have been better (some missing tie-ins), but well done.

This writer-director did good. Bravo!

Not at all what I expected. At first I was all enthralled, but then as I saw what they were doing with the story I was more like "What the heck, guys?"

For this being the "last" one, they sure didn't tie up any loose ends. I felt the general theme was a cop-out. I waiting for it to resolve, but it never did. Well, it kind of did. Too much bouncing around and not enough substance. Perhaps if it were another 20 to 30 minutes of substance, it would have been an awesome movie. Substance as in meaningful human interaction, dialog, dynamic plot devices... cutaway scenes to previous movies did not help.

Don Coscarelli did not direct it and I hear it had a really low budget, so maybe that's what happened??

I thought Reggie Bannister did a good job.

I can't go into details as I do not want to generate a spoiler alert.

I think I see what they were trying to do with this movie, but toward the end they switched gears without using the clutch.

The movie is unique. I like off beat movies because they don't follow the Hollywood cookie cutter method of making movies, but this one needed a bit more directorial finesse. Jump cuts are not good in editing, and they are not good in story telling either. However, I enjoyed the concept of the story even if some of it lacked logic.

If I explain any further I will be revealing spoilers. It is good for hardcore sci-fi fans, but if you are spoiled by watching million dollar movies you probably won't like it.

I am giving a 6 vote because it has decent production quality, visual effects and an interesting concept... and I have seen way worse.

Very Well Done! There is a certain story device Scott Derrickson uses, and he uses it well. (Sorry for the vagueness, trying not to spoil) I was immersed (or is it coerced) into a dream-like fascination for the story. It was a surrealistic roller coaster ride.

I clapped for Ethan Hawk's performance. He helped with the immersion into the story.

The basic story level was rather simple. But the layers started adding up. The suspense was suspended by Ethan's character studying the "planted" evidence he found in his newly-moved-in home. We find out something mystical yet sinister.

The lighting of the movie enhanced the overall mood and atmosphere. Very fitting!

I enjoyed this movie tremendously. I haven't seen such an ensemble of story, direction and acting all in the same movie in a long while. Let's make more like this!

I loved the concept. I guess the only thing that threw me on this is the "keying". This was a valiant effort to produce a completely green-screen movie. It is just too bad the keying artifacts were too evident. They were distracting. But overall, the composition and backgrounds and lighting worked well.

Some good acting. The writer/director plays a role and he actually did okay acting... for a director. :)

This movie shows promise in the direction and story. I look forward to seeing the next installment from this director, I just hope he gets a better VFX production. Seriously, if it weren't for the bad keying this would have been much better.

By the way, I am a VFX guru and available....

I have to give Tom Shankland kudos for this one. Very well done thriller. Can't say any more without giving the movie away. It held my attention throughout! Awesome! I have been waiting for this one after all the other want-a-be thriller movies. Sorry, John Carpenter, but this one is a stiff competitor! Good thriller, not a gore movie. Suspense and a bit of "who can you trust". I am very pleased with this on. I had my doubts at first, but it played out extremely well.

I am very glad to see a movie of this caliber. It reminds me that there is still some hope for cinema. Not just the "humdrum" of Hollywood executives trying to make a dollar. I think it should be more about the art, and if the art gives you money, then yeah! But the art should be first. Like this movie. I can't say any more, it was just awesome! (I don't want to give a spoiler, otherwise I would say more!)

A very cool and awesome martial arts movie. Anime come to life in a live action movie. And the Azumi character is a very cute Japanese girl who can kick some ass! (I might be a bit biased on this point.)

Very well done, camera-wise, action-wise and acting. The bloody "gore" shots were a bit lacking, almost trying not to show it. It is dubbed, but the dubbed audio is the same as you would hear in an anime, so it was interesting to see and hear that in live action. The photography was beautiful, although some bits might have been CG, and the action sequences were/are spectacular.

Trust me, worth the effort to rent and/or buy. But in case you don't like awesome movies... I would rent it first. I gave it a 10. A must see for fans of martial arts, anime, and cute Japanese girls. :)

Being an up and coming writer/director I have often pondered making a time travel movie with all the paradoxes and what not. After thinking about it I would get a headache and work on some other story because I couldn't think of a good way to show the paradoxes without confusing my own self, and thus creating a mediocre story.

I have seen some time travel movies pull it off somewhat, but never as intricate as this one. I could see what was coming for the most part, yet I marveled at how well the story unfolded. Simple story, yet complicated with the time paradox phenomena. Very well done.

Is this the ultimate time travel movie? I don't know. But I can say that I am inspired to endeavor to make the next one!

I am now feeling a love/hate relationship with the director. :)

I would have to dis-agree with the comment "Awful sums it up". This movie wasn't all that bad. There were only a few weak points in the story, but overall it was good. It's a zombie movie with a different slant on why there are zombies. The two main characters seemed real to me. Those two actors did a good job. And the lead actress is some sweet eye candy.

Most of the movie was grainy, probably due to low light levels because it was less to none grain for the exterior shots. The makeup was cliché. But then again this is a low budget movie, however it did cost approximately $100k. I would have expected more for $100k. This movie looked like it could have been done with $10k, unless the location at the end of the movie cost $90k. Anyway, I really appreciate low budget movies and I weigh the budget with the final product. So this one is a disappointment in that ratio, yet it was a better movie story-wise and feel-wise than bigger budget "Hollywood" movies.

The movie kept me watching and I liked the ending. The story had a beginning, a middle and an ending. It had some decent actors. It even had a bit of humor added. All the elements of a good movie. Not great, but good.

I wish there were more movies of like this out there.

I liked the first Hulk movie because it was the Hulk, a Marvel character that I was so familiar with as a child reading comic books, watching cheesy animations and watching the TV series. THIS Hulk movie is more like tha actually Incredible Hulk I know and closer to the series.

The Hulk in this movie was like the actually comic book character where he actually speaks and comprehends. The first Hulk movie showed him as a mindless brute. Also the first movie put too much emphassis on a relationship between Bruce Banner and his father David. And the new (original?) Hulk has more emotion.

Choosing Edward Norton as Bruce Banner was perfect. Besides Norton's acting, his small frame helped create the contrast between Bruce and the Hulk alter ego.

There are a couple of cameos and some winks to the fans. Can't tell you what those are, that would be a spoiler. :) This movie had great live action/CG mix with camera pans that were flawless increasing the effectiveness of the illusion.

The true Incredible Hulk or Marvel fan will love this movie.

Although I'd rather George Lucas stop writing, this movie probably wouldn't have been made if he weren't a part of it. Some of the story elements were on the impossible side as far as physics is concerned. Not that I want 100% reality, but come on George, is Indiana Jones a fantasy movie or an adventure movie with a bit of mysticism? I thought this movie was better than the last two Indiana Jones installments. It approached the first one but without the mystery/suspense. Nothing new except there were some great CG effects shots. But hey, it's ILM. I pretty much had the plot figured out mainly because the final outcome is one of those ideas that I had for a script. I have done my research into ancient myths and legends, including the crystal skull, and had come to similar conclusions. Besides that, there were no surprises for me.

Some of the fight/action sequences were a bit contrived and dodgy. Yet still in the vein we would expect.

I liked it because it was an Indiana Jones movie directed by Steven Spielberg and acted by the always great Harrison Ford. It is a fun movie especially for the Indiana Jones fans. I give it a 7 mainly because they had the money to do a better job with the story. Perhaps they should give some of us newbies a try???

I have read some of the other comments and I concur 100%. How do movies of such low caliber actually get into video stores? This movie makes "Shadow Beings 2005 (V)" look like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. Seriously. I have watched many low-to-no budget movies and found redeeming qualities in most of them. However, this one is most likely the worst (I have yet to see more from this guy), even this director's movie "Black Dahlia" was better (not by much).

At first, I thought I was watching some experimental film. But there was no continuity in the experimentation except for bad. There was no story cohesion. I was really trying to follow all the way to the end, but in doing so, I had to create a story in my mind to compensate for the lack of one in this movie. Very poor story telling.

I will continue to watch no-budget movies because I know there are okay writers, okay directors, okay actors, okay editors, etc. that could make an okay movie. At least a 5!

I am a fan of low-to-know budget movies. I appreciate them for what they are... a low-to-no budget movie. So the short comings a movie may have due to lack of money I can over look very easily. I also try to view such a movie holistically, see the movie as a whole and try to not pick at each and every flaw. Even the big budget movies have flaws, some of them are just hidden well.

Then there comes a point when the lack of money doesn't redeem. Writing, directing, musical composition, acting and editing are five points that can make or break a movie no matter what the budget is. For example, a movie can be good, even great, if the writing, directing, music and editing are cool but the acting sucks. Other combinations could make a good movie. However, if the only thing you have going is a great story and nothing else, well I'd think about not making the movie.

With that said, I found Living Dead Lock Up 2 a great disappointment. I haven't seen the first part but I did see Realm Trilogy: The Complete Saga, which was a painful watch. I thought that with a fews years later and a couple of more movies that this one would've been much better. It was better then Realm Trilogy, but only in a couple of areas.

I am not here to bash, I am here to point out some issues, hopefully taken as constructive criticism. There were several "no-no's" in this movie, no-no's that should be in any movie.

I did like the use of the "old time" drive-in animations. This made me think it was going to be okay, some creative thought put into it. At the beginning, there was a cool montage. The make-up was okay, it is what I would expect from a shoestring budget. There were a few times when you would see a really good shot composition, then the next shot would really suck. No consistency in direction or editing.

This may be a low-budget issue, but where are all the people? It was supposed to be a hospital with several survivors but all I saw were like four people, not counting zombies. If there were really all those executive and associate producers for this movie, couldn't some of them have played extras?? Extras are the easiest, they don't have to be able to act. It was called March of the Dead, and the most number of zombies in any shot was 3. Not much of a march.

Writing. Hmmm. I could tell what was going on, that is all. There was no dialog that stuck out. No plot elements making me wonder what was next or even keeping my attention. Why did bottled water help a zombie become normal again?? Locations. Good. This is one of the no-budget gotcha's. You usually use what you can get, however you may need to re-write the story to fit the locations.

There were several bad continuity cuts. Like cutting from the subject moving to the subject standing still. Five o'clock shadow in one shot, then the next shot no facial hair on the same person, same moment. This one has nothing to do with budget. There is a reason why a director shoots more than one take of each scene or camera angle. Coverage. Coverage. Coverage.

Acting. Hmmm. There was one composited zombie that had some good pantomime. And there was good acting from 11min 50sec into the movie until 12min 37sec. There is a kind of "bonding" scene as one guy is cleaning another guys wounds, very awkward direction and editing. A bit later, there is a bad beer drinking scene. Acting needs work. Sorry.

There was some bad audio. Sometimes that's a no-budget issue, however, I should never hear a voice over for an outdoors scene recorded in a non-sound-proofed room. It was obvious the voices were recorded in a room, while the shot was of outside.

Another piece of advice: If you need to use bluescreen (hospital background) on one shot and can't make it look good, then the next cut should be bluescreen as well. It was very distracting to see the nurse shot with poor bluescreen, then the shot of the man being a practical shot.

Overall, I think this movie would've been way better if it were only like 30 minutes long.

(So far, of the top of my head,there is one movie that I use as the basis of the worst movie for a vote of 1, it's called "Edgar Allan Poe's The Raven" by Ulli Lommel. So I give this movie a 3.)

I've seen posts about how this movie is the "same old same old", or in other words "same stuff different day" (SSDD). Nothing new here. I beg to differ.

Yes, this movie has the same Bean-ism as any other Mr. Bean movie. However, it also has a good under-story. And isn't the reason we watch a "Mr. Bean" movies is to watch Mr. Bean? If you don't like Mr. Bean movies, then don't watch them. Don't criticize something you don't like in the first place.

This is the BEST Mr. Bean episode I have ever seen. I have watched some of the series and have also watched the movies. This is the best... and unfortunately the last (so I've read).

The shot switching between Mr. Bean's camera and the theatrical camera was really cool. It helped put us in Mr. Bean's shoes.

I don't have any "down" comments off the top of my head. So, the positive review remains the same. Very good movie. A must see....

All the "normal" cinematics and acting are here, of course. The usual things you would equate to a good movie. They are all here. Especially the acting. I'm glad they could afford those actors. Kudos on the acquisition. But one element of this gem, that I hold above all, is the "story/concept".

One of the things that eludes me as a writer, how do you tell a story in one location? I've been trying to come up with a story that doesn't involve epic locations and special visual effects. I have a few ideas for movies that involve the subject matter of this movie, but, since I am a low-to-no budget filmmaker, I am concerned with how to express certain topics so frugally. I realize that it has to do with the dialogue and presentation of the story. This movie shows how one can tell a "grand" story with only one location.

The subject matter is controversial. Some will hate this movie. Some will love it. But it is all based on verifiable sources. May be true... may not. However, it is good food for the mind (if one is open minded, that is).

It's hard to write a comment about such a movie of this genre that doesn't give it away and still expresses how much this movie has enthralled me! One of the main premises of the movie is "What would you believe?". If a friend of yours came to you with information that unfolded your reality, would you stick with dogma, or have an open mind with what that "friend" of yours was saying? Could you let go of dis-belief, based on scientific "fact", enough to consider what your friend said "might" be true? I am definitely adding this to my collection.

Well done. Not just a horror movie that gets laughs from the horror gags. The humor was steady throughout, if you like dark comedy. I found the story to be refreshing as it doesn't "keyframe" its story with cliché. Whether it be Hollywood formula, cinematic guidelines, director's guild tribal knowledge, or actor's schizophrenia, this movie doesn't rely on these tried and true methods. It's shock value is in the twist of fate scenario(s), and the absurdity of human behavior.

The gore content was only at a level as what was necessary, not over the top. Some may disagree here, but think about all the zombie movies. Okay, the "art" room may have been a little graphic, emphasizing "little", but it was... "art", eh? Even the attempted gore had humorous tones. I didn't laugh out loud... but it was funny!

For those of you who like dark comedy, horror movies and action, and want something new and refreshing, watch Murder Party.

Oh, yeah, after watching it you'll learn that even a "cat" will understand that the master has had a really, really bad day.

They have all that money and great special effects and no imagination! Maybe they were going for the Transformer fan. Obviously not for the sci-fi or fantasy fan.

They even threw in a few cute factors. After I saw the first one, I almost left the theater. I was thinking, "You've have got to be kidding me." Cute is one thing, but the tooth fairy bit, that was lame. I think Spielberg has been hanging around Lucas too much.

Seriously. Find a "writer" next time. This was obviously written by marketing. If it weren't for the cast and special effects, it wouldn't have been worth my time and money. This movie's story/plot is like water in a sieve. Perhaps the Transformer fans could see the Transformer story bits, but that is all there was. They tried adding other alien urban legend type of references, but it didn't help. In fact very contrived.

Perhaps a different director would've worked, unless this one's hands were tied. Then I would feel sorry for him.

How about throwing some of that money at us creative filmmakers?? Vive Le indie!!

This movie helped me regain my faith in horror movies to scare me. Also, faith that there are still directors out there waiting for there chance to scare us again. When I was younger, I got scared watching horror movies. When I got older, except for Nightmare on Elm Street and John Carpenter's The Thing, I haven't really been scared. I enjoy the movies, but not scared. This movie re-instated the fact that I "can" be scared.

Then there are the creative transitions in the movie. Awesome! Those and the atmospheric lighting and musical score created a most eerie atmosphere. Sometimes the slightest of tension before the storm.

The triumph being the director's choice of sound editing. Shhh! I won't give this away. But I extremely appreciated that gem. (RE: the title of the movie)