larry.launders

So I am not a fan of Melissa McCarthy, and am a fan of puppeteers. Ms. McCarthy did better in this than what little else I've seen her in. I thought Joel McHale was wasted in his part.

But I laughed a lot!

This movie is loaded with raunchy humor and gags, so don't take your children.

And yeah....seeing a Henson name on this gives me mixed feelings but the son doesn't have walk in all the same footsteps of his famous father.

I think the audience topped out at 10 people, but we were all laughing and not always at the same bits.

I very much enjoyed this movie, bonus points for it being a true story! Garfield is very convincing in his character, the depiction of his home life and family is quite solid as is the story that forms his moral character - without beating you over the head with it. And there are some nice details included throughout that do lend a solid setting.

Theresa Palmer is an excellent pick for her role - she has the look and personality down to the proverbial "T".

If I have anything to pick on, it lies in the details, and primarily in the battleground sequences.

Based on a true story, from what I have read the number of people he rescued is in some dispute - Doss thought it was around 50, other reports from the field reach as high as 100!

The details I pick on, as I said, are just that - details. As a boot and a soldier, his hair is too long! The sergeant's weapon is an unlikely choice, but is still correct for the period. The naval bombardments just looked wrong in scale for some reason (I'm willing to say that's the me..). And I don't recall seeing anyone reload! (BAR's only carry 20 rounds...)

And nobody 'wins' the Medal of Honor, they are awarded!

Holy Smokes! Am I ever glad this was a throw-in on the Special Features section of a "Passage to Marseille" DVD! This is absolutely stunning. Not JUST the music, not JUST the choreography, and not JUST the cinematography. They each are remarkable on their own. But together? This is a powerhouse.

I'm not a big jazz fan, but I am a music fan as well as a movie fan. It is not a very long movie, sadly, but you should do yourself a favor and see this.

At first I had no idea what to expect. I have a large appreciation for the blues style, and knowing this was from the 40's I was anxious to hear something that did not border yet again on 'rock, as inspired by...' stuff.

I had no idea who any of the people in this were, and no idea the guitar player was actually white.

It is very artfully done - between the music, the 'scene' changes through the camera, and just the whole overall design on this short film should be far better known than it is. And on that note, I'm sure there are likely other films that this one may have borrowed from for all I know - and if it did, please share!

Yup, as others have said you may not have had much chance to see it in the theaters, or if you did, you were mislead about what kind of movie you were going to see.

You can't say it's NOT a rom-com, but it is very much more than that as well. A very robust set of other characters and circumstances all going on basically at the same time, and handled very well throughout the film.

So what other ingredients are in this, you may ask? There is a touch of romance and comedy, but also intrigue, suspense, and action.

Do yourself a favor and see this movie. Then, get those other friends of yours over to watch it. Highly enjoyable.

I do not mean that as an insult! This was an enjoyable movie to watch.

The movie, overall, is fun. If you don't see the chemistry between Johnson and Hart during the movie, you definitely will in the bloopers that show up during the end credits - which I would stick around for.

Story wise, there are not going to be any big surprises.

Much like other reviews, I can't help but feel this could have been much funnier. There's plenty to laugh at, certainly, but there wasn't anything that really had me out-of-breath laughing, either from a single joke or a part where there could have been a string of them. However, this movie does have a very good underlying theme, that was set up in the beginning scene, used for creepy/joke material a bit throughout, with redemption at the end.

Like I said, a very good matinée.

I really like this show. To be fair, it took me watching the first three episodes to really get into it.

It starts off pretty well, nice little mystery established early that gives the show much of its premise. Then later on into the series it does a fantastic job of referencing some things in previous episodes that build upon some individual stories.

It is very well constructed!

If there are any knocks to this show, it would be some shameless uses of graphics from other shows (some things are very recognizable), themes/nods/references to other science fiction shows, and frankly while obviously not a whole lot of money has been thrown at this show (mostly noticed in the sets) it is still well put together.

Story over slick production, every time.

Like I said, it took the first 3 episodes for me to really get invested in it. I think particularly in the pilot episode, some actors were seemingly still getting used to their characters. The ones that (to me) seemed not entirely invested, did so quickly by the third episode.

By the time you finish watching season 1, there are still some things hanging that ought to work well in season 2. If they can maintain the writing talent, this show should be able to run on a few more seasons.

Only warning I could think to give is that there is some adult language. It thankfully doesn't seem gratuitous and is very in context however.

Watch the show.

I have not read any other reviews yet because I did not want to have them bias my own thoughts on this one.

First off, there are some things to this movie I really did enjoy. It does not use a ton of gore in order to get the label 'horror' for its category. That was nice to see. Sure, there's some, but it's not a gore fest.

Between its pacing and story it makes more of an effort to set mood, which in turn helps what events you do see have more punch. That's a very nice trait to see!

And this next part will come into play shortly, but I did really like the way they started the movie. I wouldn't call it inventive, but it sure worked!

But, having given those praises, I confess it did not hold my attention too well. The biggest detractor I can come up with is...for some of the situations we see, who in the world gets up in the middle of the night with a sibling screaming their head off in horror, and the first thing the other sibling apparently thinks to do is grab their video camera before they run down the hall to see what in the world is going on? Because the perspective you see most of this movie from is someone with a portable video camera and they're recording all this. (ala Blair Witch/found footage)

Early in the movie it works very well, because the setting makes it believable. I think the makers are banking on you getting involved enough in it to dismiss surrounding circumstances...OK I'm nit- picking, but again I guess I did not get that absorbed to where these circumstances presented themselves to me. And if you're paying attention to what you see and what you hear, there are some continuity problems. If you're not paying that close attention then it hardly matters. :-)

I was attracted to this mostly because the Bell Witch is a historic ghost story. And to some degree that info does come out in the story. The reactions to it are a bit tame, but at least they're not overdone!

I saw this movie last night for the first time. I've done my best to remove any possible spoilers in this review.

I had heard about it when it came out, and it had always been on my radar, so I finally made time to watch it.

First off, I suspect we need to discuss Mel Gibson. If I recall, this was his first big movie after getting splattered across the press for some poor behavior, and the general movie-viewing public largely turned against him.

Well, I am not here to comment on any off-screen antics, merely the movie and the talent involved.

Mel Gibson is a tremendous actor. That statement is very well displayed in this movie. He is helped by a very strong supporting cast, and an interesting story about a subject that, overall, nobody is comfortable talking about or dealing with.

Having read the trivia, I get why it took Jodie Foster awhile to get a backer for the movie because she did not want to change the ending. I found myself with a mix of thoughts on that - I side with Ms. Foster in not wanting to change the ending of the story, however I might have fought for changing how it was displayed/portrayed to the audience. Not that what she chose didn't work, it did, but I'm considering the overall 'feel' of the movie at that point.

Honestly, from what I had remembered from the trailers, I thought this would be more comedic. It is still a serious subject matter, and there are comedic moments to be had, don't get me wrong! But this does lean very much more to the serious side.

It of course also includes a few other sub-plots to round out the overall story - the two children provide their own personalities and issues that need to be dealt with; and the wife trying to balance everything going on along with maintaining her own responsibilities as well as sanity is expertly done by Ms. Foster.

And the end makes sense, ultimately. And it provides some things the story needs to tie things up, and to make it a movie worth watching, albeit a bit...tragically? Or at the least, unfortunately.

I do recommend watching The Beaver. While it includes Mel Gibson, and dear readers I semi-understand those that won't watch anything with him in it, but remember he's not the only person in it. :-) It does deal with the very serious subject of depression, and is well worth the watch.

I was surprised, pleasantly!

I did not get to see this show when it was actually aired. And fair disclosure - I grew up not far from Dallas, where this show is set.

So I WANTED it to be good. That and I knew a handful of people who worked on this show, I wanted it to be good for them as well.

I finally watched it when it hit Netflix a few weeks ago. I was very surprised at how much I laughed and enjoyed it. That being said, I put most of that down to how Hanks and Whitford worked so well together.

The show IS a cliché - in fact it covers a lot of cliché's. Buddy cops, rookie & the old hand, Odd Couple, the screw-ups and their boss(es), take your pick because most of them are represented here. Still, it was just a ton of fun!

So after watching it a bit, I looked it up on here to find most every episode had ratings of at least 7 and climbing towards 8. That's not bad!

I also really liked how it was edited - by that I mean it will jump around in a time a little bit, and let you know when it does, but it worked well telling their stories. For whatever they had to work with, they made great use of their resources!

Hanks plays the newer guy, over-achiever with high aspirations who finds himself saddled with a complete throwback in Whitford, generally everything Hanks isn't. So while Hank's character is the bird wanting to soar, Whitfords' is the anchor chain tied to his foot. Whitford's Dan Stark is all about making the arrest and stopping bad things from happening, almost no matter what. Hank's Bailey is the procedure guy, likely no less motivated similarly to Stark but it doesn't quite come across the same.

So you wind up with Bailey having to bend more than Stark when it comes to procedure.

And it's fun!

Having grown up in the area of course I recognized plenty of places throughout the series - easy to tell some scenes were shot outside of Dallas but still nearby (recognized Fort Worth and Arlington locations). In fact there's one scene that likely got the show in big trouble with the network - as the show is set in Dallas, in one scene (I forget which episode) an extra walks across the screen with his back to the camera where you can clearly see FORT WORTH POLICE DEPT across the back of his shirt...and the scene was supposed to be in the Dallas PD office at Bailey and Starks' desks are.

Yes, I suppose a movie could be made from this (trivia says this started off as a movie script) but I'd rather see more episodes.

So, watch this show! You'll laugh!

I thoroughly love this episode.

I liked the opening, the gig he goes to (not to mention the music) and how the 'medical emergency' develops.

I have a hard time imagining anyone but Harry Lennix doing the role of John Henry Giles.

But enough of the fawning - I thought the episode did a lot to help explain House himself a good bit; or at the least, put a description into a high impact statement.

And yes, it all tends to generate around a popular quote by John Henry's character: "I know that limp. I know the empty ring finger. And that obsessive nature of yours, that's a big secret. You don't risk jail and your career to save somebody doesn't want to be saved unless you got something, anything... one thing. The reason normal people got wives and kids and hobbies, whatever, that's because they ain't got that one thing that, that hits them that hard and that true. I got music. You got this. The thing you think about all the time. Thing that keeps you south of normal. Yeah, makes us great. Makes us the best. All we miss out on is everything else. No woman waiting at home after work with a drink and a kiss; that ain't gonna happen for us."

And for the cherry on top, the handling of John Henry's other doctor by House is very worth seeing.

All the way to the final scene - the last exchange between John Henry and House, and the incredibly appropriate music chosen to lead the show out.

Great episode.

As of this writing I still haven't decided what vote to give it.

I enjoyed the movie, let's start with that.

As expected, there is a lot of 'ridiculousness' in this movie: the vehicles, the people,....well there's not a lot else in the movie beyond those two!

Like many Americans, I suspect, I saw The Road Warrior first. I fell in love with it. Then I saw Mad Max, and that helped some other things make sense in The Road Warrior.

As I understand it, Fury Road is supposed to fall somewhere in- between the two.

Well...OK.

I still enjoyed the vehicle chases/action/combat stuff, the very odd community from which it all starts, and the fact that I think this movie had a lot more story resolution in it than The Road Warrior. (trying not to add spoilers)

The Cirque de Solei folks were wonderful of course. The "Doof Warrior" was a very interesting touch (he's the guitar player), as a nod to throughout our history, troops in the field communicated with drums and horns and so on, this just seems a modern extension of that.

And knowing that the vehicular stuff was not CGI, but real. I really appreciated that part.

So the story focuses mostly around A woman and a decision she makes (Charlize Theron's character). From there, we get to see everyone else spring into action in some form or fashion. And with that, ultimately they kept the story fairly simple, and it made sense.

It is at least an engaging story and a cohesive telling of it.

For myself, I didn't read a whole lot into the 'plot' but I'm sure if you really went looking for anything from "save the planet" types to militant feminists, you could probably find it. To me, in context, it all made sense.

For things I didn't particularly care for, there aren't many. However: 1) Just like in Road Warrior, apparently nobody who makes these movies believes that stack-style exhaust pipes get HOT!! Both movies have people crawling around them after they've been running a good while....

2) Hardy's Max, particularly near the end with Furiosa, just doesn't seem as....detached....as Gibson's Max, when he tells her his name. At the end of Mad Max, Gibson's Max had already snapped like a freeze dried rubber band; but he still had a code he worked by. Hardy, while taciturn, gets some flashbacks here and there but doesn't seem as 'damaged'. He's brutal, yes, and by necessity. He just didn't come across as being as damaged as he should have been. But then that's simply my opinion.

So sit back, and enjoy the ride!

I went to go see this movie because I'm a bit of a World War II nerd.

So my main focus was simply seeing the Tiger tank (a real one, and unless I'm mistaken it is the only remaining operational German Tiger in existence) in action. Truly frightening!

I did like that tank battle because it did display authentic tactics, and serves to remind us of a handful of things about armor engagements in that war. Two primary accurate things were: 1) Those tanks move slow, compared to today's versions. 2) At the least, allied tank units quickly developed a preferred operating procedure of needing at least 3 Sherman's to 1 Tiger (if not more) to overcome the Tiger. And they did it pretty much to code - get one Sherman behind the Tiger where it is weakest.

When you see the beginning of that engagement, the three Shermans are not widely dispersed. You see that as they get closer, they start to spread apart. But you also have to remember that over rough terrain, they're probably moving at the blistering speed of maybe 5 miles per hour.

I found that scene both frightening and exhilarating all at once.

So beyond that, I found I enjoyed most of the movie. The scene in the town (early on) and the interaction with War Daddy and the FNG (er, new guy) with the two female residents ran the gamut of "this is a good scene" (it was) with a heavy dose of "why are the other crew members being such jerks" (to put it mildly).

And the crew is justified on being hard on the new guy, given the story we're told. That crew, before losing their assistant driver, had been together quite awhile. Not only have they lost a brother in arms, but now they have a new guy that they don't know how well he may or may not do. And that is amplified by our new guy pulling a Dante (from Clerks) reminding them early and often that "he wasn't supposed to be here".

However, some of the harshness, nigh cruelty, just doesn't really do much for the story. Sure, there are points where they sort-of warm up to him, which to me only served to highlight their earlier useless behavior.

One note - Shia LaBouff's character (forgive me if I spelled his name wrong) was much better than I was expecting, given the articles I had read about him during it's making. I'm not much on 'method' actors, but his character was mostly more likable than I would have anticipated.

Overall, don't look for accuracy. I could go on about damage done by a grenade inside a tank being COMPLETELY overlooked for the sake of the movie (ahem, instead of people almost dead, at best you MIGHT have someone almost alive) but then this isn't a documentary or a training film - it's a movie.

You can enjoy this movie.

There are already some wonderful reviews on here about this movie that say an awful lot - everything from the contrasts in hypocrisy to Christoph Waltz's amazing performance.

But I just had to get my oar in!

Yes, This was my first introduction to Christoph Waltz. On my first watching of this movie, I was struck by just how...diabolical...his character is.

Further, I was amazed and impressed when I learned that Mr. Waltz is Jewish. Where I should only assume that portraying a Nazi SS Officer that is also nicknamed "The Jew Hunter" could provide some consternation to the actor, as well as give plenty of fuel to motivate a very passionate performance.

If you happen to have not seen this yet and are reading this review, I would give you the following synopsis to set your expectations: It is done in acts, with definite breaks. The first act is amazing, thanks to Herr Waltz. There is plenty of dialogue throughout the movie that is NOT in English (for my fellow Americans and English speakers) - and it works. Please realize this is pure fiction, although QT does put a lot of attention to some details you may not realize you are seeing (everything from posters in the backgrounds to uniforms), as well as his nods to films styles of a few decades ago. It is typical QT violent fun with a bit of a morality tale included.

Enjoy!

When I first saw the title and description, I thought "oh great, another cheap horror flick."

Am I ever glad I got talked into watching this one! It is a somewhat classic horror movie setting and start, make no mistake. However, it does not take long at all to turn into the comedy it truly is.

What a fresh take on putting a lot of horror movie cliché's to such comedic use! There are a lot of laugh out very loud moments throughout, and both Tyler Labine & Alan Tudyk do not disappoint!

The rest of the cast (at least 2 of which are also main characters) does a wonderful job rounding out the whole experience. "College kids go on a camping trip in the woods" gets revitalized in the telling of this tale!

It also does follow plenty of other previously tried and true formulas, and again, turns them on their ear - from hillbillies, spooky settings, isolation, and even romance. If you've seen your share (or at least heard about) many previous horror movie scenario's, you will find plenty to laugh at as all are taken and twisted into great comedy.

Again, watch this movie....and have yourself a Doozy of a day!

It takes a little bit, but all the characters manage to encounter each other/cross paths at some point. Be patient, this is an enjoyable movie to watch!

The characters are very well done, enough depth to explain their actions, but again, patience is needed. Let it tell its story.

The story is tight and smart. It unveils more and more as it goes, hence the needed patience. I don't mean to make it sound like you have to wait until the end for things to make sense, they will as things go along. In other words, questions will get answered throughout the movie, and does a good job of keeping you both guessing, and at the same time satisfied that earlier questions have resolved.

I also found the soundtrack to be very well done. Although apparently there was a previous soundtrack that wasn't used, and has since been released on CD. The Anthony Marinelli pieces are highly effective.

Wonderful cast, soundtrack, and story.

This is very much worth watching! And you don't really even need to know anything about wine to enjoy it.

A wonderful story and well made film, it sets the tone early on, and gives every character a chance to tell their story, one way or another. It does very well about not going into great depth about the how and why winemakers/vintners and judges go about what they do, but you see and hear just enough about it to satisfy any curiosity.

Coupled with a very good cast, this movie is also easy to watch, which adds to the enjoyability. The costuming seems to be done quite well, and a standout of the 'set dressing' to put you into 1976 is well done - particularly with the vehicles!

First, the story is excellent. Not overly fancy or complicated, and it is very well told. Combining 'soldiers' from many sides of both the Allies and the Axis, beyond the main plot point it is a great story to watch.

There is action, there is a bit of drama, and there is suspense. And of course, there is Bogart.

It can be a little pedestrian at times, the dialog a little hammy, but given that it was released in 1943 it can be forgiven.

Character interactions that are the 'must see' items of this movie - 1) The German pilot in regards to the Sudanese soldier, and Bogie's response. 2) The Italian prisoner's dressing down of the German pilot. 3) The French soldiers' description of 'the Nazi.' 4) The Sudanese solders' (yes, again!) conversation with 'Waco' about marriage. 5) The entire crews' visible yet silent reaction to their first decision regarding the Italian prisoner.

If I say anymore I'll have to mark this review as having spoilers!

It's a cheap DVD, GET IT! If it comes on your TV or you can stream it, WATCH IT!

Perhaps rating a 1 is a bit harsh, but currently it has an 8.8, and that is simply intolerable.

Over 45 minutes into when the movie says it started, the story actually got going. During that 45 minute prelude, the main character doesn't say much, but then that's the character type. The editor/director are to blame for the horrible pacing - our protagonist says his three or four words, camera stays on him for very pregnant pause, camera switches to his muse, who doesn't say anything (or when she does it isn't much) and lingers on her for far too long, before going back to Mr. Goseling lingering on him....before he finally opens the door and leaves.

What the...?? About all it establishes is a tremendously SLOW feeling to the movie, and by the time the action arrives, it feels like it is pedestrian in its pacing.

And what a cast to be tied to this turkey. I liked each actor's portrayal of their character, (Mr. Pearlman's character is very unlikeable and is meant to be.) Christina Hendrix is sorely underused, nothing but a transition character who isn't explained terribly well...and doesn't have to be. She can do better.

Save 100 minutes of your life by not seeing this movie. Or at best, get it for $1 out of a Red Box.

Trying to catch lightning in a bottle once is hard enough, twice is darned near impossible. I liked "Swingers", I thought the balance was pretty good and that made Vince Vaughan effective in his annoyance. "Made" is not as well balanced with Vaughan. It is true you wouldn't have much of a story without his character (a gold medal screw up) but then in order to get the story you have to suffer through a thoroughly overdone taste of Vaughn's idiotic character.

I gave 3 stars because there are cast members that redeem parts of this movie and make it thoroughly enjoyable. Peter Falk does a fantastic turn as the lower level crime boss, and even give Vaughn the slightest taste of what I should expect most of the audience would like to give him...short of some violent and brutal death within the first third of the movie. Famke's 'stripper girlfriend' yes is a stereotype portrayed, but she does it awfully well. Special bonus points for getting Michael O'hara to show up in this.

And I am sure if you actually like Vaughn's annoying frenzy combined with a humongous yet very fragile ego, then you'll absolutely enjoy this movie.

Saw this just two nights ago and the experience produced a fair amount of discussion.

First off, not the sort of thing I'd have expected from Pakistan, or that part of the world. That in itself makes the movie a nice surprise! And I want to thank this movie for knowing when to leave something off-screen! There were parts where others could have made a half-hearted (HEH!) attempt to have something on screen, then it would have looked REALLY bad. Instead, there is a key moment where the action is left off screen, and you only get to see the result.

For the gore fans, no worries! There's plenty of graphic gore to come! However the soundtrack...where did they ever dig that up from?? It reminded me of Grindhouse and the type of music I'd have expected from something anywhere from the mid-60's to early 70's.

This movie was easy to watch. We never found ourselves in a lull where we were checking our watches or itching to fast-forward a bit, it is well paced.

*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** The plot is simplistic, which is okay as there were no high expectations. The characters were fairly well set, for what parts the different character traits come into play, which isn't much.

However, we saw two movies in this. The first part having to do with the disease and zombies and pollution, the second having to do with a psycho slasher. The two lines do not seem to have...ANYTHING...to do with one another! And again, that's OK depending on what your expectations are.

The language was interesting...I don't know how many different languages may have been in this movie, but it was interesting to have the characters' dialog switch from 'native' (Farsi?) to English WITHIN THE SAME SENTENCE! Just seemed odd. And the English they did speak had a small variety of accents (we counted Jamaican, British and possibly German).

Watch, and enjoy!

I confess I did not see the entire film, but most of it through to the end. A plot line equal to the task of loosely giving reason for a video game, it comes across even weaker as one for a movie. Another fantastic cast in a Uwe Boll film, which means the cast can only do so much to save another inevitable Boll failure.

So far as acting goes it struck my friends and I that Matthew Lillard's characterization was very well done, and could only have possibly been outdone by Andy Dick, which should tell you just how low a caliber character Lillard had to portray. Ray Liotta in most of his scenes looks like all he's missing is a white tiger and Sigfried in the background. Other notable actors did enough for their roles, nobody really stunk at them, but the weak direction left their impact rather flat.

We wasted a Netflix choice on this turkey, much less the better part of an hour and a half watching this movie. I highly recommend you don't follow suit.

I just saw Fido and had been looking forward to seeing it for awhile now, once I learned about it. Particularly interested since Billy Connolly plays 'Fido'. However, being a zombie character, he is limited to a few grunts and expressions. The laugh-out-loud parts come from pretty much everyone and everywhere else, and there are more of them in the first half of the film than the last. I had no idea who else was in this movie and was very surprised and delighted in the cast. It is very well made and the story line is very well planned, but the production crew (director, editor mostly) apparently show much more flair for the shorter segments and scenarios than the longer, tie plot lines up parts. But DO NOT let that keep you from seeing this movie!

I confess I was not around when Sun Records was in its hey-day, but watching this show is fantastic. While it primarily focus' on Sun recording artists and having active artists re-record some Sun classics, it is also a history lesson of the times, some names that aren't as familiar as perhaps they ought to be, and Sam Phillips. And it's not all good, either...there are a couple of artists who speak up about issues they had with their career tied mostly to Mr. Phillips.

The trivia and goofs section mentions a couple of scenes edited out, and it surprises me material of that sort didn't make it anywhere on the DVD, unless there is an easter egg I'm unaware of that has it. There are some fantastic performances/renditions to be heard...my personal recommendations are Jerry Lee Lewis recording "Lonely Weekend" with Matchbox 20; and Robert Plant/Jimmy Page recording Sonny Burgess' "My Bucket's Got A Hole In It". There are a couple of re-recordings I just cannot find much to appreciate in, but the behind the scenes of the recording and coming up with their rendition was still interesting.

How this movie is earning a 4.9 I'll never know. It is boring and dull enough to where settings, recording quality and such really don't matter.

We were attracted to this movie because of the cast. Bob Hoskins, David O'Hara, Stephen Dorkk, and Ian Hart were all recognizable. However nothing ever feels like it melds, nothing really paces and all the characters just come across as uncomfortable. Except perhaps for O'Hara, he seems to have a good grasp on his role, and can be excused for perhaps turning in a lackluster effort...after all, it is very difficult to not be affected by having to share scenes with Dorkk.

So while there is no sign of Uwe Bohl directing (not nearly enough copious amounts of blood) nor any appearance of Wings Hauser (who probably would have fit well), this movie still sucks. Don't waste your time or money on it.

No, not Ed Wood bad, but worse in many cases.

I saw this on DVD and that helped, because we were able to stop the movie, even back up a bit here and there to try to keep up with the plot lines.

I do like that it starts off just putting you in the story with no real introduction to what has happened/is happening in its 'current day'. However, enough is introduced that can make the movie confusing and chaotic enough where it is difficult to get drawn into the movie.

However, overall this movie was just frustrating to watch on a variety to levels, from simple things *I* would have done had I been in the characters place to leaving loose plot threads hanging all over the place.

It is not a friendly movie to watch, either. It is meant to portray a depressing state so the visual mood as well as the moods of the characters are also depressing. If that part of the movie works and makes you depressed, it is difficult to enjoy any of it.