em89072002

Why this movie sucks:

1). Too much back story and side stories: dead son, blocked writer/incomplete dissertation, cheating wife, jealous husband, islanders v. vacationers, creepy old salt. There is more of this junk than there are birds. These other stories compete too much with the main story of the birds.

2). The bird attacks are few and far between. They're not scary, just lame, watered-down, made-for-TV dribble. There is really no sense of apprehension or fear just a lot of high-pitched, ear-piercing little girl screaming.

3). If you didn't already hate little kids beforehand, this movie will put you in the club. These must be the most annoying, whining, little brats in film history. Though, an excellent source of birth control --- you'll never want to have sex again for fear of like progeny. It's a real shame the father saved the kid and not the dog. Although that dog barked too much to the point of annoyance too --- clearly of the same family.

4). The movie just abruptly ends. Maybe they all got tired of making a crappy flick. It's a real shame they didn't realize it sooner and save the time and expense of making a movie at all.

Technically the production aspects (filming, sound, acting somewhat) are fairly done; I've seen a lot worse. The overall story is a bad joke though.

So how does this flick compare to other 'bird' movies.

This dud rates 2 out of 10.

The original Hitchcock's movie 'The Birds' would get a 7 out of 10.

The Sci-Fi channels version from 2007, Kaw, gets 4 out of 10.

At the time that I'm writing this review there are five other reviews: two that are critical and three that seem overly enthusiastic. I tend to agree with the two reviewers who fault the dialogue. For the most part the dialogue is poorly written and poorly delivered. A lot of the time the lines seemed awkward and the words seemed forced.

I've seen one other movie that this director/writer has done, 'Slutty Summer,' and one of the common threads is his use of relatively new talent. Although the actress who played the fake wife was pretty good, had the other actors been a bit more seasoned the story might have been better. Even so, the writing could use some improvement.

A perceptible time-line would have helped to create a more realistic vibe too. The only way to tell how much time has passed between events is when a character states that it's been a week or two months or a year. It doesn't feel as though the viewer has gone along on the journey, just told about it. For example, after Marcel's jealousy, anger and resentment seemed to go from 0-60 in seconds we're clued into the fact that the time frame has just jumped two months which explains that the seemingly erratic behavior is actually the culmination of emotions that developed over an extended period of time. But, we wouldn't have to be told this if we saw a bit more of the natural progression along a discernible time-line.

Moreover, like 'Slutty Summer,' this film lacks the vibrancy of color. There are a lot of gray tones and it makes for a pretty drab picture.

All that being said the story is actually pretty good and the movie is entirely watchable. Even with the faults noted previously, the film shows that gay relationships are subject to many of the same forces as straight relationships (i.e. jealousy, interference) while also encountering hurdles (i.e. marriage recognition) that create additional obstacles for gay relationships. This director/writer can tell a good story --- it just needs to be more polished.

I watched this entire movie and I thoroughly regret it. But, having suffered through it, I tell you without hesitation that it is a complete waste of time.

The story is bizarre, but not in an artistic sort of way, just a really lame flick with the characters doing the most ridiculous things.

The story involves some dork loner who goes home one night to find a junkie/psycho chick somewhat (I say somewhat because the acting is bad and it's not believable) hiding in his bedroom closet. Instead of him kicking her to the curb or calling the police, they chat. She indicates that she was raped some months ago and now the three rapists are coming to get her. The doorbell rings and it's the local rapists, they politely ask for him to hand-over the junkie and again the dork chats with them instead of calling the police. So the dork and the junkie hold-up in the house while the three rapists wait out front for their leader to show-up and take action. At this point you realize this is a poor retelling of the 'three little pigs and the big bad wolf,' except the pigs are a dork and a junkie and the wolf is a pack of rapists.

The dork calls an ex-cop friend to come over who tells the dork he's an idiot for not calling the police, but then the ex-cop goes out to play football in the street with the rapists who don't like the way he plays ball so they kill the ex-copper. Even though the dork and junkie witness the killing they still don't call the police. Later the dead ex-cop comes back to visit the dork in a weird dream-like sequence reminiscent, but not nearly as good, of 'An American Werewolf in London.' Meanwhile neighbors walk by (this isn't an isolated place). And, one neighbor actually comes over to asked if everything is okay, but the dork just tells him to get lost.

Eventually the rapists decide to bust-in and get the junkie. As they enter the dork politely tells them to get out of his house, he does his power-ranger stance to show he's serious and then he can-can kicks one of the rapists back out the window. To deter another one of the rapist from entering the dork throws a pot of boiling water in the rapist's face (I'm not sure if that scene was taken from the 'three pigs' story or the 'Home Alone' series).

At one point the rapists capture the dork and junkie, and they take the dork out to the garage to be tortured like in one of the 'Hostel' movies. It's not very convincing. The torturer/rapist goes away for a bit, the neighbor comes back to free the dork, but again the dork tells the neighbor to get lost. It's all about revenge now so when the torturer comes back the dork kills him then hunts down and kills the other rapists so at the end the dork prevails.

There are a bunch of other things to numerous to mention that are really stupid and incredibly lame which add to making this a terrible flick. The story is just a hodge-podge of different elements pulled from other movies and chopped together to make this piece of trash. There are some movies that are so bad that it's funny and that makes it somewhat good, but this isn't one of them. This is just a really bad flick.

This story is poorly written, the direction is bad, the acting is bad and the production quality is bad. According to IMDb, Sam Barrett appears to have had a hand in all of those areas; dude --- try to perfect one craft first instead of trying to do everything at once and doing it all badly. Sadly Sam, you are consistent, but it's all bad.

The best aspect of this movie for me was the environment and the atmosphere that it created: traveling in the confinement of a train with few passengers on a cold winter night.

The story was decent enough: one passenger dies of his own accord and is found to be holding a box containing a fortune that others on board decide to steal. Yet, instead of just stealing the box and reporting the natural death, the thieves decide to dispose of the body which leads to a series of complications.

There are two parts of this story that where stumbling blocks for me.

1). The notion that the thieves would dump the body is kind of stupid and over-reactionary.

2). Half way through the movie you learn that the box is somewhat mystical and contains whatever the viewer desires it to, which leads to even more plot turns. I didn't like the mystical aspect.

Overall it was entertaining and suspenseful but with some unfortunate twists that soured the milk.

This was a really good watch.

Very interesting characters and an intriguing story.

The only downer was the ending.

Here you have this incredibly strong and determined woman without a crack in the facade who really moves the story along and you have her fall apart and crumble in the very last scene.

Throughout the film you see her intimidate, bully and lie to get what she wants without an apparent second thought that she is doing anything wrong. And at the very end she's used as some device to show how everyone is human and fragile and full of doubt regardless of the tough exterior.

It just wasn't believable. It was the typical cheesy Hollywood ending.

This is your basic horror flick. It moves at a good pace along a strait path.

It's simply a handful of people trapped in a movie theater being killed

It's random. There's no real motivation. There is a decent amount of blood and gore.

For what it is, the acting/direction and dialogue are fine. The effects are believable. And, the atmosphere is good.

This is a decent late night watch.

Considering the premise it's funny how this went to video instead of being shown in theaters.

A man makes a life and death decision that leads the the death of three of his friends. He's jailed, undergoes treatment and eventually released but told by some arrogant doctor who oversees his treatment that no sane person would ever make such a decision. The man goes on to test this out by seeking out the doctor's son and the son's friends who are vacationing at an isolated country home, trapping them in the house and forcing them to make a similar life and death decision.

For the most part everything is fair and competent: acting, direction dialogue, visual and audio. And, there are some disturbing but well-done gore scenes.

Even though the premise seems somewhat different, the movie is built on the same framework as every other teen slasher flick. The people are killed one by one and you can pretty much predict who will die next.

So, the movie isn't bad, it's just not anything new. And, if you want to see something from this horror genre, there are better movies out there.

This is much more than just another bad 'teen-in-the-woods' cliché-ridden horror flick. This rubbish is absolutely miserable to watch, and everyone involved should be embarrassed for being part of this lame production.

The premise of going on a scavenger hunt using GPS devices where the hunters become the hunted is weak. For a thriller/horror flick there's no the sense of fear or apprehension; even the characters involved don't seem concerned that they're going to die.

When initially faced with danger they trivialize it and withhold information from each other. One character standing guard at night doesn't bother screaming to alert the others while he is being chased down and killed, and another character after running for her life poses in the doorway for the killer to come up behind her. And, the final scene where the killer scurries up the stairs to get the chick in the bathtub while the guy is distracted by answering the doorbell, please! You can see these plot turns way ahead of time.

These characters repeatedly do dumb things and talk like idiots. To explain everything to the viewers who've lost interest the crazy chick and the remaining survivors engage in an inane conversation toward the end; it's pathetic. I've seen puppets with people's hands up their butts give more convincing performances.

The dialogue, direction and acting are all very bad, but the music was especially nasty. Someone involved with this production must have been sleeping with the band, or vice versa.

Obviously I'm not one of the family or friends that wrote the ridiculously over-hyped reviews that falsely praise this flick as worthy of watching.

It's horrible; avoid it!

The wino who wrote the one other review of this movie is right; this movie is no 'Citizen Kane.' The association of rosebud with this cast would turn even a vegetarian off tossed salad.

And, the other reviewer is also right in stating that the acting is not good. It's like watching the understudies in community theater perform; it's a fair job, but not good.

The production is competent; yet, with a tighter story and better acting this movie could have been better. But, even so, the movie would only achieve mediocrity because it's not a very interesting story: a bunch of gay white guys lounge around a comfortable country retreat and intermittently bemoan their relationships and nail one another. The theme of getting older and ending-up alone recurs but it doesn't receive much depth of exploration and consequently doesn't have much of an impact. Some of the characters mention AIDS a couple of times in a passing way but never really explore it as an issue either. Moreover, the issue of prostitution is treated as lite-fare, which might work for a comedy but not a drama.

These themes are presented so much better in other low-budget movies with little known, but quite competent actors.

Mitchell's "Shortbus" has a decent scene that shows the aging and isolation theme in a brief but immensely better manner. It's the sequence where the twinkie is talking to the old mayor in the salon.

Araki's 'The Living End' provides a trenchant perspective of the AIDS issue in a compelling and reactionary story of lost youth.

Morrissey's trilogy of 'Flesh', 'Trash' and 'Heat' are shoddy productions but fascinating to watch because the characters are captivating. Those actors, like Dallesandro, were unknown and untrained but imbued a sense of realism that the actors in this flick can't seem to achieve. Also, Morrissey presents male prostitution in a matter-of-fact manner; it isn't glamorized, vilified or trivialized.

So, there are interesting gay-themed movies, but 3-day weekend isn't one of them.

The shoddy opening scene of a pretty ugly fat chick clumsily running away from something, pathetically falling down and faking fear sets the tone for the whole movie. Which is to say it's a really bad flick overall. Much of the acting is stuff you'd see in a bad high school play. The editing is a joke; parts just go black for several seconds as they try to transition from one scene to another. And, it's a drab looking production; they should have followed the advice in their opening song and used some color.

So it's a bad movie, but it's also disappointing because the premise of a campy slasher flick seemed to have potential.

There are a few funny parts/lines in the last twenty minutes or so, but maintaining enough interest to get to that point is extremely difficult.

It gets two out of ten stars as there are only two positive aspects of this flick.

1). The drag queen is pretty funny toward the end. Partly because he has good lines and partly because he plays the role well, but only when he is in drag mode. Prior to that he is just a dull character.

2). The opening song and go-go girl are pretty good. The segment has a very cool vibe like the opening credits of a James Bond flick but with a campy twist. So that segment is good, which also means that it is totally out of sync with the rest of the movie.

This film bored me. It's a sad story of a pathetic character. Essentially W's life-story is reduced to a two hour melodrama more suited for a 'movie-of-the-week' TV slot than the big screen.

It's understandably difficult to condense anyone's life-story into two hours of film, but a focus on a specific incident or time period in W's life would have allowed for more character development all around. Here, there was just too much of the overall story so as the numerous characters were paraded-out they came across as shallow and two-dimensional.

The episodic flashbacks were over-used and made for a pretty choppy film.

The rocky father-son relationship was hammered home pretty hard; I was almost expecting W to cry out 'rosebud' in the middle of the night.

For what it provides, this film just ran too long; much like the main character's current administration.

Unfortunately, the plot description on IMDb gives away the story: a group of twenty-year-olds go camping "and never return." Thanks IMDb; you should use a spoiler alert too! So, since everyone is going to die in this flick the only reason to watch is to see how it gets played out.

There is a lot of blood and gore which many of the other reviewers mention. And, in that respect, this movie is very similar to the SAW, HOSTEL, and Texas CHAINSAW movies.

Other than IMDb giving the plot away, the most annoying aspect of this was that the characters didn't put up much of a struggle. No real screaming as the killer approaches or as the victims try to escape. They only scream once they're bound and being tortured. Likewise, the victims didn't seem too intent on fighting back; only weak efforts at best.

The movie is less about 'will the killer get the victim' and more about 'what the killer will do once he has his victim.' As such this horror flick could also be classified as a 'torture flick' since it's mainly about the characters being tortured, and that's torture for viewers to watch.

It's being given three out of ten stars here because even though film is highly derivative of others in this genre, it still has some shock value and the production aspects (direction, acting, etc.) are competent.

This is the classic coming of age tale intertwined with the doomed youthful romance.

It's a decent enough story that's enjoyable to watch, and the music is pretty good. But, there is also quite a bit of sentimental manipulation (poor, no mother, no siblings, good-natured and likable social outcast with a terminal illness, enough said).

On the plus side it was good to see characters that didn't respond in the standard manner (i.e. the girl's boyfriend didn't get into a dumb fight with her new love interest).

And, to the film makers credit, the film went beyond the predictable ending which would have been at the airport; after all, it's not just about a doomed romance but also about the girl's growth into maturity.

However, a deeper exploration of the girl's internal struggles with the developing relationship and final acceptance of fate would have benefited the movie.

I'm not sure who's worse: the people who write this rubbish, the actors who sign-up to perform it or the people who watch it and think it's great stuff.

The plot is generic; it's been seen time and time again. One spouse marries the other for her or his money and then tries to do away with her or him, and the plan always backfires.

Let's be clear; this is weak story where the main character gives an overly dramatic performance and the secondary characters are little more than cardboard cut-outs.

This is definitely a relic in it's portrayal of men and women. The main character is portrayed as a hysterical idiot devoid of any ability to reason. Seemingly her abandonment issues fuel a desperate need to cling to any man within arms length: father, husband, doctor. This antiquated characterization of woman is absurd in today's world. Likewise, the male characters are patronizing or worse. In one scene, the woman just gets slapped across the face by the doctor; was that standard medical practice in the 1950s? After all, who needs silly medication or talkie-talk therapy when a good belt across the kisser resolves any disorder; please.

This is an adventure movie of two school boys who battle bullies and gangsters over the course of a couple of days. The film has some decent action scenes: the bike chase scene, landing the plane on a highway scene and the parachuting scene. And, any movie where Stephen Baldwin gets whacked can't be all that bad.

I gave this movie a mediocre rating because it seems to straddle the line between a film made for older teens and one directed for young children. In doing so the film comes off as somewhat boring and juvenile for the older set and something reckless and inappropriate for the younger set. The film is somewhat reminiscent of Disney's 'Apple Dumpling Gang' or 'Escape From Witch Mountain' but also has a few action scenes like a James Bond flick.

As to why this may be inappropriate for children. The film makers appear to be sensitive to language but not violence in the movie. For example, in one scene there is a struggle on an airplane where the proverbial bad guy uses the phrase 'dumb' plane instead of 'damn' plane; yet, here the latter phrase would seem more realistic --- after all he's a bad guy so he wouldn't likely curtail his language. In contrast, a fight scene in the school yard where one of the boys unrealistically punches-out three bullies is made to seem as if violence is cool.

There is also a sense of recklessness that is portrayed as 'fun times' that would probably send up a bunch of red-flags for parents of young children. For example, there is the scene where the boys dart in and out of traffic on their bikes while being chased down by some bullies in a car while numerous accidents ensure along the way. The two boys willing get into a car and drive away with two strangers who turn out to be gangsters; don't parents warn children about not doing this all the time? And, the boys are found gleefully rolling around on the floor with another strange man who turns out to be a mob boss. This seems to be portrayed as okay because he's an affable mob boss. Enough said.

Lately, I've been watching a lot of westerns from the 1930s to the present. There are some great low budget spaghetti westerns from the late 1960s and early 1970s. This movie had all the elements of a decent western: a good story with talented actors and everything else. Although, it's a spoof of this genre, and for me the way it was done just didn't work and made for a disappointing movie.

This movie can easily be divided into two parts.

The first part is great; it has a great opening scene and an interesting story develops of a bounty hunter (a.k.a. the stranger) going after a bandit who is going after a large bank shipment guarded, in part, by a banker. Over the course of the movie these three characters form shifting alliances in an attempt to get the money. There are subtle comic nods to the contrivances of earlier films from this genre, but the comedy doesn't disrupt the overall story.

The second half of the film is where the comedy goes over-the-top and essentially ruins the movie. The turning point is right at the part where the barmaid causally scolds the dwarf to stop shooting the customers as she goes about waiting on other patrons seemingly oblivious to the four dead bodies laying about the place. From this point onward the movie shifts from a decent spaghetti western with comic undertones to a stupid-silly spoof.

There are three horrible fist-fight scenes (one at the river, one in the market and one at the baths) that follow in rapid succession as if one wasn't bad enough. The fighting is so fake it's ridiculous, and since the sound is out-of-sync with the picture it makes it even worse. In the market fight scene the banker bounces about the place on hidden trampolines and twirls around on poles like he is in the circus; it's clownish. Although, the worst part of these fight scenes is the music; it's this light-hearted, sprightly mix more suited for a square dance or a cheesy episode of 'Hee-Haw'. These scenes practically derail the main story.

Overall, this movie was disappointing because it had a lot of potential as a decent western, but the comic turns just mucked it up. If you want to see a good western spoof then see 'Blazing Saddles'. If you want to see a good spaghetti western, then avoid this movie.

This is a decent bank robbery movie where the characters are teenagers who plan the heist for the day of their high school graduation. There are several side stories surrounding the main plot, and everything comes together at the end. It's not high drama or suspense; it's geared for a young audience and in that sense it delivers. The filming, sound and acting are all competent.

All that being said, this is not a 10 star movie as several of the reviews posted here indicate.

When I initially wrote this review back in early June there were five other reviews of this movie. Four of those reviews give this movie 10 stars, and those four reviewers (RBigs, hareyT, choul and MsMaryS) seem to be the same person. If you go and look at what else these reviewers have reviewed you will see that the reviews are for the same exact movies written on the same date and all are given incredibly high marks: mostly 10 stars, a couple of 9s. The reviews even read as if written by the same person.

I've seen the movie "Flawless" which is one of the movies that this person reviewed and gave it 10 stars. "Flawless" is another good bank heist movie; it's a sleek, sophisticated and polished film that I'd rate at 7 or 8 stars. "Flawless" is a better film that "Graduation", but the this multiple reviewer gives them both ten stars. RBigs, summarizes one of the movies he/she reviewed as "Finally, a good movie". But, every movie that RBigs reviewed was given 10 stars --- so there is just no quality assessment to the reviews.

The plot summary on IMDb for this film is more aspiration than actuality. it's overstated and the film doesn't really match the description. Although the film does have some humorous lines and some horses, it is more of a drama than a comedy or western.

The acting, filming, and sound are all fine. The film has nice scenic locations and a solid cast of decent actors who seem to do their best with what they're given. Even the overall story had potential.

The major problem with this film is that the story elements aren't pulled together as well as they could be. There are multiple on-going story lines but none really go too deep. And, information seems to be missing. As such the film just felt very choppy; a bit of a story here and a bit of a story there and by the end you get a larger, albeit incomplete, picture. Kind of like using high quality silk to make a poorly woven fabric with a bunch of frayed ends.

Interesting story that lacks a sense of real terror.

On the surface this is basic Sci-fi entertainment: some unexplained force wrecks havoc on the masses, and as the characters struggle to survive they also struggle to understand the cause to better enable them to survive. The story, acting, dialogue and filming are all competent.

The way the characters piece together the cause and how the larger groups break down into smaller and smaller factions to survive are interesting to watch.

However, the film never really has the sense of mass panic and chaos that one would expect under such circumstances; WAR OF THE WORLDS provided a better sense of this. In the train station, on the train, at the diner and at the crossroads the characters' actions seem quite restrained, almost subdued. Yet, these are the times when apprehension should peak because once people start dying others in close proximity are beyond saving.

The film just never seems to go far enough like when the characters flee from the diner, they leave but not with the frenzied, reckless sense of urgency that one would expect under such circumstances. As such, the film lacks the sense of realism .

Saw this with no/low expectations, but came away pleasantly surprised.

This is a well written story with interesting characters and fine acting that captivates and entertains.

The actors provide solid performances.

And, they complement each other very well.

The film has an interesting plot that becomes more complex as the story unfolds.

The action moves along at a good pace.

The location is beautifully filmed.

This is what a good film should be like, and it's enjoyable to see.

Two people involved in fatal accidents on the same day (a woman in a car wreck and a man in a drive-by shooting) simultaneously end up at hospital emergency rooms, and their spirits meet with the proverbial white light in the background. The woman dies, but the man is brought back to life. However, their spirits become intertwined, and her spirit influences his subsequent actions. This is the main premise of the story, and it is a decent concept.

The idea is set-up fair enough: the first two-thirds of the movie lead up to that ah-ha moment where the underlying premise is revealed via flashbacks (yet the remainder is predictable - the spirits eventually become unintangled). But, the movie just doesn't work primarily because the characters (Logan - the woman's husband who becomes attracted to Gil, Gil-the man brought back to life who is drawn to Logan by the woman's spirit, Spencer - Logan's friend, Jamie - Gil's friend and the rest) aren't that believable. Their credibility is ruined partly because the dialogue and direction are horrible and partly because the actors are just really bad. It was frustrating and annoying to keep watching them try to make this story work.

For example, in one scene with Logan, Gil and Spencer, Spencer goes on a bigoted tirade directed at Gil but it elicits very little reaction from either Logan or Gil. Here, the actions and reactions are unrealistic.

When the issue causing tension between Logan and Spencer is revealed, Spencer's performance is over-the-top and Logan's reaction is just flat.

The sleep-walking booty call scene is so far-fetched and ridiculously acted that one simply watches in utter disbelief.

Toward the end of the movie Gil is nearly killed again, and this time the woman's spirit separates from him. In the hospital recovery room He and Logan ponder whether their relationship has any future now that their former menage a trois has become a twosome. This is the final scene and one of the most dramatic parts of the story but the performances are so weak that it seemed like I was watching a shoddy high school play or at best a third rate community theater production.

The funny/sad thing is that within the movie a clip of a sexploitation flick that Logan acted in is shown, and he and Gil joke that the acting was horrible --- yet, it's not that different from the rest of the movie.

The notion of spirits lingering around after death has been done before in dramas, and done well in films like GHOST, HEAVEN CAN WAIT/ HERE COMES MR. JORDAN and TOPPER. The idea underlying this film provides an interesting twist to the spirit-lingering concept, but it's an idea that's very poorly executed.

From the Friday THE THIRTEENTHs to CABIN FEVER this 'cabin by the lake/ teens in the woods' horror genre has been done to death.

SAM'S LAKE both adds and detracts from this genre at the same time; it adds another piece of rubbish to the pile and it detracts from the few truly original and quality productions in this genre.

The story is just a knock-off that pulls elements from the numerous other flicks in the genre. Instead of crazy Jason with his crazy mother, crazy Samantha has a crazy father and crazy brother. Her rag-tag band of young somewhat buff friends/victims are little more than bland stereotypes for a diversity campaign. The horror aspect is a real disappointment; the victims never really fight back and are easily killed. The horror scenes just aren't scary and the acting is bad. In an obvious attempt to pander to preteen girls and perhaps a gay following from his other so-called acting ventures, the actor who plays Sam's brother takes his shirt off and runs around in the woods half naked during the final night hunt and killing segment. Within the story this is illogical --- there's no reason for it; but, as a gimmick to keep viewers watching the practice of showing some skin is done in movies all the time --- but usually with more attractive actors.

A bunch of strangers get on a boat and go for a sightseeing tour just like in the TV show Gilligan's Island; things take a turn for the worse, they get stranded and have to do their best to survive.

But, this isn't a comedy, just a PREDICTABLE gator flick. It starts out slow and drags on from their.

On the plus side there are some nice landscape scenes as the tour goes up-river at the beginning (but, a nice postcard has the same effect).

And, the fake crocodile is believable which is a plus as a lot of gator flicks can't even get that right.

There are a couple major problems.

1). The second half of the film is way too dark. Yes, it's shot at night, but numerous other films competently manage this challenge. Here, one can hardly see anything for far too long and so one ends up losing interest in the story. This is video not radio so one wants to be able to see the action.

2). Too many background characters on the boat. These characters don't add anything to the story and their not developed enough so no one cares about them. Maybe they were included to keep people guessing who will be eaten next, but it's easily predictable who will get it and when.

The story is not original, not coherent and not enjoyable to watch. It's nothing more than lame idiots (how many no one really knows as the numbers inexplicably keep changing) running around trying to survive zombie attacks.

The characters aren't very interesting in the first place --- just a bunch of dumb clichés. Even so, the acting is pathetic and these people should be embarrassed. It's more than just what they say, their actions and movements are all off and out of sync with nearly every scene.

The DIALOGUE is deplorable. The last time I heard characters repeatedly speak in such a stilted manner was in those old Saturday morning cartoons from the 1970s.

The writers really ruined this movie; if you don't start with a well written story there's no sense in even making a movie.

THE RUINS is a mediocre suspense flick which has similarities to TURISTAS (2006) and THE DESCENT (2005).

The basics are all there: the camera and audio work are competent, the film does have a story line, and there are a few gruesome scenes that would justify categorizing this as a horror flick. So, criticism pertains to the story itself.

No subtle foreshadowing here; instead, the characters blatantly say things don't seem right over and over again. And, over and over again things go wrong just as they stated. This type of character narration is unnecessary --- it kills the suspense.

The horror aspect is two fold. First there is the mystery of the ruins which is a bit of a supernatural, inexplicable, mild sense of horror. The second aspect is the manner in which the characters respond to the circumstances --- they basically create their own horror: self-mutilation, chopping off limbs, murder.

Finally, the female characters in this flick are often portrayed as weak and irrational while the male characters are portrayed as men of ideas and action. These stereotypes are stupid and insulting; and, this makes for a dull film.