jk90us

I watched this god-awful mess for 20 minutes and all I saw was footage of a country road. That's it. Nothing else. Country road. That's it.

I thought my DVR was broken and it was showing the same footage over and over. But nope. It was just country road. For twenty minutes. That's it. Nothing else.

So I started fast forwarding. Know what I saw? Country road. That's it. Nothing else.

For an hour!! Country road. Just country road.

Oh, and every once in a while, we'd see some REALLY bad actors. That's it. Then more country road. Nothing else.

Finally, the end credits appear. And know what I saw? Albert Pyun. That's right. This absolute POS was directed by Albert (PeeYoo) Pyun. No surprise. None at all.

Now I see why his name wasn't shown until the end. Because every human being with any sense at all would have turned the damn thing off if ol' Albert's name had had appeared in the beginning.

Country road. And Albert Pyun.

You know, most directors get better over the years. Not Albert. Oh no. His films have gotten worse and worse. And his budgets have gotten smaller and smaller. I think this one must have cost MAYBE ten bucks to make. Forty if you count gas money so that car could just drive and drive for a full hour over a country road.

Wow. I left my video camera on by mistake one day and shot 37 minutes of an oscillating fan. And even THAT was more fascinating and suspenseful than this dash-cam video.

jk90

I (and thousands of moviegoers and critics with any common sense) ranted about this limp piece of uncreative fluff when they first announced it would be a worthless PG-13. I also refused to see it. Well, unfortunately, I did have to see it on DVD last night when some friends rented it and popped it into their player. And it was even WORSE than I EVER imagined.

It was like the writers and director stole the Slasher Flick 101 Handbook (which, BTW, stopped being interesting in the freaking '80s) and followed it word for freaking word: 1. Group of diverse college kids (made up of the standard cute innocent girl, a slightly-dorky guy we know she will fall for, a horn-dog dork goof ball comedienne, a dimwitted jock, a black guy and two sluts), drive into the deep woods for the weekend to drink and bang each other.

2. They run into the redneck creepy perverted locals and the small town sheriff (who we all know is in league with the redneck creepy perverted locals the moment he shows up) on the way.

3. They get to the house where the drinking and killing quickly begin while doing incredibly stupid things that hasten their demise.

4. But instead of having redneck, backwoods slasher psychotic freaks, they used sharks instead....which were put IN the lake by redneck, backwoods slasher psychotic freaks.

YAWN.

And this was all played out in every predictable way possible (including the revelation of who put the sharks in the water, the shark jumping out of the water to get the guy on the jet ski, and the idiotic last shot of a shark jumping out of the water in the end). All of us in the room watching the DVD called out each and every scene before it happened because we'd all seen it a countless times before in a hundred different movies.

But the absolute biggest problem (as every pone knows) with this bird dropping of a flick was the rating. While the slasher films this turd ripped off are rightly rated R and contain hardcore blood, guts and hot naked women to help offset their pathetic attempt at a screenplay and acting, this PG-13 rated excuse for a movie has none of that.

It's all G-rated screaming, churning water and blood rising up while the attacks happen below the water out of sight! Did you read that? Out…of…sight!! People don't pay their hard earned money to NOT see things on the (bleeping) screen! As for nudity, all we got were teaser shots of girls in bikinis the entire time, something we can see in every lame magazine and TV show these days. Oh, but they did show the bare butt of the freaking jock! Who the hell did the director think would want to see that? Did he think his audience was going to be filled with women and gay guys only? Then again, maybe it was since this stinker only made a few million in the theaters -- even with the extra $3 charge for 3D glasses.

The SyFy Channel (while still too GUTLESS to show nudity) will at least show hardcore blood and guts when people get attacked by the cartoon sharks and creatures in their films. BTW their cartoon sharks and creatures look even more realistic than the sharks in this supposedly big-budget film.

The hacks who wrote, produced and directed this thing should have at least made an R or unrated version to release on DVD with the blood, guts and boobs they left out (along with any entertainment value at all) in the theatrical version. But apparently -- based on what they did release -- they aren't that smart. They definitely have no idea what people want to see in a shark film (Hint: think "Piranha" and its upcoming sequel).

Do yourself a huge favor and avoid this mess. And if you just happened to read my post because you don't mind spoilers, don't worry. There are no spoilers here -- because you've seen it all before. In fact, you've seen so much more in other films than you will in this one.

Saw this on cable last night and it is so freaking boring! The entire film is just people swimming around the ocean with a very rare appearance by a shark. In fact, it took a full hour(!) for the shark to even show up!! And none of the characters or actors in this film were interesting enough to watch during that hour -- or after.

Even more unforgivable is that all they do is inter-cut stock footage shots of a real shark underwater with actors bobbing on the surface. Not once is it believable that any of those people were actually attacked. These days decent CGI sharks can be created on a desk top computer, yet the director of this thing uses NO-budget techniques they stopped using in the 1970s. Pathetic! Avoid this worthless flick at all costs. Reports on local news programs about shark attacks are more suspenseful and entertaining than this clunker.

Then again, I'm not surprised this thing stinks. It's directed by Andrew Traucki, the same hack who made Black Water -- which is the exact same type of film!! It's just two people stuck in a tree (for gods sake!) for an hour and a half while a stock footage alligator swims below them.

Both the Reef and Black Water are even worse than the low-budget home-movie quality Open Water. But at least OW had the hot Blanchard Ryan showing full-frontal nudity. Remember that if anyone ever lets you hold a camera again, Traucki. If you don't have a decent script, a budget of any kind or good actors, at least have some hot women showing some skin. That way you won't totally irk off your viewers.

Horrible series! Too much freakish sex and and not enough effective horror. What rare actual "horror" scenes it does include are more like a freak show than frightening. They're all generic, over-used tropes pulled from every other paranormal show or film ever done and they don't work at all.

There is no cohesive or even entertaining story. And the characters are irritating as hell so you don't give a damn what happens to them. In fact, I'd rather see them all die and go away.

And between the first two episodes, the gimp in the rubber suit and the naked guys whacking off, you can tell this was created by a guy who has a pure hatred for women. Of course, we all knew that from watching Nip/Tuck and Glee.

jk90

My family and I like cooking shows and this one sounded cool so we watched the first episode. But all we saw was about 10 minutes of actual cooking and 50 minutes of that whiny little brat Marcel moaning about how tough his job is. WHO CARES?? Cut this thing down to 30 minutes, focus on the cooking portions only and maybe -- just maybe -- it'll be watchable (but doubtful). And cutting it to 30 minutes would be easy. All you have to do is get rid of the pathetic reality show hysterics spewed out by helium-sucking Marcel (who seems like one of the most irritating people to not only work for but just be around). His reactions were so over-the-top they were laughable at best. He looked as if he was about to pull out his hair, bust a blood vessel and commit hari kari when his client, Carlton hated his bird egg snack. Then he slams his team for making mistakes, especially Robyn who he even said isn't qualified to cook. But when he screws up, he just tosses it aside by mumbling some "mistakes happen" remark or whining that he doesn't have enough time to work. It is one of the most obvious signs of an incompetent manager and boss. Also, get rid of the idiotic "here's whats coming up next" spoiler footage they run before commercials, and the "here's what you just saw before the commercials" summary footage they run after the commercials end. I swear, with the repetitive spoiler and summary footage, it was like we saw the same episode three times! They do the same thing on Ghost Hunters and it's irritating! In fact, the ridiculous Ghost Hunters Academy follows the same orchestrated reality show conflict drama as this show. It's also impossible to watch and a waste of time. Anyway, until these changes are made, we're done with this show.

We've been watching the UK version of this show on BBCA since day one and so far it is mildly entertaining but mainly flat and lifeless (like UK food). I really don't care what happens to any of the characters because they don't compel me to. But after only two episodes of the US version we are hooked. It is SO much better! It's funnier, more suspenseful and contains a lot more emotion than the limp Brit version. Hell, even the house they live in has more style and personality than the one in the UK. It actually looks like a "haunted" house vs. the drab flat embedded in the dull wall the Brits live in.

And the male US actors are far superior to their Brit counterparts. While I enjoy Brit Lenora Crichlow as Annie and Aidan Turner is sufficient though lifeless (ironic for a vampire), Russell Tovey is just plain irritating as hell. The moment he walks on the screen, his nervous ticks and whiny voice drive me nuts. And his high-pitched girlish scream that freaking goes on forever makes me want to plunge a screwdriver in my ear.

On the other end, were-guy Sam Huntington in the US is funny and endearing. His lack of social grace is hilarious, especially some of the awkward dialogue he spouts when he meets people for the first time. Sam Witwer, with his impossibly angular face that resembles characters from the MTV animated series Æon Flux" (http://bit.ly/gNQbLs), has an odd, otherworldly appearance that is perfect for the role. He comes of as mysterious, yet likable, as opposed to the UK's Turner who comes of as a boring pretty boy. Meaghan Rath is great as Sally, but I like Crichlow just as much.

On the downside, I prefer the guy in the UK version (don't know his name) as the bad guy vampire a lot more than Mark Pellegrino. The Brit actor comes off as truly menacing and dangerous, while Pellegrino is a nuisance at best. He's more like the old buddy who keeps getting you in trouble vs. the head of a vicious vampire network. He did a much better job as Lucifer in "Supernatural" and even his Jacob in "Lost" seemed spookier. Oh and he needs a damn haircut. That shaggy hairstyle does not suit him or the character.

Anyway, I'll keep watching both, but so far the US version is my favorite.

GO TEAM USA!

Here's what I'm guessing: The only film production term the director (LOL) of this POS ever learned was EXTREME CLOSE UP. Because that's all he BLEEPING shot! His "style" (LOL) of film making is to shove a hand held camera right into the face of each actor in every single scene. So all we ever see (or barely see) are noses, parts of their eyes, some hair, a chin, maybe an ear.

At least, I think that's what they were -- because the idiot kept shaking the BLEEPING camera while he did it. I thought Paul Greengrass was bad with all his crappy BS cocaine-pumped, hypersonic, epileptic, motion sickness style (LOL) of film making. But the guy who made this film makes him look like he's standing still and filming in slow motion.

And for all I know, they could have made this entire movie inside a closet. Not once did I see a wide shot or even a background in any of the scenes. Just close ups of faces. Nothing but faces. They almost showed some wide shots a couple of times, but then the director either set it out of focus or had weeds, trees or some other object obscure the shot.

BTW, the IMDb page states that Amy Smart is in this. IS SHE? All I saw were strands of blonde hair and tired looking eyes flashing past the camera every once in a while. I still have NO idea who it was. It could have been Paris Hilton. Who the hell knows?

Also, anyone know what the ghosts looked like in this thing? Because I have NO BLEEPING idea! All I saw (or sorta saw) were extreme out of focus close ups of something bald and white. That's it. I think. Still not sure.

Unless you like being totally confused AND extremely irritated, avoid this flick at all costs!!

Excellent acting (especially Bridges), but there was NO reason to remake this. Except for some additional dialogue and a new ending, this is almost exactly like the original with John Wayne. All the same major scenes are intact so if you saw the original, you've pretty much seen this one.

As for the ending, I HATED IT! It totally destroyed Mattie's character. She spends the entire film as a courageous, brilliant and vivacious young girl who we feel can accomplish anything in her life. But then we discover she turned into a bitter, shriveled, ugly old woman who never "bothered" to get married?? WHY?? And, yes, I understand that is how the book ended. But it's a CRAPPY ending! No wonder they dropped it -- and the loss of her arm -- in the original film. That downer of a finale ruins the enjoyable and positive spirit of the rest of the movie. I left thee theater feeling very disappointed and upset.

jk90

It's obvious this travesty is trying to cash in on the success of the Modern Family format by featuring the lives of three different couples. The problem is, while Modern Family features an incredible cast, terrific characters and wonderful scripts, Perfect Couples has NONE of those. Kill it and bury it before more people are accidentally exposed to it!

And who in the world told Olivia (I posed in Playboy but didn't get naked) Munn she can act?? My left tennis shoe has more personality and talent than she does. She brings the excellent Daily Show to a screeching halt every time she appears and does the same here.

Someone PLEASE take away her SAG card -- right now!! jk90

It starts off like a potentially cool film with a tough preacher out to save a town. Then it suddenly veers off into WTF-ville when he just rides off and kills his wife and some guy? I don't care if she did leave him, why would he just shoot her in cold blood like that? Was he mentally unstable? Even if it was the heat of the moment, any normal human being would have calmed down and come to his senses in the time it took to find her. And this guy was a man of God??

Did he have a history of psychotic behavior? They never give a logical reason for his actions. When he was later asked by some horny single mom -- who apparently can't find an eligible guy in the huge town nearby -- why he killed his wife, he mumbles something like "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Seriously?

And then the mom just shrugs and lets it slide! Was she so freaking desperate for a guy she'd let ANY random murderer shack up with her (and her young son!), even a beady-eyed, scraggly-looking buzzard like Nelson? Then the sheriff comes looking for him and shoots him down. But not because he murdered his wife (as well as several other people, including a defenseless young girl outside a bar). He did it because he rode off and left the town to fend for themselves against the bad guys!!

Seriously?

Finally, the Sheriff and WIllie become best buddies again and kill the bad guys. And in the end WIllie goes back to the horny, desperate mom and the film ends. Apparently this idiotic, pointless film expects us to be happy he finally found a peaceful life, yet all I kept thinking was -- he freaking shot his wife i cold blood!

Willie did more vile, horrifying things in this film than the crabby old man and his inbred sons! The mentally slow son had more reason to shoot the one guy trying to shoot his "pa" than Nelson had to shoot his wife. Nelson deserved to hang until he was dead!

BTW, I gave it a "3" rating but only because I thought Nelson did a decent job acting and for Morgan Fairchild's nips through her wet blouse.

First off, the DVD cover kept promising this was some new genre of horror. Wrong! It's just more of the same torture porn we got from Saw and Hostel. Even the weak "twist" ending didn't change that fact. Even the Saw films had better twists than this one.

That said, here's how Martyrs should have ended: When the old woman leaned in to listen to Anna after she saw the other world, I expected Anna to kill the bitch, then unleash her psychotic, blood-pounding wrath of vengeance against every sick f*cker in that house by killing every one of them.

But, that never happened, so I feel cheated. No matter what Anna may have whispered to the old lady, Anna lost in the end. After all that suffering, she deserved some type of justice. Letting her just rot away in that tub of water while the others went on wit their lives was a spit in the face to her character and the viewers.

Even if they showed Anna killing the others, then it just turns out that she was hallucinating (since the old lady said their victims tend to see things after awhile), it would have been a MUCH more satisfying ending than the "oh, gee whiz, I wonder what the hell that ending meant" crap they gave us.

And I'm sure some people will say I just didn't "get it", but they're wrong. I understood exactly what they were trying to do -- and I hated it. What a total waste of time!

jk90

I saw the trailer for this on another DVD so I rented it thinking it would be another cheesy -- but fun -- CGI giant alligator film. Boy was I wrong. I swear, this borefest is nothing but people sitting in a tree for almost the entire film. That's it, just sitting in a tree over the river. Nothing else. Just sitting.

After the first 15 minutes of sitting, I hit the fast forward hoping to get to some good stuff, and to my utter amazement, it went for another 30 minutes and all they did was freaking sit there. Then finally the damn croc shows up and attacks them. But the croc isn't CGI, it's just a low-budget combination of real croc footage and a rubber croc head. It's like a bad 70's movie. After the initial attacks, they sit and sit and sit even more.

All I can figure is that the directors (it took TWO people to make this crap?) of this film saw Open Water and decided to do a croc version. Well, he did, because Open Water was boring as crap, too. All it had for an hour and a half were two people floating in the water. But at least Open Water had the hot Blanchard Ryan stark naked in it.

Black Water doesn't even have any decent nudity to keep your interest. The deleted scenes show a cut scene where is accidentally caught in the hotel shower by her brother-in-law, but no nudity is shown. They should have kept that scene and had the camera low enough to show her naked. That way the directors would have shown that they had at least SOME idea of what people want to see.

Take my advice: Don't waste time on this!

Instead, see Primeval (a great giant croc film). Hell, or go rent Supergator, Dinocroc, Crocodile, Lake Placid 2 or any of the other crap-tastic Sci Fi Channel garbage out there. Anything, and I mean anything is better than this POS.

**SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!**

Well, I saw Bond Begins, I mean, Casino Royale today and while I think Craig did a pretty good job (still don't consider him a Bond though), I wasn't too impressed with the movie itself. For one thing it was WAAAAY too long. At 144 feet-dragging minutes it is the longest running Bond film ever.

Here's the main problem with this film: Like Superman Returns (which was also way too long), Casino Royale had one KICK-ASS opening action scene (the construction site foot chase in CS and the plane rescue in SR), but then it started going downhill from there. Except for the mildly engaging airport terrorist chase and a few funny bits of dialog, the rest of CR went nowhere fast.

And the last twenty minutes were excruciatingly boring, VERY predictable and so anti- climactic I still feel like the film never really ended.

Also, I didn't like the fact that they never really had a MAIN villain, like in other Bond films. One that is truly threatening and is dispatched in some spectacular fashion in the end. It was all just a bunch of little villains and all fairly pathetic. For example, the closest the bad guys came to killing Bond was during a poker tournament when they poison his drink. YAWN. None of them were worth a double-O agents time or effort.

But, one thing I did think was pretty cool was how they saved his ''Bond, James Bond'' line and the Bond theme until the very end when he finally ''became'' the Bond he is supposed to be.

It's just to bad that didn't come an hour earlier in the film.

jk90