Nywildcat1

Pointless and non-sensical horror/mystery. A bogus psychic is murdered under mysterious circumstances and a private detective is hired to investigate.

There is no explanation as to why the private detective was involved in the first place (especially when the killer is revealed). And no police department would let someone stay in an active crime scene.

Billed as an LGBTQ+ film, but there are no gay scenes nor are any of the characters revealed to be gay.

Thankfully the film is only 45 minutes long. Only worth watching for Chris Riley's gratuitous nude scenes (trust me, its's only worth it for that).

Available on YouTube.

It's been quite some time since I've written a review, but after watching this episode of utter sheer stupidity, I was moved to write something after all this time. Keep in mind that I've watched a lot of TV and I've seen a lot of dumb things, but nothing compares to this one. The premise is that an ex-partner of Jakes when he was on the Police Force kidnaps Des and Tinny and blackmails Jake into helping him steal several million dollars for their safe return. So far, so good right? I'm on board with that. So what happens next? The kidnapper has the kids in a warehouse with no heat, no food and no water. Also, there's no one guarding the kids. Jake and Malachy agree to the plan in order to save them. The problem with all this? Everyone is acting as if the kids are hours away from dying. When you see the scenes of the kids in the warehouse, they are not freezing and it would take them days to die from dehydration and a couple of weeks from starvation. Jake and company of course do not go to the cops, which would have been the smart thing to do. And even when Jake foils the robbery and the kidnapper is arrested, Jake and Company still don't tell the police what's going on. They could have the ENTIRE St. John's police force helping them look for the kids, but they don't. They think the Kidnapper would just refuse to tell them where the kids are and the kids would die. So what do they decide to do? They break the kidnapper free as he's being transported to the prison in order to try to force him to let them know where the kids are. Of course the kidnapper doesn't. In the meantime, Rose figures out on her own where the kids are and rescues them. Apparently, from the looks of things, all the kids had to do to set themselves free was open the door. I suppose the door could have been locked and Rose unlocked it, but from the way it was filmed, it seemed as though she simply opened the door. STUPID!! This was handled so stupidly!! Jake, of course, doesn't get arrested for helping to break a prisoner free. They have no evidence. Interesting how the kidnapper, who hates Jake and planned all of the above as part of his revenge, didn't bother telling the Police that Jake was the one to break him out. He could have sent Jake to prison as well. On a side note, Leslie gets fired because at some point Jake used her access badge to find out the route for the prisoner transport to break out the kidnapper. Even though she was under investigation for something else, I highly doubt they would have fired her for someone else getting access to her badge. Also, they seem to know it was Jake who used the badge, and yet again, still not arrested. However, the RNC blackmail Jake into becoming a police officer again because they have a small bit of evidence that ties Malachy to the robbery. Something that wouldn't even hold up in court. Also, did Jake and Malachy return the money? They never show it. I assume they did, but again, no repercussions. Also at one point Jake and Leslie have a moment and kiss. At the end of the episode he comes to her house with flowers and champagne. She shuts the door on his face because he's responsible for her being fired. I agree with her reaction. What I don't agree with? Jake doesn't bother breaking up with Allison before going to Leslie's place. Jake REALLY doesn't care about the feelings of the women he dates, just as long as he's getting laid. What is it I'm most mad about? That no one on the show, from the Director, the producers, the actors, to the lighting guys and craft services, pointed out that this story made absolutely no sense and everything could have been resolved much differently. Did anyone read the script before filming? Were they on a tight schedule and didn't have time for a rewrite when they realized how dumb it was? Was it because it was the Season Finale and nobody cared and they just wanted to leave for vacation? I've had an issue with this show since I started watching it. Jake isn't a likable character. Yes, he's a jerk who can't keep his junk in his pants, but he really does care about his family. But he still isn't all that likable. I stuck with the show because I did like the quirkiness of the other characters, especially Des. This particular episode so disgusted me in it's inanity, that I'm seriously doubting whether or not to continue watching the show. If this is a sign of more nonsensical writing to come, I don't think that I want to be along for the ride.

As I've stated in earlier reviews, all I look for in a low budget film is a good story line or at least writing that makes sense. I don't want to blame everything on the writer, since who know what happened behind the scenes, but you would think that at least over a 100 people read the script and could point out the errors.

Here's the story line: An adopted baby dies by an accidental gunshot, and decides to take revenge on everyone in his quest to be reunited with his birth mother, by possessing the living and killing everyone that stands between him and his birth mother. Sound interesting? It was, until it went horribly awry.

I have to commend real critics who are able to critique a movie without giving anything away ( Siskel and Ebert, I salute you), but I'm not yet at that level. So in order to properly express my thoughts, I have no choice but to reveal some spoilers.

********************SPOILER ALERT BELOW******************************* The movie opens with a mother obviously possessed by something and murdering her husband (it's expressed previously that they had lost a young child). Next scene, a woman is attacked by someone else that also seems possessed, but the assailant is killed by the young woman's boyfriend. Boyfriend is held for questioning overnight (though she isn't). She gets attacked again in her home (after gratuitous nude scene), and the new assailant (again obviously possessed) is killed yet again by her recently released boyfriend. Cut to a scene in the police station that begins the nonsensical writing.

The cop reveals that this is the third murder in connection with her. Laura, of course, raises an eyebrow and asks "third"? The cop then proceeds to tell her about the opening murder scene and says he did a background check on Laura and it turns out that the baby she gave up for adoption was the child of the mother from the opening scene. He found all this out with a phone call. Which would have been impossible for him to find out, as Laura's shocked response and non-recognition of the adoptive mother's name clearly points out. If the adoption had been an "open" one, she would have known who ultimately wound up with her baby (it is later revealed that the child was placed with foster parents first, who she also didn't know about. More on that later). In a "closed" adoption, the officer could have found out that Laura gave a child up for adoption, but he would never known to whom, as records in a closed adoption are sealed and can only be opened under extenuating circumstances, and even then that would be highly difficult. So there was no way he would be able to find out that information, let alone make a link to Laura.

Laura, of course, starts investigating on her own, breaks into the adoption agency (which apparently doesn't have an alarm) and tracks down the original foster parents. A couple of religious fanatics that don't know who Laura is. Apparently Laura's child is taken away from them for being "too Christian", though exact reasons are never given. When the child is taken away from the foster mother, she curses him, which leads to the entire plot. But why curse the child? If the foster mother has this kind of power, why not curse the people who took the child away? Why not everyone who's against your religious convictions? It would have made more sense if she were a Satanist or something (to add to the supernatural element). Anyway, she also winds up getting killed.

Moving on. Apparently this kid is really busy and possesses a lot of different people. Her own mother included (who was totally miscast. She was an incredibly beautiful woman who was obviously only a few years, if not the same age, as the lead and was probably hired on her looks). Now here's the rub: everyone who survives being possessed knows exactly who they were possessed by. This is incredibly evident when the original cop mentioned above was also possessed. After he attempts to kill Laura, he heads to the jail to release the boyfriend, saying he now realizes what's going on and he's not guilty. Ummm, if you now know what's going on, where's the reinforcements to protect Laura? I understand that you can't tell the rest of the police force what's going on (who would believe you), but you do nothing? If you have the ability to unseal adoption records with a single phone call, you can certainly try to do something to resolve the situation.

Now here comes the sickest part of the movie, which, if the rest of the movie lived up to it's premise, this would have been brilliant. Laura figures out that the only thing that the spirit of her baby wants is to be reunited with it's birth mother (which is contradictory, since all it seemed it wanted to do was kill her throughout the entire film). Her boyfriend (who is not the original father) becomes possessed as well after being released from prison, and while attempting to kill her, Laura says something to the effect of "come to Mommy. Mommy loves you" which seems to calm him. What does she do next? Decide to have sex with her possessed boyfriend (thereby actually having sex with her son) in order to become pregnant again. Sick and incestuous and could've had a lot more impact if the rest of the film wasn't so poorly thought out.

This movie had the potential to be a great little horror film, but turned out to be an example of when a great idea is poorly executed. I only wish that someone had the resolve to point out all the flaws in the script prior to filming. Still, it's worth a view if only to see what could've been.

I watched "Inception" because sci-fi is one of my favorite genres. Sci-fi films, in general, seem to rarely garner an Oscar nod, especially for Best picture, so this fact made the film all the more intriguing to me. Was it entertaining? Yes. Did it have great visual effects? Yes. Did it deserve a Best Picture nomination? No.

I'm not really going to get into the details of the plot, because I'm sure it's been enumerated a thousand times elsewhere on this site. The movie was well directed and well executed and enjoyable. The plot was original. However, I think there were a few inherent problems with the script.

Foremost, it was hard to keep track as to who was doing the actual dreaming in some parts. God forbid you left the room to get a drink without pausing the DVD and you would be lost. I really didn't understand why Saito wouldn't wake up after being shot (I understand that he was sedated in "real life", but couldn't he just come out of it after the sedation wore off)? Also, the writers seemed to have decided to explain how the whole "dreaming" aspect worked while action was going on. It was hard to keep track while there was gunfire and the like going on. But the biggest problem I had (other than the ending) was with the character of Mal showing up in all the dreams. If the team is aware that Cobb has an inherent problem of introducing her in all of the dream scenarios, and she only causes problems, why on earth would they want Cobb to be a part of anything? He's actually adding more problems to an already delicate situation.

Also, even though everyone thinks that Leodardo DiCaprio is a great actor, and I'm not saying he's not (perhaps it's my own issue), but he always comes across to me as someone who's "acting". In other words, the mark of a great actor, to me, is someone who loses them self in the role. In virtually every movie I've seen him in, this one being no exception, he seems to be Leonardo DiCaprio "playing" someone else. I didn't feel that he was actually the character of Cobb.

Now, my biggest problem? The ending. I get the whole "dream within a dream within a dream" thing and the writers wanting to leave you guessing, but I was disappointed with how clichéd it was. It was like the ending of the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street", but without the horrific aspect. I felt the film deserved a more solid conclusion, unless they were leaving it open for an "Inception 2".

Overall, I felt it was a solid entry into the sci-fi genre, but a bit over-hyped and certainly not deserving of a Best Picture nod.

Whomever came up with the idea of pitting Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper was a sheer genius! This movie was thoroughly engaging and kept me riveted through out the duration of the film.

Christopher Plummer was fantastic as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason is, to me at least, the definitive Dr. Watson. The chemistry the two of them had on screen was amazing and I would have liked to have seen them do more Sherlock Holmes movies together. But to me, it was really James Mason who stole the show. It was interesting for me to read somewhere that Mr. Mason would only do the role if Watson wasn't portrayed as a complete buffoon. Instead, he was portrayed as an intelligent man (which he should be, if he's hanging around with Holmes)who had a certain naiveté about him, rather than being a complete idiot. And at no point did Holmes come across as condescending to him, which is often the case in most Holmes movies. Watson played an absolutely integral part in solving the mystery, rather than making it seem as though Holmes was able to solve it entirely on his own.

Since, in real life, the mystery of who Jack the Ripper was, was never solved, it does take in to account all the conspiracy theories. Was he a surgeon gone mad? Were the murders somehow connected to the royal family? Were the murders truly random or interconnected? It will keep you guessing until the end.

*************************MINOR SPOILER ALERT BELOW********************* There were only a few drawbacks that would have otherwise made it an almost perfect film. For starters, Donald Sutherland, who plays a psychic that has some mysterious connection to the Ripper, is vastly underused. At one point he psychically realizes who the Ripper is, but refuses to tell Holmes who it is. He tells Holmes the street that the suspect lives on, but that's all. It does lead Holmes in the right direction, but that's about it. In other words, I feel that his character, who was a minor one, wasn't really necessary and didn't really add much to move the plot forward. Holmes could have really figured it out in another way. Also, perhaps it was just me, but when Holmes encounters Mary Kelly, a prostitute that holds the key to the whole mystery, she is so scared and hysterical, that I found it difficult to understand what she was saying,so it was a bit confusing for me as to how he was lead to Genevieve Bujold's character in an insane asylum. Lastly, when the murderer(s) are revealed, it's anticlimactic because you never meet these characters anywhere else in the film. Even though one is referred to earlier, you never meet them. Unlike a usual whodunit, where you have to guess who the killers are and why, the whole point was just for the why. When Holmes explains the reasons behind the killings, you are completely satisfied with the explanation, but still feel a bit cheated about the who.

Despite these drawbacks, it was a thoroughly enjoyable film and a "Must See" for all Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts. James Mason alone is worth the viewing.

The tag-line says "It's in the vein of classic horror". I guess so, if you took all the great 80's slasher flicks and condensed them to an hour.

The premise is the usual, partying teens trapped on an island with an escaped serial killer, insert nude girl here and flying axe there and you've basically seen the movie.

It's unbelievably short, clocking in at about 1h18min. The entire movie could have been cut down to 45 minutes if you cut out the opening credits and scenes of them partying in slow motion. The movie was pretty much bloodless and unsuspenseful. If they took out the nudity and the profanity, it probably would have gotten a PG rating.

So, if you have about an hour to kill (no pun intended), go ahead and take a look. If anything to laugh at the cliché factor.

When I watch a low budget movie, I don't compare it to the same standards that I would to a big budget Hollywood epic. I completely understand the lack of funds, so I don't necessarily have a problem with poor lighting, bad acting (you get what you pay for), etc. What I look for most is story. Is it at least well written? With "Sight", I would have to say yes and no. The storyline is interesting at first (man who can see dead people meets girl that can, too). Only to end up a messy, convoluted mess that at some parts don't make sense. For example: When Jeffrey relays the story of the first time he saw his mother's ghost, he was so scared he trips and impales himself on a wooden stake from a fence (you're left to wonder if that really happened). He has other confusing visions like that throughout the movie too. Jeffrey also sees ghosts everywhere, but doesn't really interact with any of them. His seeing ghosts can almost be considered superfluous to the plot (except for the ending that involved Dana's father). Now I know that in can be argued that the filmmaker's point was to throw red herrings at you to make you think whether or not he was telling the truth about his abilities, are these actual memories, or was he just hallucinating? But they throw so much at you, that after awhile, you just stop caring. And, of course, there was the usual "twist" ending.

This movie had a lot of potential, and really could have been an interesting little indie film had it had a few more rewrites and underwent a little more editing.

"Nomads" really shouldn't be classified as a horror film, per se. I really consider it more of a Supernatural thriller since nothing horrific actually happens.

The movie starts off with Pierce Brosnan, who plays a French Anthropologist with the worst french accent this side of a grade school production, who winds up in the emergency room ranting and raving and dies while whispering something in Lesley Anne Down's ear, who plays the ER Doctor attending him. Her character going forward is pretty much used to tell his story leading up to his arrival in the ER in flashbacks, as it seems his spirit, or at the very least his memories, have taken her over.

Though somewhat enjoyable,this movie could have been a lot better than it actually was with a few retweakings. Lesley Anne Down's character was completely unnecessary and added nothing to the final story, even at the end. They would have been better off just telling the story from the moment Pierce Brosnan and his wife move into the house. Also, the horrible French accents used by Mr. Brosnan and Ms. Monticelli (who portrays his wife) are so horrible, it adds an unintentional comedic flair to the film. There doesn't seem to be any real reason as to why their characters had to be French, other than to have Lesley Anne Down's character utter some french words while in a delusional state (perhaps to give the appearance that she's possessed)? Or maybe to stretch Pierce Brosnan's acting wings (since he was still doing "Remington Steele" at the time as was not, as of yet, a big movie star).

However, a movie that shows Pierce Brosnan in a full frontal nude scene, that was completely gratuitous, can't be all bad. If anything, you have to give Mr. Brosnan some props for showing his junk during a time period when very few male actors would, especially television stars.

Let me start off by saying that normally dramas aren't my usual cup of tea (though I've enjoyed many), so my review may reflect this. I wanted to watch this movie because it was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Sometimes a nomination doesn't equal enjoyable.

The movie was so depressing in it's depiction of it's character's lives, that I thanked my lucky stars for the life I have. The abject poverty these characters live in is horrendous. Though the movie does it's job to accurately portray these people's lives, and the performances for the most part are outstanding, you do walk away feeling drained and suicidal.

The movie is excruciatingly slow moving and I looked at the time at least a hundred times waiting for it to be over. It failed to totally capture my attention despite the fine performances and it left me wondering why on earth it was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. You never even get to know who killed the lead character's father or why the town's folk are concealing the fact that he's dead from her.

Perhaps, as I said earlier, this type of drama just isn't my thing. I gave it a 5 out of 10 rating because of all of it's nominations and perhaps I just missed the point.

Boy looses girl, boy meets vampire girl, boy "feeds" girl, boy wonders what the heck he's doing. We've seen it all before folks, nothing new here, but we've seen it done better.

I've pretty much summed up the entire plot above, so there really isn't much more to add. This movie tries hard to be a comedy/horror and fails in both parts. There are no thrills/chills or really scary scenes (except perhaps to a 5 year old), the attempts at humor are all bathroom grade (literally, as one character has IBS and constantly talks about his bowel movements). Of course their is gratuitous nudity to keep the straight male audience at least somewhat interested.

I've seen a hell of a lot worse movies in my horror watching career. So although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, I wouldn't say stay away at all costs.

"Remember, Freddy and Jason were kids once too". With a tag line like that, how could one resist? Unfortunately, what you get is formulaic and derivative. The plot goes something like this: A young girl witnesses a vicious murder performed by another kid and gets attacked herself. Killer kid supposedly drowns in a river. Flashforward: the girl is now an adult and moves back to the town where the murder took place. She sees the killer kid everywhere and her friends start disappearing one by one. Local cops think she's gone crazy and she's the one responsible. She sets out to prove them wrong, insert twist ending. Sound familiar? We've seen it a hundred times before. The only difference is that the killer is slaughtering adults and not teens.

Here's my thing, if you're going to reference Freddy and Jason, you better deliver. The movie is predictable, the kill scenes are few and far between and pretty much bloodless.The lead character saw Milo everywhere, all the time, that it was hard to believe that no else did. Also the kid, was never actually a kid (he was at least 29 at the time of the first murder and 45 in the present day). Though they hint that he was born through some scientific experiment, no reason was given as to why he still looks like a child.

At the end of the day, though I was disappointed, it was mildly entertaining. I've seen a lot worse. Had it had a bigger budget, a few rewrites and casting changes, it could have been a nice entry in the slasher genre.

I'm writing this review as I'm watching the movie, not because I find it boring, or uninteresting, but as a way to distract myself from the violent and disturbing images on the screen.

I normally don't watch movies like this, especially ones that depict any form of child abuse, but I erroneously added this to my Netflix instant list thinking it was a horror movie. And what a horror it is. And the fact that this occurred in real life, makes it all the more horrifying.

*********************SPOILERS BELOW************************************ The violence portrayed in the movie,though incredibly disturbing, isn't as graphic as some people have said elsewhere. Instead, a lot of it is more implied, such as when Ruth burns Meg with her cigarette. And, as we all know, sometimes what you don't see can be worse than what is actually shown.

The acting in the movie is superb, especially by the boy who plays David (the, for lack of a better word, "hero" of the movie). And Ruth is practically the personification of evil.

However, there were a few drawbacks to the movie. Having never read the book, or being familiar with the true story this movie is based on, I don't know if the filmmakers' decided to leave out certain plot points on purpose, or if they were never really there to begin with. You never really know why Ruth started abusing the girls (especially Meg) to begin with. You do see the progression from verbal to physical abuse, but no background is actually given on Ruth other than her husband left her. Perhaps this was done purposely so that the viewer doesn't begin to feel any empathy for Ruth. Leaving the causes unknown perhaps adds to the evil. Also, though I understand Ruth's children not caring about what's being done to Meg (since they were probably used to their mother being abusive, though this is never shown in the movie towards them)and participating in the abuse, I don't understand the other neighborhood children being let in on it and not doing anything. Especially during the scene where two other neighborhood girls stand by and watch Meg get raped and then have her clitoris burned off with a blow torch. What's the excuse for them? Why aren't they running and screaming and shouting what's going on to the whole neighborhood? Also, even though David winds up doing the right thing in the end, he sure takes a heck of a long time to get there. Why isn't he telling his parents? I don't know how many dramatic liberties where taken with the actual story, and it seems to me that Meg and her sister had many an opportunity to escape. David had seen enough to corroborate her story in case the police didn't believe her. I know it was the 1950's and the times were different, but something just rings a bit hollow.

All in all, it is an immensely disturbing film, and as I said in my headline, if you have any humanity in you, it will definitely make you Angry that something like this could actually happen.

I've really tried to understand why these movies and books are so popular. I read the first book, and though it was a somewhat fun read, I didn't' see what all the hoopla was about and didn't bother reading all the others.

The first Twilight I found to be entertaining, New Moon was a snoozefest, and now Eclipse found me straining to keep my eyes open. In all honesty, it just seems like nothing ever really happens. Yes, there are some short action sequences, and it was interesting to get some background information on some of the Cullens, but that's about it.

I've really tried to understand why Edward and Jake are so into Bella, and I really don't get it. She's not that interesting of a person and she's always walking around in what seems to me to be a gloomy state. Really, guys, just move on! Also, (just as a sidebar), if the werewolves shorts can magically reappear after they turn back into a human, why do they run around without shirts? Shouldn't they reappear too? Just a thought.

It also seems to me as if the actors are bored in this film too. Especially Kristen Stewart. She seems as though she would rather be anywhere than making another Twilight movie.

But I think the overall problem is that there are really no surprises, no twist and turns in any of the movies. It's all pretty straightforward and predictable. Quite honestly, I find the TV show "The Vampire Diaries" to be far superior to Twilight in almost every way. It has the same premise, more or less (mortal girl torn between her love for two supernatural beings), except that you need a score card to keep up with what's going on. Every week is a roller-coaster ride, which is really enjoyable, and you completely understand why everyone is into the lead girl. And that's what I thought Twilight should have been like.

I guess at the end of the day, you can never underestimate the power of marketing, both for the books and the movies, or the buying power of the average teenage girl.