gand7

Even as a fan of the games, I find this to be pretty good. A lot of hate from the gaming community, but at this point, if you expect a gaming movie/series to be perfectly Canon (or even remotely canon) you've only got yourself to blame.

I simply try to watch it as a sci-fi fan. As though it's an amalgam of "Battlestar", "Halo", "Mass Effect" and "Star Wars". It works for me. I enjoy it.

One thing I hate? Kwan. Sorry, but lose the whiny, little brat. She is the worst. I zone out every time she's on screen. I'm sure she's a fine actress, but her character is redundant garbage. Also, as shallow as this is, I cannot STAND her stupid, ugly mullet. It's the worst hair style ever to have existed. Please get rid of her.

What can I say at this point? I'm writing this review as I watch the last ten minutes of this abysmal dreck because if I haven't got something to focus on at this point, I'm gonna have to switch it off in frustration at having lost two hours of existence.

This "horror" movie is utterly tedious. First half is some of the most boring found footage I've ever watched. Second half is an absolute indictment of the film industry for giving every person with a video camera and an "artistic vision" money to make material that will steal away people's precious lives.

We're following some hippie/yuppie/artsy people to film a music video in the desert. Some noises happen, blood happens and... that's it. Might have a little more context if the guy didn't have the single worst torch/flashlight ever made, but where would the stupidity be in that?

Acting, cinematography are about standard. Sound' s good, script is massively drawn out and could barely work for a fifteen minute short.

Gets 2 stars only because one part in Los Angeles actually grabbed my attention again for a sec9nd and made me think: "Here we go!" Yeah, nah. Never did. Avoid. Wish I'd read the reviews first.

Guess I'm just a slow-burn, atmospheric horror/drama type of guy (possibly seeing a little bit of myself in the brothers), but this resonated with me. I was never not enjoying it.

Two brothers, who couldn't be further apart as individuals, the older being the outdoorsy, hunting, flannel-wearing family man, the younger being the Porsche-driving, happy-go-lucky city dweller who can't stand hunting, have planned a trip up the mountain together following their father's death. One wants to go hunting, the other camping. Needless to say, they don't make for a very solid team, that is, until something shows up that isn't a deer.

Won't say anything else, but the cameras are great, the production values are excellent and the score is beautiful. Not entirely a horror, not entirely a drama, it's somewhere in between and I loved every second of it.

I don't usually utterly love every single segment on an anthology show, but this one was a rare exception. There are, of course, the strongest segments and the weakest segments. That being said, I didn't dislike a single one of them. The combination of completely ridiculous stories combined with a good pinch of humor and horror were all fantastic. None of them felt cheap or phoned-in at all.

Acting was great, production values unusually high for an anthology show and stupid fun that didn't quit made me sad when it actually ended.

Personally, Chapter Three was, by far, the best of the bunch being a silly take on Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train", with Chapter Two being a tad less enjoyable than the others. Nevertheless, give it a watch if you like totally idiotic horror happiness. Would also recommend a pack of Smirnoff Ice for added enjoyment.

If you go into it expecting campy, cheesy, schlocky, 80s fun (and a couple of beers), it wasn't completely bad.

The premise is as silly as it gets and our treasure hunters are acting typically dumb but the mutant pig enemies look pretty damned good design-wise. Acting is fairly standard horror fare, probably above-average for a cheesy horror. It all gave off a very 80s camp vibe like "The Toxic Avenger" or "Tremors". The gore was decent, but the kills won't be enough to satisfy the violence fans. Set design looked like they filmed in a town previously ravaged by meth addiction and poverty and now abandoned, but suitable given the plot.

I didn't hate it. It's certainly not a 1/10, but don't expect anything serious.

Don't worry about the zombie apocalypse or World War 3 just yet because this is the reality of a disaster currently in the works that nobody cares to pay any heed to. The disaster of real life that tens of millions across the world suffering from being enslaved to narcotics are in the midst of.

This movie is a deep dive into the misery and torment of four addicts as they try to course correct their lives, yet are drawn ever further down into a drug-induced Hell by their addiction. It is not an easy watch, and one you won't ever want to do again.

What I learned from this movie is that addicts are not criminal monsters, they are human beings and victims of desperation and withdrawal when that high wears off. It hurts to see. It hurts to feel both anger and sadness for these people, and I imagine this must very much be how addicts and their families feel about these situations.

My only personal experience with addiction was when I was working as a bartender. Four years of doing shots and beers with the girls and guys of the staff after closing time was fun. When I stopped doing that job, I got REALLY sick. Didn't even know alcohol withdrawal was a thing, let alone a thing that could kill you.

It was quite possibly the worst I'd ever felt in my life. Can't remember what show I was watching, but a woman going through detox describes it as being underwater and then reaching that breaking point where you will do ANYTHING to get that gasp of air, but you can't. An apt metaphor.

Don't go into this without knowing what you're watching. The entire cast is brilliant. The direction is brilliant. The score is as depressing as the situation these poor people are in, also brilliant. It's not a fun watch, but I don't give something a 10/10 just off the cuff.

I was born in Melbourne, Australia, and I'm glad that I was, because, to think that I may have ended up as one of these vile rubes is worrying. I really wish these poor girls had taken bar jobs closer to the cities, away from Australia's worst-case scenario situation.

It's the same old story; Employer seems nice to begin with, rolls out the welcome mat. Quickly turns terrible from there. Bigotry, misogyny and bullying follow on a regular basis. I was a bartender for four years. I had one employer who was a sleazebag with the ladies but was never abusive to his employees. I really just wish the girls had left on the first night. There are civilised places in Australia where people don't treat foreigners like they're garbage.

I can't fault the movie. It is what it is. It depicts exactly why I don't go too far out into the boonies anymore because they live fifty years in the past. I would love to see the owner show up at a bar in Melbourne spouting that garbage to the girls. Somebody would break his jaw in a second.

I've certainly seen far worse than "Asvins" in my time. The movie starts out promising, but doesn't really maintain the pace of the opening chapter. Not to say this is bad, I don't mind a slow burn horror that's more story and less jump scares, if it's done correctly, that is. I would say that "Asvins" is a semi-failed project, but succeeds in some places quite well.

For one, the cinematography in some areas is beautiful, in others, it's cheesy. The lighting can be a bit... retro... at times, looking more like a 1970s disco scene than a Hellish nightmare. The acting is solid in some places, but then terribly overdramatic in others. This may be a part of Indian cinema in general, much as Chinese cinema often incorporates theatrical stage play-type work into their movies.

The stand out of this movie for me was the musical score. It was fantastic. It's not often movie scores catch my attention more than the movie proper, but this one certainly did. Ominous and foreboding and well implemented, probably better than what the movie deserved, frankly. I bumped it up to a six on this merit alone.

All in all, of you like slow burners that are more story than horror, you may enjoy this, but don't bring any of your buddies that are expecting "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

What can I say? It's as brutal and horror-based as all of them (possibly more so) and sticks to the mantra of the idea that the government turning the blue collar classes against their foreign brethren in a furore of political gaslighting and inflammatory propaganda MAY reach a point of complete and utter annihilation eventually.

The politics are certainly as obvious as any "South Park" episode, but it's hard to argue with when we've seen what happens when an Inciter-In-Chief stirs up a crowd of angry, scared, desperate people with fearmongoring, conspiracies and xenophobia. It's not melodrama when we've already seen it happen before. Now imagine somebody more sophisticated and just as awful was running the show. Now you've got "The Forever Purge".

I loved the acting, I loved the cast, I loved the production values and I am very surprised that, this far into the franchise, this is my favorite of all of these films.

Judging by some reviews here, I guess this one isn't everybody's cup of tea, but I certainly loved it. Was intrigued from start to finish. There's a choice to be made by our protagonist at the end, no spoilers will be given, but I wish it had gone the other way in regards to that choice.

Acting is excellent, as you would expect from these seasoned veterans, production value is top notch, no complaints there. If I had one complaint at all, it would be that it was too obvious, too soon, but even so, I still was absolutely enjoying it.

If you like slow-burn thrillers, with a bit of an odd bend to them, you'll enjoy this. I do personally recommend.

I just had to leave a review because all of the book snobs are slaughtering this film in the comments. I've read the book, and, like all book-to-film stuff, it's difficult to put it in perfect perspective in a 90 minute window. That being said, these snobs are utterly ruthless in their judgement. It's a great movie. Nothing wrong to say about it whatsoever. Ben Barnes plays a perfectly good, wholesome, sweet as all can be noble kid until Colin Forth gets his perverted, insatiable claws into him and things go rapidly downhill from that point forth. Look, if you want a perfect iteration of "The Picture of Dorian Gray", go read the book again. This is a movie, and I quite liked it. Thumbs up.

I've never thought a movie of this genre was so spectacularly badly bombing with no good reason before "The Thing", which eventually received the props it deserved. I hope "Sunshine" does one day. This movie is brilliant. The premise hits very close to home in the modern day, and will be somewhat unnerving to some. A lot of people here complaining about the final act. I guess they didn't realise this was a sci-fi horror film? Personally, those are right up my alley and I found this completely enthralling. Watching the slow descent into isolation, depression and psychosis of the crew of the Icarus Ii, and seeing the fate of that of the Icarus I, as a result of that, is brilliantly done. You can't blame them, however; a hopelessly despondent situation, a suicide mission in an attempt to theoretically save every species on Earth from extinction, when the first crew vanished without a trace, would push anybody to their breaking point.

It's is beautifully crafted with an incredible score and if you haven't watched it as a sci-fi horror aficiando, make sure you do.

But only for the messaging. The movie in general is a drawn-out, plodding waste of time and effort. The production value is all well and good, but just couldn't find much else to like.

The acting is drab and the enemy is ridiculous. She shambles around as slowly as the story moves along. The main character, who is vociforisouly pro-life, is the good guy, along with his pregnant wife, of course, and their friends who chose to have an abortion are the hot-head and the ignoramus.

As I said above, it has a very strong bias towards pro-life messaging. It's not obvious in the beginning but you're being hit over the head with it soon enough, and I hate having religious/political/social agendas thrown in my face. Just avoid.

I say this as a Bernie Sanders progressive, the constant browbeatimg with the MeToo stuff was too much. I hate it when politicism of a film takes me out of the experience so much that I'm thinking about how much it annoys me as opposed to enjoying the film. I hate it when pro-gun movies do it (look at Kevin Sorbo's stuff), I hate it when pro-religious movies do it (many of which masquerade as regular films) and I hate it when pro-social movies do it (of which there have been several as of late). This film was, otherwise, decent because I love films where a deadly, implacable, mysterious something never quits (It Follows, Smile) and the premise was great, the acting was solid, the sets and production value were all good, but the social commentary was almost as relentless as Cherie's foe. Five Stars.

And any time I see that logo at the start of a film, I know I'm in for a pretty garbage watch. Whether or not this deserved four stars is up for debate, but I just watched "Skinamarink" right beforehand and this, by comparison to that pretentious mess, was at least enjoyable.

The acting is garbage, it usually is in slashers anyway, but I watch them for the gore when it peaks my fancy. There's not much in the way of tits and ass but there's sure enough skimpy skank-factor on display. The schoolgirl outfit one of the girls wears to ACTUAL school is, generally, something you'd see on a stripper or Pornhub. If any of the girls I went to school back in the day with showed up in that uniform, they'd be sent home immediately for fear of a rape lawsuit.

All in all? It's trashy fun. No real complaints. Cheers.

So sometimes you watch a movie and you wonder what might have possibly been involved in the creative process leading up to the development of a motion picture and this one certainly seems to be simple to me. I'd imagine it was a group of guys sitting around a table and the conversation went a little something like this:

"So... how do we make a slasher movie stand out of the crowd?" "I know! We make it really EXTREME! The media always talks about extreme movies!" "So how do we do that? It sounds like a lot of effort." "Nah, we'll just put a bunch of stuff in that everybody hates." "So what does everybody hate?" "Oooh, everybody hates cannibals!" "And rapists! Even more if they're necrophiliacs!" "And torturers!" "Great! Make our bad guy all of those things and make it as gross as possible! We're done!" "Better throw in some incestuous undertones, too, that'll make it seem deeper and more complex." "Great idea! Now let's draw straws and see who has to go home and write the script tonight."

That's pretty much the vibe I got from this movie. I forced myself to sit through it to the end because I can't take a review seriously when somebody says "I turned it off half way" and that's that, but I really would have loved to.

I adore horror movies, but when the writers and directors just play the "gross" card it is the least creative, insulting, lazy, slipshod cash grab that a horror movie can be. It's also essentially a middle finger in the face of the genre's audience, and it's one we've come to expect more than any other genre audience out there, unfortunate as that is.

If you're going to watch this, I genuinely can say watch the first ten minutes and you've essentially seen the whole movie. It is entirely just a serial killer, cannibal, necrophiliac psychopath torturing women, decapitating them, eating their eyeballs and having sex with the severed heads and that is the entire movie. If that sounds like something you'd enjoy, have fun. I'd suggest not watching it around family or friends, though. It won't leave them with a healthy impression of you as a stable human being.

What to say about this movie? Hmmm... I want to review it, but I can't even do that properly. It had an air of intrigue about it to begin with and I found myself enjoying it for about the first third, however, I unfortunately don't speak French. German? Yes. Italian and Indonesian? Just the basics, but no French. When a large portion of the dialogue began to occur in a language that I don't speak, I found myself flicking through the options of my player trying to discern whether I'd accidentally turned off the subtitles or had myself a defective copy. Only now and after watching the movie in full, I find that there were deliberately no subtitles and that this was somehow supposed to increase the tension and atmosphere. In my case, that did not work. Not at all. In fact, I spent most of the rest of the movie wondering if I was missing much of the plot and should turn it off or continue to the end and hope that the dialogue returns to mostly English at some point. Either way, I was completely disengaged from the film and that is a very bad thing. Normally I'd not give it a second thought, as I have seen many movies with dialogue in foreign languages that do not contain subtitles, but the difference here is the SHEER AMOUNT of movie that is spoken in French that made me zone out and spend more time focused on trying to fix my subtitles than actually watching the film because I thought that surely something was wrong. In retrospect, I would have done well to have researched it first, so perhaps the onus is on myself. Sad face.

I'm giving it a 4 out of 10 because I enjoyed it for what I was able to comprehend. I liked the story, I loved the scenery and the acting... er... well, I can't even accurately comment on that because I don't even know how to rate the acting and dialogue of somebody I can't understand. The English-speaking parts seemed above par for a horror/thriller, I guess.

So I'm warning you in advance, either learn how to speak French or have a friend there to translate the dialogue for you, otherwise, you'll simply drift off wondering what in heck is going on.

EDIT - Another user has since contacted me to say that there were, in fact, subtitles. I'm leaving this review up, however, as that does not appear to be the case with all copies. The DVD I watched had only French subtitles, not English, and said user did not specify either way which language subtitles he was referring to. I suppose checking in advance would be the prudent thing to do.

Every now and then I really feel like kicking myself for some of the awful crap I will sit through from beginning to end and this is certainly one of those times. I never watched the first movie, as I'd been warned away from it vehemently by another movie buff. I thought, however, as a second film had been made, perhaps the budget would be larger and the cast and crew may have learned a few things further down the line production-wise. Boy, was I wrong. At least, I can't think the first one could be any worse than this film. I literally paused it firstly to take out the bins and then to wash the dishes to break up the monotony of it all.

What a wreck. There is nothing redeemable about this movie and I watched this one right after Sharkansas Women's Prison Massacre. That was also terrible, but a masterpiece by comparison. After fifteen minutes of The Hospital 2, I thought maybe a beer would make it better. Then it was a couple of gin and tonics. Surely that would help, right? Nope. No amount of self-medication could put a band-aid on this injury. There is no cure for this ailment, only a vaccine. The vaccine is avoiding this movie at all costs and to pray to any merciful deity that will listen to strike down anybody, anywhere, who so much as mentions making The Hospital 3.

I've only ever cared for Blade and the X-Men films as a movie buff. The other rubbish like Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, Superman, Guardians of the Galaxy and the myriad of Avenger heroes and their own crap films that they keep rehashing every few years are the most boring, generic, "epic" cinema experiences I've ever put up with that weren't aimed entirely at little children such as Ice Age 4 and whatnot.

Deadpool was a breath of fresh air. It couldn't have been better. They finally made a superhero movie for people who were kids when these superheroes were big commercial comic book successes. I bought Deadpool comics all throughout the '90s as a teenager and knew exactly what to expect. Ryan Reynolds couldn't be more perfect for the role and Deadpool couldn't be a more perfect character for an adult-oriented hero movie.

What bothers me is the amount of 1 out 10 ratings I'm seeing here. Some calling it too foul-mouthed, others calling it too violent, others again, whining about the sex scenes and then others who took their children to see all of this! What, I have to wonder, were you thinking? This movie is rated R and months and months before it was released this was made very, abundantly clear through advertising and Reynolds' own interviews. This movie is rated the same as Reservoir Dogs! The same as Saving Private Ryan, Django Unchained, The Green Mile, Traffic, The Wolf of Wall Street, Seven and Schindler's List! You came into this movie not expecting violence or swearing or sex? You brought your children to watch this movie?!? Why is this getting 1 out of 10, I wonder? The onus, then, is on yourselves. Obviously the fault here is with the common sense of the people buying the tickets and expecting some sort of PG-13 fare. Because as somebody who pays attention to a movie's classification rating I knew exactly what to expect. The movie did not swindle us as movie goers into thinking this was a family film.

Once again, I loved this movie, I got all of the references and all of the fourth wall breaks which, no doubt, would have flown over the heads of those who haven't had a keen investment in Deadpool for a long time and would probably take away from a lot of the laughs, so that's to be expected, but I'll just say to anybody reading this review that if a person complains about the violence or the sex or the swearing just disregard their rating of this film just as they disregarded the actual rating of this film. Movies rated R are rated R for a reason.

Go ahead and assume that any review above a 3 out of 10 for this movie will either be from cast and crew or from those horror types who enjoy it when it's so bad it's funny. Why, you ask? Here's a direct quote from one of those reviewers: "It's Like Silence of The Lambs...but Even More Creepy" Yeah, that's what that reviewer wrote, and in all seriousness as far as I can tell, so you've been warned.

This movie is terrible. Not just your standard TV movie terrible, but full blown utter rubbish terrible. As I mentioned in the summary, the police force on display here would be lined up against a wall and shot for stupidity. I don't think I've ever seen as little effort put into catching a serial killer as appears in Cabin by the Lake. For instance, the police set up a perfectly viable sting operation to catch creepy guy Stanley at his "garden" and yet they wait for Stanley to realise he's in the middle of their trap before springing it. Stanley then proceeds to simply swim away whilst the police divers go to the location where he was, see he's gone, look at each other and shrug before surfacing and saying something like "Nope, I guess he's not there. Better luck next time." to which the sheriff instantly calls the entire operation off as Stanley ever-so-slowly makes the least ingenious escape in criminal history from the clutches of justice by basically swimming off to shore a few hundred feet away! SERIOUSLY??? Then of course, the one surviving victim/witness is pretty much treated like she saw a kid steal a t-shirt off a rack at Target rather than the only person who can identify by appearance and voice the guy that's kidnapped and murdered half-a-dozen teenage girls already. She's left entirely without protection or supervision at probably the only motel in town where, of course, creepy Stanley meanders on in and nabs her AGAIN! Michael Weatherly's "hero cop" character is just as useless as the others, as in the near final scene, he swims down to rescue two hapless, drowning females. He stops at the first one, with whom he shares his oxygen, but rather than send her on her way to the surface, he sits there with victim one, sharing oxygen with her, as they both casually watch Stanley slowly succumb to death and become a gnome in his own creepy, little garden. Justice is served, but wait, fearless hero, THERE'S STILL VICTIM TWO DROWNING AS WELL!!! MAYBE SHARE A LITTLE OXYGEN WITH HER, PERHAPS, BEFORE SHE DIES??? But no, of course he doesn't and she dies. Job well done there, Serpico.

I won't even go into the rest, but I warn you there's some hint of a Stockholm Syndrome romance effect in there, some blissfully simple horror buff types who can't seem to grasp the gravity of having come across the decomposing remains of teen aged girls and even some sort of Twilight Zone-ish paradox wherein Judd Nelson is apparently the sexiest man in California who turns the heads of sultry vixens with "do me" face and is flirted with by young bimbos as though he were Zac Efron in a Bugatti. Strange, indeed.

It's all quite terrible, and only now writing this, can I slightly chuckle under my breath because of the one final, stupid scene in which creepy Stanley is shown to have indeed SOMEHOW survived the vice-like grip and fox-like cunning of his implacable, dauntless police pursuers and now appears to be living it up as per usual in what appears to be the exact same city in which he did all of his hunting and kidnapping to begin with. A truly wily criminal, indeed! He turns directly to the camera, with his mustard-coloured suit, his awful wig and stupid, little soul patch and smirks as if to say just to me "I bet you can't wait to see the next one, can you?" And that, my friends, is the one and only reason this piece of crap movie is getting a 2 out of 10 on this rating.

I'd read that Jamie Lee Curtis considered this the worst movie of her career. I suppose I then went into it expecting something quite awful, but was surprised to find it wasn't nearly as bad as so many horror/sci-fi films out there.

The acting, whilst not the best I've seen from the likes of Donald Sutherland, William Baldwin or Jamie Lee Curtis, is hardly the worst acting you could unfortunately expect from movies of this genre. It was also good to see supporting actors in there such as Cliff Curtis, whom I'm immensely enjoying watching right now in Fear the Walking Dead, putting in solid efforts. The production values are quite competent. Camera work, lighting and sound editing are all a pass.

The plot was nothing new but is always a favourite of mine. It seems that whenever a movie comes out about a person or crew investigating a derelict/abandoned ship, space station, military base or some such other thing, I'm all over it. I suppose this hearkens back to my favourite movie of all time being The Thing and always hoping for something just as good.

A very pleasant surprise was the lack of CGI use. If looking back on the late 90s and early 00s has proved to me anything in retrospect, it's that CGI-laden movies made then by today's standards look utterly terrible. Some did okay, like Event Horizon and Twister, but others are just awful to look at, such as The Scorpion King and The Phantom Menace. Virus, to me, was comparable in special effects to the movie Screamers in that it has its CGI moments when it calls for them and ONLY when it calls for them.

Overall, I'd give this one about a 6.8 out of 10 if I could rate a little more accurately. It won't set your world on fire, but it's hardly the worst way you could spend an evening on the sofa with a beer and a movie.

Just so we're clear right from the start, if your idea of a good chiller is to watch a whimpering dimwit huddled in the fetal position in the back seat of a BMW for pretty much the entire film's running time, you'll be over the moon with this awful mess. Not me.

So where do I even start? Ah yes, the protagonist, of course. Weak female leads have always frustrated and annoyed me, double that for horror movies and then quadruple that for that weak female lead also being a certifiable imbecile. Penny is the absolute last person you would ever want to cross in a real-world survival scenario. She blubbers, she cries, she screams, she moans, she hurts herself and all while conveniently doing absolutely nothing any rational person would do in a life-or-death situation. Example? Homicidal lunatic following you with your car tire quickly losing pressure? Curl up in a ball and cry. Stuck in a car with a corpse? Make a half dozen mediocre efforts to break the windshield before giving up, curl up in a ball and cry. Helpful stranger runs down homicidal lunatic, you notice lunatic is still alive? Alert helpful stranger? Nope. Curl up in a ball and cry. I was grinding my teeth so hard I may have to go to the dentist and make sure my fillings are still intact.

To make matters even more ridiculous (yes, really), Penny decides she's going to continue downing sedatives that leave her virtually catatonic for hours, allowing the lunatic to mess with her each time she wakes from her medically induced comas, somehow surprised that it has happened again each time. I finally really just wanted to see the useless twit die and I was deprived of that joyous moment. If it had been in there, this may have received a "3 out of 10". Alas, it was not to be.

The movie itself is fairly standard slasher fare. You've got all the horror-isms like the creepy woods, the dark and stormy night, kids who think they may have heard a noise but then didn't, the obligatory useless flashlight, the creepy voice that is impossibly evil (was that seriously the Predator laughing?) and obviously the sprained ankle because obviously Penny isn't already as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike without being physically impaired on top of things.

This mess gets a "2 out of 10" only because Mimi Rogers pulled off her character quite well. Too bad she wasn't around long enough to finally snap and put idiot Penny out of everybody's misery.

I argued with my friend recently about the quality of this film the other day. We both agreed that it was marketed poorly as a horror film and we both disagreed on the "creep factor". He told me he couldn't get into it, that it was drawn out and boring. I asked him to go back and watch it again in the middle of the night, alone and with no distractions. He came back and told me it was intense.

Turns out the problem for him was the yammering groups of teenagers chuckling and being general annoyances, sitting on their smartphones and asking their friends every three minutes "what happened?" when he watched it at the cinemas. I'm gonna go ahead and assume many of these one-star reviews are from "torture porn" aficionados hoping for lots of blood, gore and awful death scenes, or from kids who were on their Facebook pages for much of the film, because if you involve yourself in the movie, it's actually really damned good. If you catch the allegory, which I doubt the slasher/TP viewers could even fathom, then you would see the ending is quite well constructed.

All in all, for a modestly budgeted film, the presentation is great. It's bleak and depressing and cruel and not particularly enjoyable in any sense of the word, but then that's what it sets out to be; A true "horror movie" in every sense of the term. It's hard-hitting and close to home, the acting is fantastic, the production values are great, the sound editing is skin-crawling in a good way. I've got nothing but praise for this effort. Ignore the one-stars. Just watch it and judge for yourself, but make sure you watch it alone in an empty house in the middle of the night and not surrounded by teenagers on smartphones that are just going to ruin the atmosphere.

I suppose I went into this expecting something pretty terrible. I've not been too impressed with "found footage" films as of late, with "Afflicted" probably being the most enjoyable one in years, so it was a surprise when this one turned out to be a decent flick. It's certainly not perfect, as you'll see, there is a certain suspension of disbelief required to enjoy it, otherwise you'll be frustrated at some of the things that occur during the movie. Ghosts and aliens work better for me at this, as I can assume they both have some sort of upper edge going for them that the average person does not, so it's when the bad guy is the average person that I find their almost psychic ability to predict the most random of actions by their unwitting victims to be rather implausible.

For example, it's a little difficult to miss a full grown man sitting in the back of your car, particularly when approaching the car from the rear. One wrong glance and the predator would have become the prey. His hapless victim now being in a wide open space and standing over him where he is in a confined space sitting down. Seems like a pretty big risk to take on the gamble that the guy's gonna be looking in another direction the entire time it takes for him to walk to his car. Another example being a police officer entering a house that has been described to him as likely being a target of a vicious killer. As soon as he reaches the door, the lights are dead and the house has been ransacked, two immediate red flags that would make any actual police officer immediately request back up first and then search and secure the premises top to bottom before stopping to inspect any distractions, including a screaming laptop. Of course, it doesn't happen, and of course, the killer has somehow predicted this through some absurd logic or roll of the dice that simply doesn't work with my humble thought process.

Like I said, it's enjoyable enough, particularly the more realistic first half of the film which some more gratuitous horror fans will probably be bored by. It tends to head into slasher/torture porn territory in the second half and becomes even less believable with a lot of things that simply wouldn't happen in such circumstances taking place and making you facepalm in frustration. The acting was decent enough, the camera work was actually pretty solid, the music I won't comment on. Either I had the volume down too low or I didn't really pay attention to it during the film. All in all, don't expect anything fantastic and you'll probably find it's a decent horror/thriller to watch in a pinch. 6.5/10

Not entirely sure why people are reviewing this film so very poorly. If you've ever seen an Eli Roth movie, you know what to expect, which essentially is that it's kind of cheap, lots of blood, lots of gore and a few awkward laughs thrown in here and there on a modest film budget. I found this to be no different. I loved Cabin Fever and I knew what to expect after Hostel so should others not know this, too? Should they even be reviewing this film if they had no idea what they were going to be watching? I don't think so. I don't go into Resident Evil expecting it to be Hotel Rwanda and, if I did, I wouldn't then review Resident Evil on IMDb because it wasn't the Hotel Rwanda I was expecting. Just a thing to think about when you read these reviews, folks.

In any case, the film was pretty much what I expected. It's a little cheesy, a little quirky, ample blood and gore (although maybe not enough for the torture porn crowd), some uncomfortable rape scenes and plenty of Eli Roth atmosphere. Generally, I found it was a decent flick. It's a little dark but has moments that will make you laugh, too. It's not going to set the world on fire or win any grand awards, but if you know what to expect from Roth and/or are a fan of this type of film, you'll find it enjoyable enough, as I did.