nospam-25-374977
Lifetime Total
10+
IMDb Member
9 years
Reviews
Kara (2016)
A Decent Smallish Movie Done On a Tight Budget.
*****There Is only one sentence that qualifies as a POSSIBLE spoiler. You will be notified right before it appears. You can safely ignore it. Otherwise, pretty much safe to read! *****
I seem to be having a run of smaller movies lately. Kara was an engaging but smallish movie that likely will not be nominated for any major awards but, nonetheless, is a pleasant watch. How to describe a so-called thriller that wasn't thrilling but yet held my attention without any "dead" spots, is a true challenge!
As of this writing, there was NOT ONE SHILL review. I give this movie company credit for that. They have seemed to have avoided the most lame, dishonest and stupid sort of attempt to trick people into buying a less than sparkling movie. Maybe the makers of this movie were proud of their little, likable movie and felt it could stand on its own. IT CAN! It is by no means exceptional but it is a good effort and it is interesting. As long as no shills appear, I give it an acceptable 6/10 stars. Should genuine shills appear I will write a follow-up and reduce its rating markedly!
For a "Spy" movie, it was extremely calm without any really exciting scenes. In fact, the movie is actually a drama rather than a thriller. It is missing any exceptional or powerful scenes.
For a low budget, possible student-type film, Kara's production values were relatively good. The photography was good but not exceptional. As the film was focused on two characters with intermittent peripheral characters appearing a few times with some peripheral characters appearing quite a few times relative to others, the photographic variety was limited. There were no scenery shots that were particularly interesting nor any other shots that were anything more than minimal for that particular scene. In other words there were no shots that would qualify as "excellent"
I apologize for being vague in my descriptions but I'm having difficulty describing very average and ordinary cinematography. While not being bad, it's still only weakly qualifies as acceptable. Audio was good in that it was fairly even, appropriate for each scene and with nothing interfering with hearing the character's speech.
The dialogue was appropriate and modestly interesting. Again, nothing really good but nothing really bad either. The eponymous "Kara" character grew on me. At first she seemed exceptionally plain, almost homely. I was especially put off by the tattoos on her neck and back which were noticeable from the get go (please be aware that I have a very unfair and unsupportable anti-tattoo bias. I think that most tattooed people are very ordinary and common and many of them think a tattoo somehow fixes that...it doesn't!!). In any case, the more I watched her and listened to her speak, the more attractive and complex she appeared. This was even though the film was very ordinary. I attributed that to her acting ability despite a very plain script and very modest production values. Though I have to say that she didn't cry very believably.
David, the other lead character, did pretty well despite the limitations of the script, dialogue and the film in general. He was likable and empathetic, at first his weird (to me) haircut kept distracting me but I eventually was able to ignore it. David had a few scenes where he was stiff....almost wooden. But he eventually warmed-up and, for the most part, did a decent job of acting.
I expect a spy movie to be interesting, suspenseful, fast-paced and prone to twists and turns. This movie only just qualifies as being interesting. Being about spies and spying was unintentionally peripheral to the characters. But, the type of spying, corporate espionage, is definitely less suspenseful than the older "could end the world as we know it" type (Tom Clancy, Ken Follett, Frederick Forsyth etc.). So, such a spy yarn HAS to depend on its characters. That was this movie's best feature as everything else was, at its best, ordinary.
Corporate espionage is not my favorite type of spy movie. This one's political connotations made it more interesting than most. There comes a point where in some corporate espionage type movies (mini-spoiler alert) the amounts of money involved are so large, they could allow someone or something to actually harm a large country's economy to a significant, but not terminal, degree.
"Kara" was an OK film. There was nothing great about it. However it never dragged nor ever seemed significantly harmed by its writing. It was interesting to a nice degree. In my opinion this was a good effort by new filmmakers, writers and actors/actresses on a tiny budget and it was OK for a lazy morning or afternoon's light and not overly-involving movie. Watch it with minimal, calm expectations!
Good Luck OV
I seem to be having a run of smaller movies lately. Kara was an engaging but smallish movie that likely will not be nominated for any major awards but, nonetheless, is a pleasant watch. How to describe a so-called thriller that wasn't thrilling but yet held my attention without any "dead" spots, is a true challenge!
As of this writing, there was NOT ONE SHILL review. I give this movie company credit for that. They have seemed to have avoided the most lame, dishonest and stupid sort of attempt to trick people into buying a less than sparkling movie. Maybe the makers of this movie were proud of their little, likable movie and felt it could stand on its own. IT CAN! It is by no means exceptional but it is a good effort and it is interesting. As long as no shills appear, I give it an acceptable 6/10 stars. Should genuine shills appear I will write a follow-up and reduce its rating markedly!
For a "Spy" movie, it was extremely calm without any really exciting scenes. In fact, the movie is actually a drama rather than a thriller. It is missing any exceptional or powerful scenes.
For a low budget, possible student-type film, Kara's production values were relatively good. The photography was good but not exceptional. As the film was focused on two characters with intermittent peripheral characters appearing a few times with some peripheral characters appearing quite a few times relative to others, the photographic variety was limited. There were no scenery shots that were particularly interesting nor any other shots that were anything more than minimal for that particular scene. In other words there were no shots that would qualify as "excellent"
I apologize for being vague in my descriptions but I'm having difficulty describing very average and ordinary cinematography. While not being bad, it's still only weakly qualifies as acceptable. Audio was good in that it was fairly even, appropriate for each scene and with nothing interfering with hearing the character's speech.
The dialogue was appropriate and modestly interesting. Again, nothing really good but nothing really bad either. The eponymous "Kara" character grew on me. At first she seemed exceptionally plain, almost homely. I was especially put off by the tattoos on her neck and back which were noticeable from the get go (please be aware that I have a very unfair and unsupportable anti-tattoo bias. I think that most tattooed people are very ordinary and common and many of them think a tattoo somehow fixes that...it doesn't!!). In any case, the more I watched her and listened to her speak, the more attractive and complex she appeared. This was even though the film was very ordinary. I attributed that to her acting ability despite a very plain script and very modest production values. Though I have to say that she didn't cry very believably.
David, the other lead character, did pretty well despite the limitations of the script, dialogue and the film in general. He was likable and empathetic, at first his weird (to me) haircut kept distracting me but I eventually was able to ignore it. David had a few scenes where he was stiff....almost wooden. But he eventually warmed-up and, for the most part, did a decent job of acting.
I expect a spy movie to be interesting, suspenseful, fast-paced and prone to twists and turns. This movie only just qualifies as being interesting. Being about spies and spying was unintentionally peripheral to the characters. But, the type of spying, corporate espionage, is definitely less suspenseful than the older "could end the world as we know it" type (Tom Clancy, Ken Follett, Frederick Forsyth etc.). So, such a spy yarn HAS to depend on its characters. That was this movie's best feature as everything else was, at its best, ordinary.
Corporate espionage is not my favorite type of spy movie. This one's political connotations made it more interesting than most. There comes a point where in some corporate espionage type movies (mini-spoiler alert) the amounts of money involved are so large, they could allow someone or something to actually harm a large country's economy to a significant, but not terminal, degree.
"Kara" was an OK film. There was nothing great about it. However it never dragged nor ever seemed significantly harmed by its writing. It was interesting to a nice degree. In my opinion this was a good effort by new filmmakers, writers and actors/actresses on a tiny budget and it was OK for a lazy morning or afternoon's light and not overly-involving movie. Watch it with minimal, calm expectations!
Good Luck OV
Shadowland (2008)
I'm a few years late to the party but it was an enjoyable, unique, movie.
*****Note: No Significant Spoilers. Safe to Read. "Spoilers" Claimed for CYA reasons*****
I just wrote a nice, detailed review. However one of IMDb's MANY algorithms decided to dump it in its entirety as I used a repeated word to denote the end of a paragraph or maybe it just timed out. In any case I'm tired but I'll give it another shot.
I won't waste words on the thick folks who, lacking sex, non-stop violence and gore in this movie, didn't "get" it and rated it poorly. There were also POSSIBLE shill reviews I found a bit too praise-heavy and dropping names like the gut remains of food poisoning. Generally, I will slam a film that contains shill reviews as they are insultingly stupid and obvious attempts to generate revenue by lying about a film so people will buy it, carrying home a real stinker to their unsuspecting family. It's FRAUD!!!! But in this ONE case, said shill BS will be ignored.
Without a doubt this film had a low, low, budget. But what they accomplished with those pennies was impressive. Apparently, a good director/producer/editor can do a lot with very little! Though I have to say this film could have been a first class indie with a few more bucks. It is still very a worthwhile.
This movie was unique, interesting and refreshing. The characterization was, overall, quite good. I like the lead character and cared about what happened to her. She was a convincing actress and played her character well. I didn't care for the lead male but that was obviously intended as his acting was mostly good. The lead male vampire did little acting and what he did do didn't appear up to snuff. That noted, I may have been excessively distracted by his ill-fitting suit, awful, fake and bizarrely waxed mustache and precariously perched, a too large for his smallish head, immense top-hat which looked about to flop or drop to his narrow shoulders! The poor fellow never had a chance. Hardly the tall, dark and handsome, rakish playboy he was purported to be!
The actors/actresses with small roles varied from believable and good to unbelievable and bad. The owner of the diner with a largish minor role was quite good, likable and believable. The prime wino gets an honorable mention. Overall, the actors playing the police were pretty bad. They were stiff and sounded as though they were reading their lines from cue cards.
The story was engrossing. The plot, while not brand new, has not been done excessively and this film gave it an unexpected twist. The female lead vampire was strangely convincing despite the odd (by then vampire standards) and notably different than expected, quirky parallel of the film's distinctiveness.
Overall, the movie had quite decent production values for such a tiny budget. Photography was professional with well-framed action, close-ups and environs. Sound was clear and consistent with no background music covering the actor's dialogue. Which I admit infuriates me and will cause me to slam a picture. With today's technology, there is NO excuse for blaring background music, sound levels precariously dropping then shooting up, hurting ears and damaging speakers! Audio should be heard and not seen. Seeing my wife constantly adjusting the sound controls is a death knell for a movie! Happily, not the case here!
This will not be the "movie of the year". Nonetheless, it drew me in and kept me interested and entertained. It had nice visuals like the contrast between the pastoral green and wooded rolling hills surrounding the restored red brick and painted wood old town. An unusual setting for a vampire movie which again added to the distinctive story.
Watch this keeping in mind: it's extremely modest budget, the newness of the cast and production team, an apparent first or at least very early film for the director: and you will be pleasantly surprised.
Other View
I just wrote a nice, detailed review. However one of IMDb's MANY algorithms decided to dump it in its entirety as I used a repeated word to denote the end of a paragraph or maybe it just timed out. In any case I'm tired but I'll give it another shot.
I won't waste words on the thick folks who, lacking sex, non-stop violence and gore in this movie, didn't "get" it and rated it poorly. There were also POSSIBLE shill reviews I found a bit too praise-heavy and dropping names like the gut remains of food poisoning. Generally, I will slam a film that contains shill reviews as they are insultingly stupid and obvious attempts to generate revenue by lying about a film so people will buy it, carrying home a real stinker to their unsuspecting family. It's FRAUD!!!! But in this ONE case, said shill BS will be ignored.
Without a doubt this film had a low, low, budget. But what they accomplished with those pennies was impressive. Apparently, a good director/producer/editor can do a lot with very little! Though I have to say this film could have been a first class indie with a few more bucks. It is still very a worthwhile.
This movie was unique, interesting and refreshing. The characterization was, overall, quite good. I like the lead character and cared about what happened to her. She was a convincing actress and played her character well. I didn't care for the lead male but that was obviously intended as his acting was mostly good. The lead male vampire did little acting and what he did do didn't appear up to snuff. That noted, I may have been excessively distracted by his ill-fitting suit, awful, fake and bizarrely waxed mustache and precariously perched, a too large for his smallish head, immense top-hat which looked about to flop or drop to his narrow shoulders! The poor fellow never had a chance. Hardly the tall, dark and handsome, rakish playboy he was purported to be!
The actors/actresses with small roles varied from believable and good to unbelievable and bad. The owner of the diner with a largish minor role was quite good, likable and believable. The prime wino gets an honorable mention. Overall, the actors playing the police were pretty bad. They were stiff and sounded as though they were reading their lines from cue cards.
The story was engrossing. The plot, while not brand new, has not been done excessively and this film gave it an unexpected twist. The female lead vampire was strangely convincing despite the odd (by then vampire standards) and notably different than expected, quirky parallel of the film's distinctiveness.
Overall, the movie had quite decent production values for such a tiny budget. Photography was professional with well-framed action, close-ups and environs. Sound was clear and consistent with no background music covering the actor's dialogue. Which I admit infuriates me and will cause me to slam a picture. With today's technology, there is NO excuse for blaring background music, sound levels precariously dropping then shooting up, hurting ears and damaging speakers! Audio should be heard and not seen. Seeing my wife constantly adjusting the sound controls is a death knell for a movie! Happily, not the case here!
This will not be the "movie of the year". Nonetheless, it drew me in and kept me interested and entertained. It had nice visuals like the contrast between the pastoral green and wooded rolling hills surrounding the restored red brick and painted wood old town. An unusual setting for a vampire movie which again added to the distinctive story.
Watch this keeping in mind: it's extremely modest budget, the newness of the cast and production team, an apparent first or at least very early film for the director: and you will be pleasantly surprised.
Other View
The Charnel House (2016)
Weak, Boring and Uninteresting. Bleh! Go for a walk instead.
NO TRUE SPOILERS IN HERE BUT SINCE IT IS SUCH A SUBJECTIVE THING, RATHER THAN RISK IT, I ALWAYS MARK THE "SPOILERS" WARNING TO BE SAFE!!!
I was very, very impressed with the "persons associated with the film" (shills) reviews. They are getting better at reducing the amount of their annoying brown-nosed "gushing". Don't get me wrong, they still do a yeoman's amount of sucking-up while writing many lines of "text" on their knees.
But, when all said and done, for the most part, I didn't vomit while reading their absolutely useless reviews. To avoid ruining the suspense, I won't tell you how many of the "early reviews" are shills (but there are a lot of them, more than 4 but less than 7 at the time of this submission). Of course, it is likely that some of them, after reading my review, will get new accounts and write indirect rebuttals. Keep an eye out for those. It happens about half the time.
That all being said, my opinion of the movie puts it somewhere between a homemade and a B-movie film. This movie is not horrible and it's production values were good. The acting, while not brilliant, for the most part was adequate. The the actors had to struggle with the limitations of the script. Photography was good.
The plot of this movie was sound if not a gnat's footprint away from being a cliché'. Sadly, this movie had some decent sets and plot points but failed to maintain the momentum they initially created. There were several locations along the way where the screen writers could have improved the script but didn't.
This movie was NOT exciting, not suspenseful, not interesting and not a real horror movie. It appears as if the director had placed cast in the movie who were well thought of in order to direct attention away from the weak screenplay (or weak directing). The ending was clichéd and stupid, most people will be annoyed by it. I didn't find any of the characters particularly strong, compelling or interesting.
Overall, I consider this movie a waste of time. Unless you are playing it as a source of background noise to drown out your neighbor's barking dog, I wouldn't suggest watching it. I certainly would not pay real money to watch it. Rather than buy the DVD, I would recommend using the money for something else or donate it to charity. Save yourself and ignore this one. Several more shill reviews have appeared (marching morons)!
Thanks for reading my review. Other View
I was very, very impressed with the "persons associated with the film" (shills) reviews. They are getting better at reducing the amount of their annoying brown-nosed "gushing". Don't get me wrong, they still do a yeoman's amount of sucking-up while writing many lines of "text" on their knees.
But, when all said and done, for the most part, I didn't vomit while reading their absolutely useless reviews. To avoid ruining the suspense, I won't tell you how many of the "early reviews" are shills (but there are a lot of them, more than 4 but less than 7 at the time of this submission). Of course, it is likely that some of them, after reading my review, will get new accounts and write indirect rebuttals. Keep an eye out for those. It happens about half the time.
That all being said, my opinion of the movie puts it somewhere between a homemade and a B-movie film. This movie is not horrible and it's production values were good. The acting, while not brilliant, for the most part was adequate. The the actors had to struggle with the limitations of the script. Photography was good.
The plot of this movie was sound if not a gnat's footprint away from being a cliché'. Sadly, this movie had some decent sets and plot points but failed to maintain the momentum they initially created. There were several locations along the way where the screen writers could have improved the script but didn't.
This movie was NOT exciting, not suspenseful, not interesting and not a real horror movie. It appears as if the director had placed cast in the movie who were well thought of in order to direct attention away from the weak screenplay (or weak directing). The ending was clichéd and stupid, most people will be annoyed by it. I didn't find any of the characters particularly strong, compelling or interesting.
Overall, I consider this movie a waste of time. Unless you are playing it as a source of background noise to drown out your neighbor's barking dog, I wouldn't suggest watching it. I certainly would not pay real money to watch it. Rather than buy the DVD, I would recommend using the money for something else or donate it to charity. Save yourself and ignore this one. Several more shill reviews have appeared (marching morons)!
Thanks for reading my review. Other View
The Library (2013)
Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue & say "SEE IT"!
The list of things wrong with this film is enormous & u should DEFINITELY SEE IT!!! I'm usually merciless on defective films but not this one. Despite amateurish production, hokey parts, frequent poor acting & comic-book editing, u can still see the (almost obscured by 3- Stoogery) creative, unique & interesting plot.
Ciminera's take on the mechanics of the afterlife, demons (who look like ninjas), angels (who look like orderlies) and library books that check u out, all come together in a unique view of what's waiting for us. Even the hokey time limits in the non-living realm hint at the uniqueness of what otherwise could really be a far better film.
Personally, I don't believe they really spent $5k making this movie (more like $250), but I don't really care (u won't either). Somebody MUST give Mr. Ciminera proper funding & professional personnel for the remake of this & his next couple of films. This guy has lots of heart, lots of uniqueness & lots of potential. He's a 1-of-a-kind, impoverished, culturally low rent mix of Rod Serling, the Pope & a Philly Cheese Steak....BUT WITH LOTS OF POTENTIAL!!! Watch him!!!
Ciminera's take on the mechanics of the afterlife, demons (who look like ninjas), angels (who look like orderlies) and library books that check u out, all come together in a unique view of what's waiting for us. Even the hokey time limits in the non-living realm hint at the uniqueness of what otherwise could really be a far better film.
Personally, I don't believe they really spent $5k making this movie (more like $250), but I don't really care (u won't either). Somebody MUST give Mr. Ciminera proper funding & professional personnel for the remake of this & his next couple of films. This guy has lots of heart, lots of uniqueness & lots of potential. He's a 1-of-a-kind, impoverished, culturally low rent mix of Rod Serling, the Pope & a Philly Cheese Steak....BUT WITH LOTS OF POTENTIAL!!! Watch him!!!
The Eve (2015)
By no means the worst suspense movie I've seen (doesn't necessarily mean it's good)
I very rarely write "spoiler reviews" because I generally won't read them myself. However, this movie would be very hard to review without some references to the plot. I will try and minimize the "spoilage".
I have a somewhat different point of view than many of the other reviewers. This movie was reasonably well-acted despite the hackneyed script and the weak dialogue. The actors didn't have much to work with so I think they did the best they could.
The movie is quite low-budget, suspense film "formulaic" with the old/stereotypical murder order. You will see what I mean as to who gets killed first and why. They vary it somewhat by combining three of the stereotypical kill elements into one person. Nonetheless, it's not the best way to foreshadow and build suspense.
It doesn't take long to figure out "whodunit" so it doesn't really qualify as a mystery "whodunit". There is also the now grossly clichéd stupid behavior by the characters. The film could have done without that but then it would have needed more creativity in the script. There is also the clichéd and stereotypical vehicle scene. That got old about 25 years ago and had me shaking my head.
The interactions between the characters were not formulaic because no sentient individuals behave like that (unless they are Bonobos). Or, maybe, I'm getting old and that is the expected behavior now. I'm not talking about sex or drugs, that's normal and expected human behavior. Rather it's how the characters get involved and deal with things.
I was gratified to see a woman go for a weapon as soon as it could be obtained. Unlike the old stereotype, you don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see it. With Hollywood sooo politically correct, I'm surprised self-defense was allowed. That added one star to my original two star rating. Though it almost lost it again because of a character's use of a fireplace poker...like we've never seen that before!
Anyway, the movie was about average-B-grade in cinematography, production values and scene set-up. Again, I've seen much worse (and far, far better).
This movie would be good to watch if you are young, with friends, no raves available and it's free or on a monthly-fee streaming service. It's good for a laugh or two (not deliberately) and it's a good lesson in script stupidity. Don't see this if you are in the mood for a real mystery, thriller, suspense or horror film. It is none of those. I read a reference to "Hitchcock" by a reviewer. Trust me, it is NOTHING like a Hitchcock film!
Good Luck! Regards, Other View
This an update to my original review. After it was posted and positioned on the 1st.page of reviews, shortlytherafter, another ridiculously positive review was added to move mine and make the reader who only reads a few reviews think this was an excellent movie. If you are a regular IMDb user you know that garbage, low budget films get friends, family and staff to write gushing reviews for the movie so the casual review readers will buy it.
Common signs of a shill review frequently name the entire cast like they are friends (they often are). Another sign is 9 or 10 stars on an obvious "B" movie with B-movie stars and B- directors. If you check carefully you can often find shill review before or on the day of release. Further checking and you will frequently see the shill reviewer has written very few reviews (usually one). The final clue is the use of superlatives to describe the movie "fantastic" "brilliant" "a gem" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Don't buy into the fake shill reviews. It's best if you start at the latest review and then Read on to earliest. Shill reviews REALLY annoy me but they are a fact of life here with crap movies. The shill reviews for this movie are very obvious and contain numerous " fibs" and are trying to either pimp you out of your time, money or to gain "brownie points" to be thought of well by their industry. In any case they are dishonest and make a mess out of IMDb's review process. They are completely selfish, proof that the movie is poor.
BTW, the shills work together in giving themselves likes and dislikes to honest reviewers. Like no one will notice. I hope that these deceivers NEVER get a or job in the industry and get spotted every time they write a review. If I was director, I'd be mortified by these people's disingenuous natures.
If possible I'm reducing the movies' star count to 1 (one) a and will do soEVERYTIME I find more than one shill review. I made a mistake here giving 3 stars that I will try and fix. I repeat, whatever you do Don't pay anything to watch this movie! Best regards, Other view!
I have a somewhat different point of view than many of the other reviewers. This movie was reasonably well-acted despite the hackneyed script and the weak dialogue. The actors didn't have much to work with so I think they did the best they could.
The movie is quite low-budget, suspense film "formulaic" with the old/stereotypical murder order. You will see what I mean as to who gets killed first and why. They vary it somewhat by combining three of the stereotypical kill elements into one person. Nonetheless, it's not the best way to foreshadow and build suspense.
It doesn't take long to figure out "whodunit" so it doesn't really qualify as a mystery "whodunit". There is also the now grossly clichéd stupid behavior by the characters. The film could have done without that but then it would have needed more creativity in the script. There is also the clichéd and stereotypical vehicle scene. That got old about 25 years ago and had me shaking my head.
The interactions between the characters were not formulaic because no sentient individuals behave like that (unless they are Bonobos). Or, maybe, I'm getting old and that is the expected behavior now. I'm not talking about sex or drugs, that's normal and expected human behavior. Rather it's how the characters get involved and deal with things.
I was gratified to see a woman go for a weapon as soon as it could be obtained. Unlike the old stereotype, you don't have to wait until the end of the movie to see it. With Hollywood sooo politically correct, I'm surprised self-defense was allowed. That added one star to my original two star rating. Though it almost lost it again because of a character's use of a fireplace poker...like we've never seen that before!
Anyway, the movie was about average-B-grade in cinematography, production values and scene set-up. Again, I've seen much worse (and far, far better).
This movie would be good to watch if you are young, with friends, no raves available and it's free or on a monthly-fee streaming service. It's good for a laugh or two (not deliberately) and it's a good lesson in script stupidity. Don't see this if you are in the mood for a real mystery, thriller, suspense or horror film. It is none of those. I read a reference to "Hitchcock" by a reviewer. Trust me, it is NOTHING like a Hitchcock film!
Good Luck! Regards, Other View
This an update to my original review. After it was posted and positioned on the 1st.page of reviews, shortlytherafter, another ridiculously positive review was added to move mine and make the reader who only reads a few reviews think this was an excellent movie. If you are a regular IMDb user you know that garbage, low budget films get friends, family and staff to write gushing reviews for the movie so the casual review readers will buy it.
Common signs of a shill review frequently name the entire cast like they are friends (they often are). Another sign is 9 or 10 stars on an obvious "B" movie with B-movie stars and B- directors. If you check carefully you can often find shill review before or on the day of release. Further checking and you will frequently see the shill reviewer has written very few reviews (usually one). The final clue is the use of superlatives to describe the movie "fantastic" "brilliant" "a gem" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Don't buy into the fake shill reviews. It's best if you start at the latest review and then Read on to earliest. Shill reviews REALLY annoy me but they are a fact of life here with crap movies. The shill reviews for this movie are very obvious and contain numerous " fibs" and are trying to either pimp you out of your time, money or to gain "brownie points" to be thought of well by their industry. In any case they are dishonest and make a mess out of IMDb's review process. They are completely selfish, proof that the movie is poor.
BTW, the shills work together in giving themselves likes and dislikes to honest reviewers. Like no one will notice. I hope that these deceivers NEVER get a or job in the industry and get spotted every time they write a review. If I was director, I'd be mortified by these people's disingenuous natures.
If possible I'm reducing the movies' star count to 1 (one) a and will do soEVERYTIME I find more than one shill review. I made a mistake here giving 3 stars that I will try and fix. I repeat, whatever you do Don't pay anything to watch this movie! Best regards, Other view!
The Culling (2015)
Bad, But Oddly Bad
I'm going to try and avoid repeating what most other reviewers have said since I agree with the majority of the negative comments. That being said, this movie should NOT have sucked as badly as it did. The production values were decent. The cinematography was decent. The general dialog between the five main characters was reasonable and believable. The actresses were attractive, well-spoken and not terrible actors. The male actors were mostly not terrible.
So why did this thing suck so badly? The editing was problematic as was obvious by the shortened film length. I suspect a fair amount was cut as what did appear was choppy and not very cohesive. However, while I think the directing was weak the worst thing about the movie was the script. It's unusual to find even a bad B-movie with as unbelievable and contrived story line as what ran through this dog. Even stoned/intoxicated people don't do as many stupid things as these nitwits did.
In fact, I have to admit to being rather shocked that within the first 10 minutes or so the main actors were doing things that a 10 year old wouldn't do in the same circumstances. Despite being grossly disappointed I soldiered on hoping that each unbelievable screw-up would be the last. Now I'm embarrassed to admit that I finished it.
Nonetheless, this could have been a decent, scary flick if it even had the slightest lick of a story. But it didn't. There is no story here and nothing to see except a couple of pretty young actresses scarring their film resume by having their name on this garbage. Don't waste your time folks. You will be left feeling like an idiot because you watched the entire thing. This dog won't hunt...EVER!
UPDATE: 14/02/17 Update: I HATE SHILLS!!! Since I wrote this review several more, ahem, "Sparkling" reviews have appeared. This film is still VERY BAD!!! Please don't say no one warned you!!! Good Luck!
So why did this thing suck so badly? The editing was problematic as was obvious by the shortened film length. I suspect a fair amount was cut as what did appear was choppy and not very cohesive. However, while I think the directing was weak the worst thing about the movie was the script. It's unusual to find even a bad B-movie with as unbelievable and contrived story line as what ran through this dog. Even stoned/intoxicated people don't do as many stupid things as these nitwits did.
In fact, I have to admit to being rather shocked that within the first 10 minutes or so the main actors were doing things that a 10 year old wouldn't do in the same circumstances. Despite being grossly disappointed I soldiered on hoping that each unbelievable screw-up would be the last. Now I'm embarrassed to admit that I finished it.
Nonetheless, this could have been a decent, scary flick if it even had the slightest lick of a story. But it didn't. There is no story here and nothing to see except a couple of pretty young actresses scarring their film resume by having their name on this garbage. Don't waste your time folks. You will be left feeling like an idiot because you watched the entire thing. This dog won't hunt...EVER!
UPDATE: 14/02/17 Update: I HATE SHILLS!!! Since I wrote this review several more, ahem, "Sparkling" reviews have appeared. This film is still VERY BAD!!! Please don't say no one warned you!!! Good Luck!
Forever's End (2013)
A Meandering Snoozer!
This movie reminded me of when my Jack Russell first saw himself in a mirror.The first thing he did was lunge at the reflected Jack, loudly bonking his nose on the cold glass. He stepped back, shook his head and then decided to see if he could get to the trespassing dog from behind the mirror. Rushing around the back of the thing (several times) he was completely stumped by the fact that there was nothing behind it.
This movie is the same thing. It starts with an interesting "whodunit"which grabs your attention. However, as you "walk around the mirror" it dawns on you that there is absolutely nothing there. In fact, it takes quite a bit of time for any characterization to develop at all. When it finally does, you realize they are boring, unlikeable and unimpressive characters. The movie itself wanders from scene to scene with little cohesiveness and little or no suspense.
They would like you to think that once you get to the end, all is known and everything will fit neatly and cleverly in place. Unfortunately, by the end of the movie you couldn't care less about it, the characters or the lame plot. It's too bad because the actors and cinematography weren't horrid and if applied to writing with an actual plot, might have made a nifty little suspense movie.
I'm always amused by the so-called "critics" with their effusive praise for movies like this. Most of the time, their bubbly praise is indicative of an association with the film itself (e.g. somebody's brother, brother-in-law, sister, investor, girlfriend, dog walker, etc). These are easy to spot due to the constant name dropping of the director, the actors and even a grip or two.
A good movie doesn't require any froofy prose from a self-impressed reviewer to convey its value. Just a straightforward description of style, plot, characterization, production values and any exceptional features. When the reviewer starts babbling about esoteric schmaltz it's a fair bet you'll be asleep in under 20 minutes!
Regards, The Other View
This movie is the same thing. It starts with an interesting "whodunit"which grabs your attention. However, as you "walk around the mirror" it dawns on you that there is absolutely nothing there. In fact, it takes quite a bit of time for any characterization to develop at all. When it finally does, you realize they are boring, unlikeable and unimpressive characters. The movie itself wanders from scene to scene with little cohesiveness and little or no suspense.
They would like you to think that once you get to the end, all is known and everything will fit neatly and cleverly in place. Unfortunately, by the end of the movie you couldn't care less about it, the characters or the lame plot. It's too bad because the actors and cinematography weren't horrid and if applied to writing with an actual plot, might have made a nifty little suspense movie.
I'm always amused by the so-called "critics" with their effusive praise for movies like this. Most of the time, their bubbly praise is indicative of an association with the film itself (e.g. somebody's brother, brother-in-law, sister, investor, girlfriend, dog walker, etc). These are easy to spot due to the constant name dropping of the director, the actors and even a grip or two.
A good movie doesn't require any froofy prose from a self-impressed reviewer to convey its value. Just a straightforward description of style, plot, characterization, production values and any exceptional features. When the reviewer starts babbling about esoteric schmaltz it's a fair bet you'll be asleep in under 20 minutes!
Regards, The Other View
Housebound (2014)
Over-Hyped, amusing, lightweight diversion: enjoyable if your expectations are modest
Despite reservations stemming from some previous bad experiences with New Zealand horror films, I went ahead and watched this film anyway due to a 95% score by Rotten Tomatoes. Overall, the movie was reasonably amusing. But NOT a 95%! When the characters began acting unrealistically stupid, as is inevitable in lesser horror flicks, I didn't get too annoyed since it had already been established that the movie was more silly than serious.
Essentially, "Housebound" is a comedy with mostly seen-before horror elements. I think that if you are reasonably intelligent and have seen a few horror movies before watching this, you won't experience any real plot surprises. Probably due to this movie primarily being a comedy, its writers resorted to "Boo, made you jump" "scares" almost exclusively, rather than the more creative suspenseful creepiness of quality horror flicks.
Decent production values, acceptable acting, decent editing and a mostly acceptable pace make this movie reasonably watchable. On occasion I had difficulty understanding bits of dialog; a minor issue that I attributed to the thicker New Zealand accents of some characters.
This movie is for when you are looking for light entertainment that requires no significant thought, emotional investment or effort on your part to enjoy. It is good for a few chuckles and even an outright laugh or two. Its horror elements, while not appropriate for children, are tempered by the overall atmosphere of humor and silliness. Worth a watch on a rainy Saturday or when you are sick of romantic comedies and would like a comedy with a bit of a bite!
Regards, OV
Essentially, "Housebound" is a comedy with mostly seen-before horror elements. I think that if you are reasonably intelligent and have seen a few horror movies before watching this, you won't experience any real plot surprises. Probably due to this movie primarily being a comedy, its writers resorted to "Boo, made you jump" "scares" almost exclusively, rather than the more creative suspenseful creepiness of quality horror flicks.
Decent production values, acceptable acting, decent editing and a mostly acceptable pace make this movie reasonably watchable. On occasion I had difficulty understanding bits of dialog; a minor issue that I attributed to the thicker New Zealand accents of some characters.
This movie is for when you are looking for light entertainment that requires no significant thought, emotional investment or effort on your part to enjoy. It is good for a few chuckles and even an outright laugh or two. Its horror elements, while not appropriate for children, are tempered by the overall atmosphere of humor and silliness. Worth a watch on a rainy Saturday or when you are sick of romantic comedies and would like a comedy with a bit of a bite!
Regards, OV
The Anniversary (2012)
Sad little movie-the only true horror was the writing!
Based on the previous glowing reviews, you'd think this little indie film was an undiscovered gem. Or maybe, after you saw it, you'd suspect the reviewers were somehow affiliated with the film...or being charitable, just saw a different movie.
In any case, this movie is just plain bad. The dialog is inane, the characters are generally unsympathetic and their behavior is irritatingly stupid when the "action" begins. The so-called "action" was followed by 10 or so minutes straight of high-pitched caterwauling and lack of realistic responses by the characters/victims. The villains were lifeless cardboard cutouts. I hoped and couldn't wait for the lot of them to be killed off and this turkey to be over.
I appreciate those risk-takers who make indie movies. However, this one would have been better left at the junior high-school where it was probably written. See something else or don't say I didn't warn you!
In any case, this movie is just plain bad. The dialog is inane, the characters are generally unsympathetic and their behavior is irritatingly stupid when the "action" begins. The so-called "action" was followed by 10 or so minutes straight of high-pitched caterwauling and lack of realistic responses by the characters/victims. The villains were lifeless cardboard cutouts. I hoped and couldn't wait for the lot of them to be killed off and this turkey to be over.
I appreciate those risk-takers who make indie movies. However, this one would have been better left at the junior high-school where it was probably written. See something else or don't say I didn't warn you!
Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma (1975)
Not an Easy Film to Watch But Worth the Effort for the Horrid Insight
First off, this is not a pleasant, fun or "cool" movie. It is not for people that can be offended by a film. It is not for people that believe that movies must have limits on their content. If you like to assume you are a "tough" guy or gal, but in reality are sensitive to certain types of shocking behaviors, find some other form of "entertainment" than this. Do yourself a big favor and heed the warnings above, I'm not kidding!
All of that being said, this film is incredible if you can stomach the content. The movie is essentially anti-fascist or just anti-absolutist power propaganda and a terrifying warning. However, it is done in such a way as to pull you into the horror of unchecked power, e.g. Fascism, causing you to viscerally feel the evil these people are not only capable of, but feel entitled to inflict on others as casually as ordering a glass of wine at a restaurant. It is one thing to talk about the depths of evil, depravity and perversion that people can stoop to, it is quite another to experience it visually in the hands of talented director(s) actors and actresses.
In actuality, this is a horror movie. As such, it contains the horrific truth about the practice of fascism and where it always and ultimately leads if allowed to persist. In the end, it always results in the most horrific behaviors, the cruelest debasements and the total perversion of what it is to be human. Watching this, it slowly becomes sickeningly apparent how easily the horrific evils of WWII were released upon humanity by monsters, some who may have once been human.
Interestingly, the film incorporates pieces of Dante's Inferno interwoven with the story in order to demonstrate how easily hell can be found on earth. If you have read the Inferno, you know there are some disgusting punishments waiting for the damned. However, what it doesn't tell you is that the damned were the ones who invented said tortures in the first place.
Yes, this movie is most definitely art. Nowhere does it say that art is supposed to be pleasant, uplifting, happy and something you want to take home to grandma and the kids. Quite the contrary, sometimes art is shocking, sickening and disgusting. This movie is all of those things and more. If you are wearing life's "rose-coloured glasses", expect them to be torn off by the end of the movie.
Oh yeah, if you do decide to watch the movie, you might want to give some thought as to what the people involved in making it went through to complete it. Amazing!
Best Regards,
Other View
All of that being said, this film is incredible if you can stomach the content. The movie is essentially anti-fascist or just anti-absolutist power propaganda and a terrifying warning. However, it is done in such a way as to pull you into the horror of unchecked power, e.g. Fascism, causing you to viscerally feel the evil these people are not only capable of, but feel entitled to inflict on others as casually as ordering a glass of wine at a restaurant. It is one thing to talk about the depths of evil, depravity and perversion that people can stoop to, it is quite another to experience it visually in the hands of talented director(s) actors and actresses.
In actuality, this is a horror movie. As such, it contains the horrific truth about the practice of fascism and where it always and ultimately leads if allowed to persist. In the end, it always results in the most horrific behaviors, the cruelest debasements and the total perversion of what it is to be human. Watching this, it slowly becomes sickeningly apparent how easily the horrific evils of WWII were released upon humanity by monsters, some who may have once been human.
Interestingly, the film incorporates pieces of Dante's Inferno interwoven with the story in order to demonstrate how easily hell can be found on earth. If you have read the Inferno, you know there are some disgusting punishments waiting for the damned. However, what it doesn't tell you is that the damned were the ones who invented said tortures in the first place.
Yes, this movie is most definitely art. Nowhere does it say that art is supposed to be pleasant, uplifting, happy and something you want to take home to grandma and the kids. Quite the contrary, sometimes art is shocking, sickening and disgusting. This movie is all of those things and more. If you are wearing life's "rose-coloured glasses", expect them to be torn off by the end of the movie.
Oh yeah, if you do decide to watch the movie, you might want to give some thought as to what the people involved in making it went through to complete it. Amazing!
Best Regards,
Other View
Black Moon (1975)
Not an "Art" Film, Not A Genre Film, Not...well...Not Much
Liking or disliking this film appears roughly to be about a 50/50 split. In order to write a review that might add something useful to the many already written, I will try to point out some elements that could affect your enjoyment of this movie thereby helping you decide if you want to spend the time watching it, to wit:
First off, it's not sci-fi. It is a fetishistic, pseudo-erotic fantasy that will not be particularly arousing to most people in the mainstream. There were several scenes that collectively made me decide to take "Uncle Louis" (Louis Malle, the director) off of my "A" list of babysitters.
Secondly, while there are a few vague similarities to Charles L. Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll) "Alice in Wonderland", this thing is not even close. Dodgson's masterpiece combination of comically bizarre characters, charmingly absurd situations, wildly imaginative scenery and brilliantly logical dialogue remains both treasured and unmatched in all of history's known literature. On the other hand, this muddled romp through Louis Malle's rather...er..."peculiar" mind has all of the charm of a full-for-5-days, fish offal bin, on a hot August afternoon.
The reviews that allude to this film being allegorical and/or composed of a parable(s) and/or containing deep "messages" regarding war, social inequity, animal rights, etc., etc., ad nauseum must have Malle rolling on the floor, laughing hysterically. A more realistic interpretation is that Malle decided to knit together a bunch of idiotic scenarios that had formed in his head while he was thinking about the silly and/or contentious issues of the day (radical feminism, the Vietnam war, etc.) mixed with the black sludge contents of his own psyche. The end result being "Black Moon". The point is that there is no point to this movie and it is likely deliberate!
So, if you like watching films that are well-produced, well-photographed, artless euro- bourgeois, jumbled stream-of-consciousness, incoherent, pseudo-socially mindful, plot- free, products of Louis Malle's contemporary (to 1975) musings and possible masturbatory fantasies, then "Black Moon" is for you! Otherwise you might want to consider a good action-thriller and a tub of buttered popcorn (you'll have waaaaay more fun)!
Best Regards, OtherView
First off, it's not sci-fi. It is a fetishistic, pseudo-erotic fantasy that will not be particularly arousing to most people in the mainstream. There were several scenes that collectively made me decide to take "Uncle Louis" (Louis Malle, the director) off of my "A" list of babysitters.
Secondly, while there are a few vague similarities to Charles L. Dodgson's (Lewis Carroll) "Alice in Wonderland", this thing is not even close. Dodgson's masterpiece combination of comically bizarre characters, charmingly absurd situations, wildly imaginative scenery and brilliantly logical dialogue remains both treasured and unmatched in all of history's known literature. On the other hand, this muddled romp through Louis Malle's rather...er..."peculiar" mind has all of the charm of a full-for-5-days, fish offal bin, on a hot August afternoon.
The reviews that allude to this film being allegorical and/or composed of a parable(s) and/or containing deep "messages" regarding war, social inequity, animal rights, etc., etc., ad nauseum must have Malle rolling on the floor, laughing hysterically. A more realistic interpretation is that Malle decided to knit together a bunch of idiotic scenarios that had formed in his head while he was thinking about the silly and/or contentious issues of the day (radical feminism, the Vietnam war, etc.) mixed with the black sludge contents of his own psyche. The end result being "Black Moon". The point is that there is no point to this movie and it is likely deliberate!
So, if you like watching films that are well-produced, well-photographed, artless euro- bourgeois, jumbled stream-of-consciousness, incoherent, pseudo-socially mindful, plot- free, products of Louis Malle's contemporary (to 1975) musings and possible masturbatory fantasies, then "Black Moon" is for you! Otherwise you might want to consider a good action-thriller and a tub of buttered popcorn (you'll have waaaaay more fun)!
Best Regards, OtherView
Six: The Mark Unleashed (2004)
Accck! Sucker Punched Again....
I really hate it when a Christian movie masquerades as a thriller, sci-fi or horror. In all likely hood this is done in order to sucker people into watching their propaganda pieces. Usually, I can figure it out before wasting my time because of the lame movie introductory write-ups. Phrases like "left behind" and "end of days" along with terms like "revelation" and "repent" are dead giveaways.
This movie managed to avoid all such clues while hiding behind a sci-fi genre classification rather than "faith and spirituality" or "Christian". So, I got SUCKERED!!! But a few minutes into the story I noted that there was no swearing in situations when it was expected and that there was an "evil" telling people to have sex with anyone they wanted. Compounding that was the "evil" requiring virtually everyone to be on birth control and not letting humans continue to reproduce like rabbits and destroy the earth. It doesn't get more evil than that, for sure!!!
The movie pretty much had decent actors and decent production values. However, the religious preaching was extremely distracting from what otherwise might have been an OK "B" movie. Furthermore, all of the religious people were nauseatingly sweet and kind, far, far different than many of the self-avowed Christians I know. The dialog was stilted, artificial and as I noted previously, sanitized "to protect delicate pious ears".
Anyway, once I figured out that I had gotten suckered, I watched for a few more minutes, couldn't take the proselytizing and turned the infernal thing off. Usually, I will give an absolutely atrocious movie a couple of stars for good production values and maybe one more for a good cast. However, this movie's use of subterfuge and the constant preaching, cost it all but one star.
If you like Christian movies, I can't tell you if this is the right movie for you. But, if you don't like them, RUN don't walk away from this very annoying film. Finally, calling this thing "sci- fi" is just a lie. At best, because of its religiosity, it could qualify as faith and fantasy.
Religious films, religion and Christianity are fine by me. However, I don't want their pamphlets, their knocks on my door OR their propaganda, thinly disguised as a movie. I also can't stand that stoned look they get while regurgitating their canned spiels and their arrogant insistence that they KNOW the REAL truth. They even managed to reproduce those annoyances in this movie.
Do yourself a big favor...watch something else.
This movie managed to avoid all such clues while hiding behind a sci-fi genre classification rather than "faith and spirituality" or "Christian". So, I got SUCKERED!!! But a few minutes into the story I noted that there was no swearing in situations when it was expected and that there was an "evil" telling people to have sex with anyone they wanted. Compounding that was the "evil" requiring virtually everyone to be on birth control and not letting humans continue to reproduce like rabbits and destroy the earth. It doesn't get more evil than that, for sure!!!
The movie pretty much had decent actors and decent production values. However, the religious preaching was extremely distracting from what otherwise might have been an OK "B" movie. Furthermore, all of the religious people were nauseatingly sweet and kind, far, far different than many of the self-avowed Christians I know. The dialog was stilted, artificial and as I noted previously, sanitized "to protect delicate pious ears".
Anyway, once I figured out that I had gotten suckered, I watched for a few more minutes, couldn't take the proselytizing and turned the infernal thing off. Usually, I will give an absolutely atrocious movie a couple of stars for good production values and maybe one more for a good cast. However, this movie's use of subterfuge and the constant preaching, cost it all but one star.
If you like Christian movies, I can't tell you if this is the right movie for you. But, if you don't like them, RUN don't walk away from this very annoying film. Finally, calling this thing "sci- fi" is just a lie. At best, because of its religiosity, it could qualify as faith and fantasy.
Religious films, religion and Christianity are fine by me. However, I don't want their pamphlets, their knocks on my door OR their propaganda, thinly disguised as a movie. I also can't stand that stoned look they get while regurgitating their canned spiels and their arrogant insistence that they KNOW the REAL truth. They even managed to reproduce those annoyances in this movie.
Do yourself a big favor...watch something else.