haskel-72951

This is absolutely nowhere near as bad as critics would lead you to believe. Make no mistake, it certainly isn't great either. The performances pull this rather formulaic and predictable sci fi horror through, especially the young members of the cast. This is a film that will be scoffed and laughed at in a decade, it almost certainly will be torn apart by rifftrax by then. For now, it's decently entertaining and a little scary. AI is still young enough to be both exciting and terrifying and this movie does a good enough job of capitalizing on that to serve as a solid time passer on a streaming platform.

This is certainly not what I expected. With Ben Stiller starring and David Gordon Green directing, I certainly did not expect a defiantly indie film. Bur that is what we have, and it works incredibly well. It is by far the most heartfelt thing Green has ever made and the most human and real role Stiller has tackled in forever. It is so down to earth that I wanted to adopt these kids by the end. The four real brothers that play the four in the film are just amazing. Rarely do you get performances this great from child performers but we do here. Just a great film, regardless of what the naysayers here say.

Once again, Shudder offers us an exclusive that no one asked for and few will remember. The Nightman is not a horror movie, and it barely qualifies as a thriller. It is a muddled mess of a drama that wants to be more and thinks it is a lot more clever than it is. It is long, slow, and in spite of its attempts at misdirection predictable. The characters- other than the female lead - are impossible to care about. They are either stereotypes or so poorly developed that we do not care who they even are. Offerings like this make it hard to justify paying for Shudder, but somehow I keep doing it. It HAS to improve, right?

I chose that title because we hear those two words at least a hundred times in this very very short film. Mark - an annoying, weak, oblivious character is tasked with going to deer camp alone after his brother Tim breaks his leg. Tim asks him to "film everything" and man...does he ever. I'm not gonna lie, this is an hour long but it feels like it's at least three times that long. For the majority of the runtime, Mark narrates nothing for Tim. Then his daughter shows up. Then things get extra heavy duty dumb. Look, I get that this was made for absolutely nothing. I only wish wannabe filmmakers would get that not everyone can make a decent movie.

The one and two star reviews for this movie are just ridiculous. Is it groundbreaking? No. Is it totally fresh and original? Again, no. It's not horrible either. I went i to this expecting nearly nothing and was pleasantly surprised. The story is solid, the acting is strong - especially David Hyde Pierce - who we just don't see enough of anymore. It is much better than The Pope's Exorcist and its hilariously poor ending. It takes a lot for a mainstream horror movie to keep me invested and interested and this one managed to do that. That in itself is worth an extra star on a ten star system, making this a 7.

When will I learn? Just seeing the words Grindstone Entertainment on screen tells you. That you're in for B movie at best. In this case, it's more like a C- movie. Minka Kelly, Maggie Grace, and Dermot Mulroney are wasted in what amounts to a really slow and lame ripoff of Gaslight and countless other psychological thrillers. Giant old creepy house? Check. History of mental illness? Check. Lots of easy to see through red herrings? CHECK! If not for the recognizable names in the cast, this could be a Lifetime Movie Network original, and that's using the word "original" very loosely. Nothing to see here.

I've watched a lot of bad indie horror. Terrible indie horror even. I can tolerate a lot - bad effects, lousy acting, bad dialogue...all forgiveable. Boring, however, is another matter altogether. That brings us to The Mistress, a movie that makes the lamest Lifetime movie seem thrilling and fresh. It would be impossible to include any spoilers in this review as there is virtually nothing to spoil. Even the "big twist" that I'm certain the screenwriter was very proud of is telegraphed for most of the excruciatingly long runtime. I could imagine what sort of horrible torture I would have to be threatened with that could get me to sit through this again.

I wish I knew why I still pay for Shudder. Very little new content is added and when it is, it is either "Shudder exclusive" nonsense like this and In A Violent Nature or a "Shudder Original " like...well, name any Shudder Original, they pretty much all stink. This one is yet another average possession film, with the distinction of Australian accents. Shudder was much better before it was under the dubious wing of AMC. At least then there was the possibility of finding an older classic to revisit. Now? Not so much, plus all the new stuff absolutely suck. Skip this, and skip Shudder if that's at all possible.

Well, this is a real endurance test. It will most certainly try your patience - and you will need a lot of that to make it through this slog of a film. I have so many questions: some pertaining to the plot and the events unfolding on the screen but mostly, just... why? WHY??? Why would James Franco sign up for this dreck? Why would Francesca Eastwood say "sure, this is a solid project@? And most importantly, why is Taryn Manning - a very strong actress - always relegated to garbage like this? Watch if you must, but just know: you'll struggle to stay awake, you'll laugh at f to he nonsensical subplots, and you will have questions.

Lots and lots of hate on here for this movie. I'm assuming it's from people that either aren't familiar with Larry Fessenden's work or don't appreciate it for what it is. As a fan of Fessendon's earlier works, I loves this. It is indie horror at its basic best. No new subgenres - so no, it's not "meta" - just indie slow burn horror with a solid dose of black comedy. Larry's last feature explored the Frankenstien mythos and was far less successful than he is with this - an exploration of werewolf mythology. The main reason is that this film is edited much more frugally, Fessenden had always struggled with that, and this film is his first in years that reigns him in.

I have no idea what movie the people who are hating on this watched but it wasn't this one. This is a very engaging, tense ride. We basically have the scum of society in the digital age versus the angel of retribution, except the angel is flawed indeed. The performances are strong, one in particular is chilling (I don't do spoilers, so I won't say which one.) Do yourself a favor, watch the movie and draw your own conclusions, you will either love it or hate it - no middle ground seems to exist here. I'm firmly in the "love it" camp. Myself. Your mileage may vary, be sure to let us know after watching.

I've seen a lot of really cheap, bad movies but this.... my GOD, this.... I cannot even begin to put into words how bad this is. The screenplay is amateurish at best and the acting - IF you can call that acting- is so atrocious that it's laughable. If you're going to make a movie - that is, if you're going to make a movie and have the financing necessary to do so - use film. Video looks cheap no matter how hard you try. They didn't try here, this looks like it was filmed with a camcorder from 1987. There actually is a story worth telling buried somewhere in the ineptitude of this film, but it cannot be realized here.

Much maligned by critics, this film ks actually not bad. Filmed in 2015 and 2016, completed in2016, Distributor Lionsgate shelved the film until a quiet VOD release in 2018. Critics tore it apart when they finally had a chance to see it, and that was undeserved. It really isn't that bad. Jim Carrey turns in an absolutely riveting performance as a homicide detective who will not accept an easy answer. He actually proved - to me at least - with this performance that he can actually be a serious actor. Could it be better? Of course. It is directed lazily and edited with an Eastern European meat cleaver. It is an acceptable time passer though.

What a misstep for Isaac Rodriquez. I had hopes that he was on the right track after A Town Full Of Ghosts and (less impressively) Mister Creep. I was actually excited to see this. I should have been more cautious. This is lousy in every possible way: poorly written, poorly acted, hamfisted editing, and apparently filmed by a volunteer with bad intentions. I understand that it was made on a shoestring budget, but come on: at least TRY to make it watchable, because it really isn't. Maybe next time the filmmaker will slow down, actually write a coherent script, and make an at least average low budget film. This one is far below that.

Those of you that hated this: what did you expect? It's a low budget, summer PG-13 horror movie. It's made to appeal to a younger audience and edited to make sure no one is TOO scared. It's perfectly fine for that purpose. It isn't very original, it's only scares are of the jump variety and no, it certainly will not "stay with you" or "haunt you". You'll likely forget everything about it in a couple of days. Sometimes that's ok. Occasionally, when it's a hundred degrees outside, a completely forgettable mainstream horror movie fills 90 minutes and allows you to cool off. That is this movie. Forgettable Diversion: The Movie.

This may be a finalist for worst movie of all time. Now, there are two kinds of bad movies: so bad they're good and so bad they're unwatchable. This is firmly in the latter camp. Two of the most fraudulent, dislikable people on earth go to a cabin in the woods to better understand how it changed their friend's life. It COULD have worked. It would have required the filmmaker to have fun with the idea. He did not. Every second of this pretentious crap is deadly serious. One gets the feeling that the filmmaker has never had a moment of fun in his life and wants his audience to be just as miserable as he is. Don't fall for it, don't bother watching this sorry mess.

Contrary to some opinions, this is not the worst movie ever made. I reserve that title for If She Screams, a movie with a much larger budget. It IS, however, completely awful. With that said I highly doubt more than fifty bucks were spent in the making of this alleged film. There have been home movies made by children that are for more professionally made than this. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the direction is incompetent, the effects are hilarious, yet somehow the screenplay is the worst of all. It veers wildly from stupid to downright offensive to totally braindead. There is no reason to subject yourself to this trainwreck.

As an action film, Monkey Man truly shines. As a social commentary - which it seems to really want to be - I'm not sure if it does or not. Maybe if I knew more about Indian politics I'd be more invested. As far as plot goes, the movie makes you work for it. And then some. The backstory is fed to us in very small, nonlinear flashbacks, making the first thirty minutes of the film a bit of a chore. It is worth the slog to get to the amazing action sequences - of which there are really only two, but they are long, and beautifully photographed and choreographed. I give credit where it is due to Patel for ambition, and he nearly got it all right. Nearly.

And I'll call it "trash". Man is this lousy. I'm not sure what annoying filter this is shot through but I'm absolutely sure it would have looked better shot through a potato. The writer had a halfway decent idea but budgetary constraints, amateur acting, and bizarre directoral choices doomed it. Possibly with a bigger budget it could have been decent, but I seriously doubt it. There's a song in the soundtrack that repeats the word tempted a lot, and I certainly was tempted quite a bit - to turn this dreck off. As I have stated many times, it is very possible to make a really enjoyable film on a shoestring budget, too bad these folks couldn't do it.

What. A. Load. Of. Crap. There are only a few critics that I usual trust, and Jim Morrazini of Voices From The Balcony is one of them. Except...he gave this steaming pile of trash 4.5 stars out of 5. It's the only reason I watched this movie. I want my hour and twenty some minutes of life back that I wasted on this horribly written, amateurishly directed, poorly acted mess. London May should stick to playing drums for washed up metal bands, for an actor he is not. There is not a single second of this that isn't bad. I admire what the filmmakers were trying to do, but they failed miserably. Possibly the worst movie I've seen this year.

It's hard to say what's worse here: the acting, the writing, or the editing. They are all atrocious. There is zero chance that anyone in this zero budget mess is a professional actor so I'd have to say the writing is the real stinker. I have watched a lot of ultra low budget films that manage to to be interesting and even entertaining. This one manages to be dull, lifeless, amateurish, and downright insulting to one's intelligence. I will make a point to remember the names of those responsible for this garbage to ensure that I never waste another moment of my life watching any other alleged films they make.

I have watched - as far as I know - every feature film that writer/director Richard Mansfield has made. They have ranged from slow and hard to finish to average at best. All found footage, all low budget, but the guy has talent behind the lens. I have into each film hoping that this is the time he finally puts it all together, I have come away each time thinking "maybe next time." This one is a large step in the right direction. The characters are fairly believable, the plot is well developed, dialogue (which has been an issue with past efforts) feels more natural. It still needs more substance in it's middle act, but this is oh so close to being recommendable. It's Mansfield's best so far, and has me hoping the next continues this progression.

Remember when Scout Taylor-Compton had a career? I mean a REAL career, when she was landing decent roles in theatrical films, not in cut rate, bottom of the barrel garbage like this. Maybe she needs a new agent, maybe she made the wrong people mad...who knows. Anyway, this alleged film is absolutely laughably bad. From the horrible acting, the nonexistent production values, and that stupid song - "they turned us into killers/we're the Millers. Seriously, grownups sing that, more than once. I watch a lot of low budget movies. I find some gems, I find a lot of trash. This one is decidedly in the trash category. Nothing to see here, move along.

I will never understand the need to go online and bash a very good movie. Have I bashed horrible movies? Yes. This is far from that. This is Shymalon at his best. I put it a notch above Split and one below Unbreakable. That's high praise from me. As a side note, I hated The Village, The Happening, and (ugh) Lady In The Water so I'm not exactly a big fan of the guy. This, however, is first rate filmmaking. I'm sure I'll get hate over this review, but if I can get a few folks to watch this as it is intended to be seen with an open mind, I'm OK with it. Willis is later Willis, yes. Jackson is good as usual. But McAvoy...man what an amazing actor.

The Unheard has a runtime of 2 hours and 5 minutes. It feels three times that long. The main reason for that is this film has no idea what it wants to be. Is it a body horror? A psychological thriller? A ghost story? A serial killer movie? Well, it tries to be all this and succeeds at none. The movie suffers from its runtime, it could have used a rewrite with an emphasis on choosing one direction and also an editor that wasn't afraid to speak up. A decent cast is basically wasted in a boring mess of a movie that is bloated beyond reason. Oh, and if you are epileptic or suffer from motion sickness, stay far away from it. The director really thinks strobe lights and high frequency noise is cool. It's not.