refeahcs

This is an odd film with long scenes of dialogue that go on too long and other scenes with sudden fits of explosive violence. It reminded me a lot of 1982's ALONE IN THE DARK in that manner. TGWGA is not terrible, definitely not incompetent. The script and the editing needed to be more focused and tightened. As an editor of 15+ years, I saw many pauses that could have been pulled up and bits of repetitive dialogue that could have been trimmed to cut a good 10 minutes out of this film without losing a single scene, although I would have jettisoned the one truly bad scene with the social worker at Christina's home late in the movie. It's not well acted and is unintentionally funny. At 116 minutes, many will find this movie to be plodding, not thrilling.

I wish this thriller had a little less talk and a little more thrill to it. I wish the backstory of the serial killer was fleshed out a bit more and that the movie had less characters/subplots. I hope the makers of this film get a chance to make another movie and hone their skills because there's definitely talent behind the camera.

Some people in the woods. Something bad happens. They're in peril and don't know why. A few shocks. Paper-thin characters yelling at each other. You've seen this before. The reason behind "the "hunt" is told in the most ridiculous manner. Late in the game, there is a development between two characters that doesn't really get resolved due to what I thought was an abrupt ending. Nice-looking quality to the movie, but you're much better off sticking with THE RITUAL!

This movie might have been okay if it was a short. Oh, wait. It basically was a short in George Romero's TV anthology show "Monsters" called "Pillow Talk". A writer feeds unsuspecting people to a thing and gets great book ideas in return. I'll give it this much, A BRILLIANT MONSTER looks good. I'm not sure why it was shot in ultra-widescreen, but it looks nice. The acting is community theater bad, and the pacing is even worse for a movie that's only 86 minutes long. Like I said, 20 - 25 minutes tops would have been really beneficial. Better luck next time, kids!

Low budget affair lacking laughs in the comedy department and lacking scares in the horror department. The hot blonde and the chunky bald guy who was to be the main course were decent enough, but everyone else seemed like community theater types. Seems like it was shot mostly at the director's house over the weekend. Even at 80+ minutes, this movie was stretched beyond its limits. It might have made a better 30-minute short in an anthology movie.

I did not expect much from this movie. I got more than I bargained for. The world-building was pretty fantastic. The direction was great. The movie was tense, brutal, and episodic. This is not a boring low budget film that doesn't deliver the goods. It promises and delivers. And it's always nice to see Lance Reddick in a grenre picture. He just elevates everything he's in.

On the downside, I felt like 10% of the movie was missing, especially in the first 30 minutes where things are referenced that the audience didn't see happen or where characters are suddenly in another location without explanation. Perhaps those scenes were shot and didn't work. Perhaps the film makers removed scenes for pacing. I would've liked a little more connective tissue.

Good movie for a rainy day.

A lot of low budget horror movies end up just like RATTLESNAKE. They stretch the story and the viewer's patience as best they can to reach that full feature length when they really should have remained a leaner 30-minute short in a horror anthology of sorts. There's a pretty good set-up that winds up spinning its wheels for 50 minutes or so until it reaches its underwhelming finale. You barely get to know the main characters or the evil behind the driving force of the story. Hildiitch's adaptation of SK's 1922 for Netflix got a boost from an almost unrecognizable Thomas Jane in the lead. Ejogo's performance feels, for lack of a better work, lacking. While I didn't hate what I was viewing, I sure didn't like checking my watch every 5 minutes either.

What a piece of...

I am not that familiar with Daredevil and his world, but it can't possibly be as one-dimensional and as poorly acted as the one I saw portrayed in the upcoming February 14th release. Collin Ferrell is actually B-A-D as the bad guy Bullseye. He's just plain terrible!!! And his special ability is...he can throw things really fast?! L-A-M-E!!! Jennifer Garner's Electra is not much more than a token love interest. Apparently, she is a superhero...but do they ever tell the audience that in the film? Nope. She's just this normal girl who apparently can leap 150 feet from building-to-building. There's literally no explanation for why she can do this. The plot is thin and sometimes incoherent while a lot of the dialogue is hokey. The action tries to rip off THE MATRIX at every turn with it's own take on bullet-time. Some of the special effects are bad as can be while Ben Affleck is at his Ben Affleckiest throughout the film's entirity.

In fact, the only good things I can say about the film are #1) a quick cameo by Stan Lee early on and #2) a rain-soaked scene between Garner and Affleck where he explains how and why he loves the rain. You'll understand that too when you see the film (even though YOU SHOULDN'T!!!) It's quite a beautiful little moment.

Other than that DAREDEVIL is a travesty to the superhero movie. Guess I'm looking forward to X-MEN 2 more than I thought I would.Sorry, True Believers. Instead of DD...it's more like D-U-D.