javier1976

This was a very pleasant surprise. It´s a great creature feature about a guy that sets out on his own across a post apocalyptic California (I think it was California -though actually shot in Australia-) to get to his girlfriend. All actors (all but one -Michael Rooker- unknowns to me) do a good job. The special effects, while nothing to write home about, are perfectly fine, the creature design is pretty cool and the dog is adorable. I have probably overrated this a bit, but it´s been a long time since I enjoyed a movie so thoroughly that I ended up with a smile on my face.

This is not much of a horror movie, there is no sex, nudity, profanity (I´m not even sure if they say "sh@t" once), gore, suspense or even jump scares (not even ineffective ones). Techincally speaking it´s OK, the performances and camera work are perfectly adequate and the (few) effects are OK too, though nothing to write home about. It´s not scary or gory or funny, but it´s not boring or overlong, just something to pass the time and not much more than that. I guess that it might be OK for pre-teens but it´s not the greatest film to introduce kids to horror, if you can call it that (I read another review where they considered more of a fairy tale, and I kind of tend to agree).

It ain´t. The fight choreography is really lame most of the time, the shootouts are not particularly good and neither is the acting or the cinematography. The sound is not particularly good either, dialogue is at times inaudible or close to it and the sound mix (the different audio channels) sounded wrong to me (no pun intended). Some of the characters are more resilient than The Terminator, one in particular, is shot and stabbed multiple times and left for dead (and partly under water) and still he rises to continue fighting. Jason Voorhees would be proud. The stoy is not very good either and some scenes made it look like a comedy (unintentionally I´m certain) they were so ridiculous, the ending was lame too and the whole thing could have done with a shorter run time.

Not bad at all. I expected something cheap and lame but it is pretty decent, it´s no masterpiece or new cult classic, but it´s pretty entertaining, the performances are just fine and most of the gore/kills are really well done, which rather surprised me since this must have had a rather low budget. The only real negative for me is that I couldn´t always understand what they were saying due to their accent, but that´s more my failing than the movie´s.

I had been waiting for this movie for a long time, it had been in limbo for a while, but the things I read about it (I stopped watching trailers a few years ago, they spoil too much nowadays, and I also avoid movie stills most of the time for the same reason) made me think it would at least be mildly entertaining. Boy was I wrong. The first thing you'll notice are the special effects. The CGI is some of the worst I've ever seen, and I'm talking MS Paint quality level here. The aliens's masks are pathetic (and worse yet are their -I'm guessing CG- tongs). There are hardly any practical effects and they are are quite bad. The dubbing is awful and the acting isn't all that great either. The humor is quite ineffective, pretty much all of the jokes fall flat, at most you'll smirk or chuckle slightly once or twice. The actors's accents didn't do it any favors either. Pretty much the movie's only redeeming feature are a couple of moderately decent breasts. Definitely NOT recommended.

PS: in case you care, there are two scenes after the credits start rolling.

Whenever I watch a movie or TV show that adapts a book or comic I've read I expect it to be true to the source material. This, however, is not. The changes start out small, but as the movie progresses they become bigger and bigger. First and foremost the change of Melanie's ethnicity. In the book she is described as a bone white, blue eyed blonde. Here she is black. This "social justice warrior" casting appears to be becoming a trend with movies and TV nowadays, they've done it with Preacher's Tulip (another blonde) and The Dark Tower's Roland, who is most definitely white (he is supposed to look like a young Clint Eastwood, King himself said he based the character's appearance on him, and in the book his ethnicity plays an important part in his interactions with one of the main characters, but I digress). They also changed Miss Justineau's ethnicity, she is actually black in the book, and I think Gallagher was a redhead, though I'm not positive on that one. Second, there are no "junkers". In the book they are survivors that did not go into the safe zones/cities that were set up and survive on their own. They are the ones that attack the base by herding a huge horde of hungries to it and overrunning it. After the small group of survivors escape on a truck they are attacked by hungries while replenishing their water supplies and the truck breaks down. The nature and the timing of it (the breakdown) were also changed. Since there are no junkers hunting them down (like they do in the book) they decide to get to Beacon (the city the people from the base came from) by crossing through London. In the movie they appear to get there almost instantly, while in the book it takes them a couple of days or such, so several key scenes are missing. Also they seem to rush through the rest of the plot and many key elements are missing or were also changed. Doctor Caldwell's knowledge of the fungus that causes the infection is much more advanced in the movie than it is in the book, so many of the things she says, or the explanations she gives (like telling Melanie her origins and what she actually is) are completely different, in the book they come at a much slower pace and some are actually important reveals near the book's climax. After they get to the mobile lab pretty much everything was changed except the attack on Gallagher. The true nature of the threat they are facing, Melanie's actions when confronted to it, doctor Caldwell's actions in the mobile lab and basically everything else following the attack in the market are different, and very much so, except for the very last scene, which is pretty similar to the book's. The technical aspects of the movie are just fine and the city looks great, but the actual adaptation is rather poor. If you haven't read the book this will not be an issue for you, but I cannot overlook it.

First off let my start by saying that Garth Ennis's Preacher is my favorite comic ever and he has since become one of my favorite comic writers (the other being Warren Ellis). A Preacher TV adaptation had been in the works in one form or another for years now, but it was never a done thing until recently. When the first rumors first surfaced I was rather wary and feared the changes they would make to the source material, and even more so when I heard that it was being made by AMC, which has a poor track record when adapting comics (The Walking Dead barely follows the comic, and it changed a lot of things), but my wariness turned into dread when I found out that the person behind the adaptation was Seth Rogen. Absolutely nothing in the entire season actually happens in the comics (well, except for some of the Saint of Killers origin story -and even that was somewhat changed- and the fact that Genesis merged with Jesse, but the circumstances of the merger were completely different). I get it that apparently they meant this season as a kind of "prequel" to the comics, but Preacher didn't need a prequel, specially not one that made fundamental changes to all the characters and their relationships to each other. They changed Jesse's backstory, they depict him as a (mostly) dedicated preacher that wants to do right by his community, who uses the Word of God to help the people of Annville. They show him following on his father's footsteps as a preacher, when he was nothing of the sort (he was a Vietnam veteran). When the comics begin he was pretty much done with being a preacher (he was coerced into doing it actually) and his entire flock was burned alive when Genesis merged with him. They also show him as a big shot bank robber (along with Tulip), when in reality they were little more than car thieves. They changed Tulip to the point of her being unrecognizable as the character from the comics. First they make her out to be some kind of badass assassin, capable of bringing down a helicopter with a rocket launcher made from coffee cans, while when we meet her in the comics she is running away from her first botched assassination attempt (and while doing so she comes across Cassidy, who was sleeping under a tarp in the back of a truck she steals). She also tries to be cute, funny and sexy but she fails at all three, she instead comes across as annoying and totally unlikeable. Everything she does is completely uncharacteristic to the Tulip from the comics, who even goes so far as to have sex with Cassidy (presumably to spite Jesse), who she actually despises and distrusts in the comics. The first time we meet Cassidy he is fighting a group of vampire hunters (no such thing, vampires were apparently unknown even to an organization as powerful as the Grail) and then jumping off said plane in broad daylight. He should have burst into flames but he doesn't, he even survives the fall and proceeds to eat a cow... He pretty much walks around in broad daylight through the entire season, and he hardly ever wears his sunglasses. In the comics he never takes them off (until the last or second to last issue) and there's a reason for that. Also, on a more personal note, I can barely understand what he says 90% of the time. I know that he is supposed to be Irish, but he should tone the accent down a bit, he needs subtitles more badly than Arseface. Yet another thing they changed was how the Word manifests itself (no red eyes) and even how it works (the whole "got to hell Eugene"). They also changed the characters relationships to each other. The guys (Jesse, Cassidy and Tulip) didn't know sheriff Root or Arseface (who looks like crap by the way, he is nowhere near as hideous or deformed as in the comics) and they most certainly didn't know Odin Quincannon, who doesn't come into the comics until MUCH later and who is nowhere near Annville. In short they changed pretty much everything that made Preacher what it was, the show is missing its actual characters, its profanity (there was hardly a page without a f*ck in the comics) and its plot. Maybe they'll stop pissing all over the source material in season 2, but I doubt it, and even if they do they've already made fundamental changes to the main characters's personalities and backstories. Comics fans should stay away from this turd and beg that Rogen doesn't also "adapt" Ennis's "The Boys".

That is the word that best describes this anthology of Halloween themed stories; mediocre would be another. The stories are quite short and in most cases they fail to scare or amuse, the one exception being the one about a kidnapping, which I found rather funny and original. There is a fair amount of gore and most of it was created using practical effects, which is always nice, but they aren't particularly good, once again the word that comes to mind is mediocre. Also the stories are too short and end rather abruptly, you are usually left wondering, "wait, is that it?". In short this movie isn't bad, but it isn't particularly good either.

Rammbock tells the tale of a guy who goes over to his ex girlfriend's place to return her house keys. He finds the apartment empty so he goes in. Once there all hell breaks loose in the form of a zombie outbreak. He meets some kid working as a handyman at the building and together they barricade themselves inside the ex girlfriend's apartment. What follows is a more or less typical zombie siege scenario, with some differences. There are survivors in other apartments and they have supplies they need and the other way around, so they are not just trying to keep the zombies out (these are fast zombies), they are also trying to get to another apartment to get the supplies they need to trade with other neighbors. What is original is the way the zombie infection works (it is not immediate upon a bite like in every other piece of zombie fiction I've seen) and a certain weakness with the zombies that one of the characters discover rather late into the movie (which by the way is quite short, just one hour, credits and all, but the short length doesn't detract from the film, quite the opposite since most zombie movies seem to drag on towards the end). All in all a rather satisfying zombie movie with some original elements.

HBO did a great job with this show. I was afraid they may not follow the source material (like AMC did with "The walking dead") or that their depiction of certain events and people/creatures would suck) but I was pleasantly surprised. All of the cast members did a great job and most of them really fit the characters their were assigned. The production values are excellent, everything looks as if this were a big budget film, it really must have cost them a fortune to make this show. Except for a few (mostly minor) exceptions they were really true to the book and all of the major events were shown with as much detail as they were in the book. However there were some changes I didn't like. The biggest one is the age of the "children" (the Starks, Baratheons and Daenerys). Almost every single one (except maybe Arya) is way too old. Rob and Jon are 14 in the books. Here they look to be in their late teens or early twenties. The same goes for Daenerys, she is supposed to be 13, here she looks like 20. In her case it would be somewhat understandable since the producers were probably concerned about showing a 13 year old girl f*cking like she does, but in the case of the boys I see no valid reason for the change, and considering that the events in the books so far span a few years where you see the characters growing older the decision to cast older actors seems rather nearsighted. The biggest age difference is from Rickon (also known in the show as the invisible Stark :P). In the book he is about 2. Here he must be 6 or 7 at least. Another thing I didn't like were the scenes that weren't in the book, like the ones with The Spider and Littlefinger or the homo-erotic scene between Stannis and Loras Tyrell and the ones that are in the book but not in the show, namely the battles. There are only 2 battles in the first book but we only see their aftermath in the show (and in one of them an important fact -certain deaths- is not mentioned). I can understand that this may have been due to a time constraint (they were trying to fit the entire book in a mere 10 episodes) but if it was due to budget constraints one has to wonder what are they going to do in he following seasons? Books 3 to 4 (I haven't read 5 yet) have dozens of battles, some very large (including a naval battle), that are essential to the plot. If they choose to only show their aftermaths that will certainly detract from the show.

This is the best zombie movie I've seen in a long time. The film is dead serious (no pun intended), there are no attempts at humor (voluntary or otherwise) whatsoever. That alone sets it apart from about 90% of all recent zombie films. The 2 protagonists (the American looks a bit like Billy Bob Thornton at times) do a fine job delivering their (few) lines). The whole movie is rather bleak, and even though you see a lot of zombies and victims it is not overly gory. The effects are very good and there is no crappy CGI blood (or if there is any I didn't notice it). There are many zombies missing limbs (arms and legs) and I had read a while back that they even used real amputees, which is a nice touch. The other thing that sets it apart from all other zombie films is the setting. All of the movie takes place in the African savanna (from what I saw in the credits it was shot in Ghana and Burkina Faso), which leads to some gorgeous vistas while the characters try to reach their destination. And finally, it was shot on film, not on video or digital video, which I hate even more than CGI blood.

I like bad movies, I really do. Of the "so bad it's good" kind. This is NOT one of them. It is plain awful. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They attempted to make a zombie comedy (a la Shaun of the Dead, Tokyo zombie or even Zombies of mass destruction) but failed miserably. They try too hard. There isn't a single funny moment. The two "actresses" are anything but sexy, even in the few scenes when they try to be. The "music" drowns out a lot of the movie's dialog. Not that your are going to miss much, but it can get annoying. The whole thing seems to be an attempt to make some friend's rock band known. They even have a show in the middle of the zombie onslaught. The zombies "talk" (they mumble and they included some moronic lines that they act out) and go to restaurants to eat "finger food" (hands) or drink human blood out of a skull. They make TV shows. There is even zombie Hitler... Just pathetic Don't be fooled by the reviews posted by the director's friends or by the somewhat cool cover art. If only you could give negative points I would, it's THAT bad.

First off let me tell you this is my very first review. It might be the last one since I'm too lazy to do anything more than rate the movies I watch but I felt I needed to give my opinion on this show since it keeps getting rave reviews... I love all things zombie and one of my favorite pieces of zombie fiction is Robert Kirkman's The walking dead comic book. It's got everything you ever wanted in a zombie movie and more, so when I heard they were making a TV show out of it I was extremely excited. I was even more excited when I saw the first images of the cast, both human and zombies. I was still really excited after watching the first episode. It was quite true to the book, except for a few minor changes. All that changed in episode 2. They introduced new characters that weren't in the book which, up to a certain point, was to be expected so they could be cannon fodder since they would allow for more people to be killed. But what's even worse is that they changed the story and situations for some of the characters that are in the book. About 95% of the events until the season finale (a 6 episode season, really?) are complete fiction. The only things that happened where the attack on the camp and when Rick and Glenn smear themselves with zombie goo in order to go back into the city, and even the actual events surrounding that incursion were changed. On the technical side of things the zombies look great though they use (and somewhat abuse) CGI blood splatters, though not to the level found in movies such as Ninja Assassin (I don't think they used a single squib or a drop of fake blood). CGI blood looks awful, here, on Ninja Assassin or Survival of the Dead (a rather poor entry in Romero's ... of the Dead series)... Despite all of these shortcomings it still is an entertaining piece of zombie fiction and it continues to be the only TV show dealing with zombies (the only other one I know is Dead Set, a British mini series), but unless they start following the book in season 2 the shortcomings will surpass the few merits it has. This is not Robert Kirkman's The walking dead. This is AMC's The walking dead.