oldkingsol

Very disappointed. Got an hour into it and just about all they talked about was Fleetwood Mac. Stevie was hardly on the screen at all. They gave a few details, but it wasn't really 'about' her. It was 'about' her bandmates, mostly. Maybe it added more about her in the last 1/2 hour, but I couldn't stomach any more of it. I didn't watch this for interviews with them, about them. Even if they were interviewing them extensively about HER, it would have been fine. If you like the band _and_ her, and are interested in a show about all of them, not just Stevie, you'll probably enjoy this one. But I was interested in Stevie. Her bandmates should have been side notes given the title of the thing, but they weren't. If I wanted to watch McVie at al droning on endlessly about THEIR lives in interviews, I would have looked for a doc titled "Fleetwood Mac" or some such.

So disappointing.

It's a great show about prison escapes, as far as the show goes! It's just a little difficult to enjoy with the constant overdramatic music in the background. Freeman is, as usual, an excellent narrator. And his role in "Shawshank Redemption" readily comes to mind while watching the show. But the dang music is obnoxious. It doesn't drown out the narration or anything, it's just loud enough - and never, ever, ever takes a break! - to be distracting.

I can almost hear the background dialog through the foreground music. At least, I assume it's supposed to be foreground, and the narration is supposed to be background. Otherwise, there would be no earthly justification for having the music as loud as it is. Interesting enough videos, but unenjoyable due to the obnoxious music.

There's something to be said for sitting back and enjoying a B movie once in awhile. If you aren't already into B movies, then don't bother, because this is definitely in that category.

A SyFy style movie, only lower budget. It has every. single. -CLICHE- in the book - the snotty, angst-riddled teenage daughter, the smart, dorky super-brainy scientist mom who doesn't have a clue how to be a good parent, the evil manipulative scheming b***ard who makes trouble and then blames it all on the protagonist, the ex-hippies, the love-interest in peril - everything.

I was enjoying it as much as I usually do until about 50 minutes in, when the main teenage character began experiencing a diabetic crisis. Her blood sugar was going low. So naturally, her mother began frantically doing everything in her power to find some insulin for the girl. Sugary drinks wouldn't do it, "...she must have insulin, NOW!" :-|

That basically ruined any semblance of enjoyment I -had- been getting from the movie. My tolerance for scientific illiteracy is pretty high when it comes to these types of movies, but -this-? I was so, so, so, so, SOOOOOOooo disappointed. I mean, the scientific stuff was already garbage (which I didn't mind, as it's par for the course), but you'd thought they could have at least gotten that one very, very simple, excruciatingly well-known fact right - that if your blood sugar's going low, the LAST thing you want to get for it is insulin. Unless perhaps the mother was secretly trying to murder her own daughter amidst the crisis? Now -that- could've made for an interesting plot device. ;-) But alas, that wasn't their intent.

Am I really all that much more brainy than the average actor, script-writer and studio exec that I possess the esoteric knowledge of how diabetes works? :-?

Other than that, like I said, it's typical SyFy-esque B-movie fair. If ignorance about diabetes doesn't bother you, and you usually like B-movies, you might enjoy this. Otherwise, if you don't like clichés or cheese, avoid it like the plague.

If you appreciate subtlety and dry humor, and can overlook some seemingly-wooden acting, this might be worth it. I say ''seemingly'' wooden acting because in some ways, given the context of the culture and futuristic era in which this is to have occurred, a sort of bland, passionless mannerism would actually make a great deal of sense. The world is a hopeless, dull place, filled with nothing but drudgery and monotony, and no hope of things ever changing for these people. So that, while it may not appeal to a lot of movie-watcher's tastes, is actually a rather logical thing to include, assuming it was deliberate. Even if it wasn't, it worked for me.

It's very slow-paced, not an action film at all, and events are presented in a very non-linear way (scenes pop up out of nowhere, and they don't make much sense until later on in the film - that worked well for me, to maintain interest). Something similar in feel to Ryan Reynold's ''The Nines'', though lower-budget.

The visuals were somewhat reminiscent of 1990s CGI, but nice just the same, and the concept was very intriguing. Pay attention to the guide's outfits, and how the props change from scene to scene while on ''the ship'' - it's all very subtle, and this type of visual subtlety works its way throughout the entire movie.

There is full-frontal male nudity in a few scenes, but it's not gratuitous, vulgar or overtly-sexual at all. I suppose the story -could- have been made without it, but it did help add a bit of realism to certain things.

All-in-all, I think it takes a fairly rare temperament to enjoy this sort of film. If you're not sure after about 15 minutes, just watch until you've seen a few minutes of their interaction with the occupant of the 'ship', as that frames the tone for the rest of the movie. By then, you should know if you want to see the rest of it or not.

For my own part, I think I probably enjoyed this more than most people would. But if it sounds like it -might- appeal to you, I definitely recommend checking it out. :-)

First, let me state that in spite of the claims of Cameron and those who support him (and who have attempted to artificially raise this movie's ratings with fake profiles and fake reviews), I, as someone who hated this movie, have nothing against Christians or Christianity. Not at all. Most everyone I know and love _are_ Christians. Die-hard, conservative, dyed-in-the-wool Fox-news-loving fundamentalist Christians. And even THEY thought this movie sucked.

That Kirk tried to use religious guilt on people to have the ratings artificially inflated is just pathetic. Seriously, dude, you have a problem. You need help. Get some. :-/ My opinion of this movie is pretty much the same as the opinions of EVERYONE I know who's actually had the misfortune of deciding to give it a try. It would be pure camp if those who made it weren't being so stone-faced serious. It's patronizing, condescending, childish and just downright _bad_. And it's not the message, itself - even those I know who agree with the central point Kirk's trying to make see the movie as doing more harm than good.

As for that illicit ratings-inflating campaign, it appears to be bearing fruit. When you have a movie with overwhelmingly bad ratings (and I man REALLY bad, where most are just 1-star with, shall we say, "Nothing nice to say..."), and just a couple of profiles with 10-star ratings and glowing things to say, and ALL of those 10-star profiles were clearly just set up just to make the glowing review about just that one movie... I'm not going to outright accuse anyone of anything, but, well, it doesn't inspire confidence in their legitimacy.

I mean seriously, dude, stop it. You're not helping Christianity's image at all. In fact, you're making it worse. Even if you don't care about your own image, you should seriously give thought to how much more damage you want to do to the Christian image in the U.S. today. Or are you a closet atheist trying to destroy the "enemy" from within? Your actions are hurting far more than helping.

And I have nothing against Christianity or religion in general. If people want to be proud of their religion and remind themselves of the spin Christianity has added to the meaning of all these previously-existing traditions and holidays, that's wonderful. But this? This isn't _that_. This is just pandering, patronizing, exploiting - pure and simple.

Please, Kirk, get help.

Lots of ideas being bandied about, but I'm pretty sure I get what's happened. Major spoilerage, though, so don't read if you haven't already seen the movie - but might.

That said... I'd wager that everyone was already dead at the beginning of the movie. The couple were ghosts who didn't realize they were already dead, thus the girl whispering, "Don't open it" in her sleep near the beginning of the movie and then again at the end just before revealing her corpse. After panning across her corpse at the end, you could see that the chain was hanging off the door - it was already unlocked. That's the way the door was near the beginning, when Alex first opened the door to let David in - he noticed the door had already been unlocked and the chain hanging there, and had to go back into his apartment to retrieve the key so he could lock it again.

David, too, was already a ghost by that point. As was the woman in the apartment upstairs - though I suspect she wasn't one of David's victims, but just another ghost living in the building. It's possible that the playing with the lights _could_ have been the living, who they couldn't see - kind of like in "The Others".

That's my guess, at least. Makes more sense (to me) than some of the other speculations I'd seen. I don't see any parallels to "Paranormal Activity" at all, and in fact would say this movie exceeds the PA franchise by a great deal in terms of quality.

I was very, very hesitant to watch this flick. I'd thought it was going to be an advertisement for Scientology in sci-fi movie form, but it really wasn't. I mean, I don't know if some aspects of it were consistent with Scientology dogma or not, and I don't care - I'm not going to become some glossy-eyed xombie convert either way.

While there were a few glaring absurdities in the plot, I must say I actually enjoyed watching this. Oh, yes, there -is- cheese - plenty of it, in fact. But overall, I've enjoyed less well-made movies. I think the negative expectations on this one was due largely to the negative publicity by anti-Scientology critics, who tore it to shreds simply because it was associated with L. Ron Hubbard. Had it not been for that, I think it would have been much more well-received.

Now don't get me wrong - it's far from "great" by any means. But while I know this is no huge compliment, I'd say it's better than most flicks put out by SyFy. The visual effects were fairly well-done, too.

Damaging to its believability first and foremost is the way that people living at the level of cave-dwelling Neanderthals learn to fly fighter jets in just a few hours - and maneuver like pros. It's also less-than- believable to think that an entire planet could blow up just from exposure to a low-yield nuclear bomb, or that the Psyclon's breath would explode if exposed to radioactivity.

So yes, there are definitely absurdities. I still enjoyed it, though. So if you can overlook a certain level of absurdity in your sci-fi, give it a try. You might be pleasantly surprised as I was.

A typical revenge flick - class outcast dies as a result of atrocious treatment from his classmates (suicide, true, but he wouldn't have if he'd had a moment's peace), comes back from the grave to exact bloody revenge.

The acting was acceptable, even pretty good for some of the characters. But character development itself was rather weak. Especially the character of the main antagonist, Darren. Then again, I guess it's hard to portray a very animated personality when the character's primary action consists of being a teen-killing zombie. ;-)

As for the action, I don't really need to give away any spoilers - nothing new at all, the movie is quite thoroughly predictable. The best parts were the two sex scenes. Other than that, it was okay for passing time or for a late night horror flick craving.

This movie has absolutely nothing in common with the first, except for its name. And unlike the same trick when tried by the makers of "The Skeleton Key 2", this one is thankfully much, much better than the first.

It's still not what I'd call "great", but it's watchable. It's just that the first "Alone in the Dark" sucked SO MUCH, that almost -anything- would be much, much better in comparison.

While there aren't a ton of special effects, the few that exist were done very well. The main male character's acting was flat, but then so were his well-defined and oft-shown abs, so I guess he can be forgiven that.

All the characters were rather shallowly written. Lance Henrickson and Bill Mosley are the most well-known stars, but even their characters were written to about the same degree of quality as the lesser-known actors. They played them well, but there really wasn't much all that impressive to play.

Still, like I said, it's watchable. It'll keep you entertained to some degree while it's on, just don't expect to be blown away.

I'm sure my impression of it would have been much better had I listened to it in the original French. But William Shatner was a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE choice for the voice of the English version. His raspy, shaky voice and constant non-verbal noises he kept making just utterly ruined it. In the prior release, for English-speaking audiences, I suppose we were spoiled by Antonio Bandaras' as the cat. Shatner's Puss was just plain nails-on-chalkboard awful. Totally ruined any potential enjoyment I might have been able to get out of it. The story itself was okay, though definitely a bit on the "silly" side - but it doesn't seem to be geared towards an adult audience, so that's okay.

I can't really comment on the French version, though surely they had to have a better voice than Shatner. If you're listening to it in English, just don't expect an experience even remotely similar to the original movie release. This movie was nothing like it. At. All.

I'm not going into any great detail, but just wanted to say that for some reason, I wasn't expecting this to be very good simply because it starred Jason Behr. And I have no idea why - I guess it's just that he doesn't strike one as the "tough guy" type that the cover art portrayed the main character as being. I found out after I began watching it, though, that the character isn't really so much "tough guy", however, as "troubled good guy", and that works for Behr. Not to mention that he's definitely chiseled up his physique for this - the bod was as hard as you could want it to be. The scares are semi-jumpy, based more on "eewww..." than "AAAUUGGHH!!!" It's got tension and a mystery that's slowly unwound. The only thing I didn't get is how Behr's character somehow just "knew" that a girl he'd lifted something from half a world away would just "be" in New Zealand. That didn't make sense. But overall, I wasn't expecting an enjoyable movie but I got one anyway. :-)

The actors were so likable in this, I feel bad saying anything negative about it, but yet this really was a rather dull movie. It's really not for anyone who is looking to be entertained, though it is somewhat interesting from the perspective of someone wanting to study the film-making process. The reason for this is that the process is pretty obvious, here - in truly terrific filmmaking, you can't tell what's going on "behind the scenes", so to speak - i.e., casting, special effects, acting... But with this, there really isn't any way to forget that it's a movie and get lost in the story.

Still, it's interesting enough for me, but I tend to be able to enjoy things most people wouldn't waste toilet paper on. So I can't recommend this for most folks. Look up some previews and clips on YouTube or some such, and just from that you should be able to tell if it's your type of thing or not, as the entire film is made with pretty much the same pacing and tone the whole way through (slow and dull).

I must admit, however, the guy who was the lead actor (at least for a time) was pretty cute, and not too bad at it, either. Hope to see more of him. :-)

As a story, "Lake Mungo" was actually pretty decent. As a movie, it was a bit on the drab and flat, uneventful side. There wasn't much action to keep it visually interesting, but enough plot twists to keep your attention. I recommend it if you like plot over visual appeal, definitely avoid it if you need visual or auditory stimulation.

Naturally, it's a fictitious story billed at the start as "true events". Alice was an interesting enough character, though I can't help but to think the movie would really have benefited with more time and attention spent getting to know her (the actress playing her was a perfect fit for the part, visually speaking - very believable as a "complex, troubled young woman" type). The first plot twist initially feels like a letdown, but stick with it through that - the spook factor definitely picks back up again and in the end, you're left with a mildly pleasing ghost story.

The tension and gore were enjoyable enough, but the ending just left me feeling, "WTF?" Perhaps the version I'd seen was "incomplete"? I dunno', but I had -no- idea what the ending was supposed to mean - and with that, let me state before I get into it that in this review, I -am- giving it away, such as it is, so don't read on if you still plan to see this claptrap.

To think that some mutilated cannibal girl could so easily and completely overpower and obliterate a relatively young and healthy art student with no apparent health problems or major blood loss - it stretches the limits of even B-grade horror. It just made no sense whatsoever. And you can tell pretty much from the first few seconds of the film that you would be encountering the missing girl at some point. You knew right away who the "2 or 3 sets of clothes" had belonged to the moment they were found.

The experience of the movie itself was enjoyable enough, but if you like your movies to make sense, the ending of this one just totally ruins it. Great watch if you don't care about that, though. Decent enough acting (not the best on all fronts, but not the worst, either), decent enough gore and such - just not the best plot resolution I've seen.

I loved Scott Leet's performance, but I have to say the primary, fundamental and defining ingredient was very ludicrously omitted: Bonin's motivation. Bonin was motivated not only by the power & mania as depicted, but also and primarily so by sex. He raped all of the men he killed, brutally. That was the defining horror of his crimes. This movie doesn't even let on that Bonin was into guys, let alone that such was his primary motivation for engaging in the hunt. For that, the movie comes across as positively embarrassing. It's such a sanitized version of the truth, it has no right claiming to even be -about- William Bonin.

So if you want to know the true story, don't watch this movie. Or if you want to watch this movie, pretend that the movie world's Bill Bonin is some other person entirely, because he sure isn't the real-life version.

This movie was fairly gritty and dark, made largely in the "camcorder" style so many are made in these days. The zombies don't get a lot of very good screen time, though - the glimpses are more fleeting and poorly lit, just a few really decent zombie closeups is all you really get of that. Lots of blood, and at least one very graphic depiction of rape (you didn't see anything happening below the waist, but the sounds were very authentic, imho).

All in all, it was a lot like "28 Days Later" only with real zombies instead of just the enraged infected. I won't spoil the ending, but I will say that it was a fairly realistic one and as such, perhaps a bit unsatisfying for some (reality does tend to suck like that, so the movie got it right, but not everyone likes a real-world style ending).

The acting was all pretty good too, imho. Didn't see any performances I could call "weak". The dude who played "Billy" got the "mentally challenged small town pushover" vibe down pat. Probably the weakest performance was the head commanding officer through much of it, and he didn't do too badly. I think he overdid the "detached, emotionless" thing a bit much, yet you -could- brush that off as a quirk of the character if you really wanted to.

Overall, it wasn't the best but it was far from the worst. While comparable to 28DL in tone, it -is- somewhat lower in quality, but if a little bit of quality doesn't bug you and you liked 28DL, I'd recommend it.

As a movie in its own right, I enjoyed this, but I can't say it felt anything like the first "American Psycho". If it weren't for the sporadic reference-by- name of Patrick Bateman, there would really be nothing to tie the two movies together. So if you're looking for a movie that seems to -deserve- the title "American Psycho II", don't bother with this one, it will be a disappointment.

Even so, while it's not what I'd call "juicy" or truly "great", it is watchable. Mild on gore, heavy on psychopathology - it maintains something of a dark, gritty "Lifetime Special Movie" feel throughout. I might call it a "high- end time-waster" type. :-)

I wasn't sure what this would be truly "about" going into it (though I had read the other reviews and so I knew some of it). My advice if you happen to see this review first is this: If you like tense, sadistic psychological puzzles in which you get to see someone so thoroughly played with that their sense of self is utterly obliterated and replaced and you are open to seeing normally taboo subjects displayed on screen, then you might be well advised to stop reading reviews here and now before any of them give too much of it away, and just go watch the thing. What there is to give away is revealed in the first 30-40 minutes or so, but it would be so much more effective if you weren't quite expecting it. :-)

That said, I really enjoyed this movie. There were a few scenes where the quality of the acting degraded a bit, but I could more than excuse them for the tension and intrigue the film manages to string you along with the whole time. The truth about what's going on and why it's going on becomes easy to figure out about 20 minutes or so from the end, and I'm not going to reveal a thing about it to you.

It is a bit slow-paced in some ways, not a lot of blood and gore, but certainly tense and filled with mind-games. Also a few nicely-laced red herrings here and there to make you think one thing when you find out another is true, and the ending manages to satisfy by not being quite what you'd want or expect it to be. :-)

I'll definitely be watching this one again at some point. Two thumbs up. :-)

This is definitely not one for those to whom production values are a major component of their enjoyment (or lack thereof) of a movie, yet it's not a bad story for those who know how to tolerate such shortcomings in the interest of a not-bad story and a decent effort in spite of the handicaps. Much as I liked it, it was in spite of its shortcomings and not because of any 'charm' such things can sometimes impart. Virtually every component that goes into movie-making is what you might consider "sub-par", so don't go into it expecting anything terrific, but yet I still liked it. I'll be honest in that I probably wouldn't have paid much to rent it - but it might be worth a $1 rental or something similar. It's one of those kinds of stories where while the movie may not be the best depiction of it, the concept itself involves some sufficiently troubling philosophical/ideological questions so that if you're willing to look past the movie's surface "production values" and deeper into the core concept, it might actually be satisfying for you on that level alone. It doesn't get you into that mode automatically - that would be "high production values" for that - but if you're that type of person already and you -want- to peer into the philosophical realm, it shouldn't be too difficult to do.

The more crucial elements of the story were depicted "good enough" to let you get into it as deeply as you want to, with the exception of the distractingly cheap CGI. Fortunately, there aren't too many places where you absolutely have to ignore it, just enough of them to be a bit unpleasantly jolting for just a second or two here and there. The nuclear detonations were actually pretty bad - they appear to have forgotten to texturize them, so they were just shiny, "Stargate shimmer effect" textures on mushroom-cloud shaped CGI renderings. The motion & shape weren't too shabby, but the absence of actual texture was rather distracting. Fortunately, there are only two of them and they're relatively far apart. The plumes of smoke and "raging fires" are the only other cheap effects, and they're only mildly overused in a few parts, not so much as to ruin the whole experience if you're not too picky. Shortcomings aside, I -was- somewhat impressed with the complexity of the "carnival"-like scene about 30 minutes or so from the end. That was actually surprisingly complex and well-choreographed as far as the outside scene with dozens of actors. That was probably the most impressive scene of the whole film, production-wise. Also, while not giving a spoiler for the ending, I will say that in spite of the rather cheesy lead-up to the final scene, it -did- end on an interestingly profound note. That, I suspect, was the writing of Mary Shelly -finally- being made obvious (admittedly, it's a bit hard to credit this to Shelly through most of it - some elements are clearly her, but only if you know what you're looking for - the final line, though, is classic her, imho).

I don't apologize for movies, but I may sound like I'm doing that here to a degree as I just happened to like this one in spite of the things others justifiably loathed. It's cheaply made and that's obvious, but enough of the actors, script writers and set designers actually seemed to -care- about the job they were doing that some of you will find the cheap overall experience to be worth putting up with by the time all is said and done. The flaws are obvious quickly, the strengths a little less so, but I think you should be able to know within 10-15 minutes whether or not you'll like this particular semi-stinker. A few good clips on YouTube or elsewhere on the 'net should be sufficient. :-)

Enjoy - or not! I did in either case. :-)

I'm too tormented by visions of gray knit "chain mail" armor & the awesomely enormous budget my nephew's 3rd grade spring play had compared to the apparent budget of this flick. I think the best, clearest indicator of the caliber of this movie is in the list of cast on the front of IMDb's page for this movie. Billy Zane is featured prominently on the cover of the movie, but appears nowhere on the primary cast listing. The first mention you see of his name on the IMDb site itself is in the review appearing on the primary page. He may or may not be listed in the extended cast listing you can reach by clicking "full cast & crew", but I don't want to know.

Just... don't. Really. You won't regret it. The other reviews are not lying. Unless you're feeling really lackadaisical and not too concerned with enjoying the experience, in which case, go for it. :-)

I give it 7 out of 10 not because it was that appealing to me, but because I think it set out trying to be "something", and whatever that "something" is, it did a fairly good job. For my own taste preferences, I'd rate it at maybe a 4 or a 5.

It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.

Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.

It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.

I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.

That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.

About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.

So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.