moustasch1

The problem with a lot of audiences today is that they're used to being spoon-fed everything so they don't have to actually watch a movie to know what's happening in it. This one you have to watch. Most of the first half of the film is told in flash-backs and if you're not paying attention you won't be able to figure out what's going on or why. Yeah, it gets boring in parts and it jumps all over the place because of those flash-backs but that's one of the things I liked about this.

This is Gina Carano's first starring role and she shows a few flaws but I'm not sure if it's because of it being her first or because of the direction she had in this movie. She's a great fighter and has several well choreographed scenes that show off her talents but where she fails is showing any emotion. As a trained "agent" you'd think she could handle herself in a party atmosphere but she seems out of place there. There's also a scene where she leaves her father alone with people she knows could, and probably would, kill him. Since there's no back-story showing her past or how she got her training I can only conclude that the director and writer simply wanted to show off her martial arts skills and didn't care about any other aspect of her character. Hopefully she'll get better, more fleshed-out roles in the future because I think she could be a great action movie star eventually.

This certainly isn't a great movie. The big name actors are used too sparingly to be called co-stars. The lack of any depth, in any of the roles, along with some bad music cues, bad character decisions and only implied conclusions to the main adversaries shows poor writing skills and bad decisions from a usually good director. I give it a 5 out of 10 simply because of Ms. Carano's presence in the film. Anyone else would have probably dropped this down to a 2 or 3.

This movie plays like a made-for-TV pilot for one of the kid's channels. Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad movie, but for $12,000 you can't expect too much.

The acting is pretty wooden by just about everyone and the story feels like it's missing about half of what it needed so that you'd care about anyone. For something done as cheaply as this the effects are really pretty good (much better then most every movie made for Syfy). If this were a TV pilot I'd probably watch a few episodes to see if it were going to get any better. The movie ends like there might be a sequel. I don't see there being a big demand for it, but for 12K there probably will be.

Hopefully they'll get a big enough budget next time so they can include acting lessons.

What would you do if you could never have a moment's peace because of who you are? This is one of those movies that makes you stop and think about what the lives of rock stars (or anyone else famous) might be like and the lengths they might go through to have a little privacy. Granted, too many people push to be famous, just thinking about the money and the notoriety, and not caring about anyone around them but themselves, but this is a movie about a guy who was "known" to millions of people around the world and spoke out about anything that he was passionate about, but who very few people actually knew. So, what if John Lennon had survived his assassination?

This is a great little film about a documentary film-maker who happens upon a tape of someone, who he thinks is, John Lennon. Since he's obviously much older then when he "died" the guy believes he has the story of a lifetime and convinces his girlfriend to help him find the man on the tape. While the whole thing is shot as a documentary of his search for "the truth", the actual story is about privacy, and is it really okay to invade another person's, even if they are famous.

The two film-makers are both fine actors, and what happens to them over the course of the film was done very realistically, but the real star of the film is Mark Staycer, who plays the enigmatic loner, living his life out in the backwoods of Canada. His look, his mannerisms, his guitar playing and especially his singing WILL make you believe Lennon is still alive, and still making music. The film's songwriters really got Lennon's style down pat and wrote some great songs for the soundtrack to help make the star that much more believable. You can almost imagine that they're something that he really might have done in his later years, if he'd had them.

If you liked The Beatles, or Lennon's solo career, see this movie. You'll walk away realizing what the world lost and maybe hoping it really didn't. So, in the movie, was he really John Lennon or just someone who looks like him? See the film to find out.

I'm really sick of those shaky camera films. You know the ones I'm talking about. Blair Witch was a crappy film but, at the time, the whole point-of-view/actors filming thing was new and that set the movie apart from others. Since then there's been a lot more, each getting worse as they go along. Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead, and other "documentary" film style movies. have all been done this way and, while some might have a decent story line, the whole "amateur" film-maker thing is just annoying.

And then there's this film out of Australia. "The Tunnel" is one of the best horror films I've seen in a while. The story, while not exactly new, is told in a way that makes it interesting and really creepy at the same time. Yes, it has the actors filming their story by themselves, but it's inter-cut with "filmed" pieces so it doesn't make you feel like you've been on a roller coaster for an hour and a half.

The movie uses subway tunnels underneath Sydney as it's main location, and if you've ever been in a subway at night you know how dismal it can be. Throw in a mostly unseen adversary, small amounts of blood and gore (Really small. Just a scene or two.), some really good actors, and a premise that could possibly happen and you come away with a great movie. The darkness of the tunnels and the feeling of being absolutely alone give this movie more thrills then just about anything else that's come along recently.

Horror films don't have to have a ton of gore and gallons of blood in them to be good. As much as I like films like that I still go back and watch Hitchcock and the old Universal and Hammer classic monsters for good stories and genuine thrills. The Tunnel may not go down in film history on a par with those but you could do a heck of a lot worse with all of the junk horror movies coming out recently that rely on a minimal story with nothing more the fake guts, fake blood and naked (fake boobs) babes.

My wish for the new year is that the Sy-Fy Channel take some of it's money to purchase some old TV series, or create some new ones, and run them instead of giving us crap like this movie. Either that or take the money it spends on any 5 of these films, put it all together, and try to make at least one decent film.

While the premise of the film was halfway decent, the execution of it was dismal. Horrible special effects, terrible acting, bad writing...you name it, it's all here. Pretty much everyone who "acted" in this movie was bad with the exception of Rhett Giles, the autistic savant, Jenna Craig, as his niece (even though her part was pretty small), and Shirly Brener as the teen love interest (those 3 were the only reason I gave this a 2 rating. Without them...a zero). The effects are standard Sy-Fy badness. There a scene with a tornado that takes an 8" square porch column and hurls it into the sky, but instead of snapping it into pieces it bends and wiggles like a worm as it floats upward. And please, don't get me started about the lame dialog exchange between the two guys while they're fighting over Ms. Brener and the extreme overacting of her ex- boyfriend. No wonder she dropped him.

All in all this was the kind of movie that would have me pulling the plug on the Sy-Fy channel for good if it wasn't for some of the series that are on there. Like I said earlier...MORE SERIES, LESS MADE FOR TV MOVIES.

The first Hostel was a genuine break-thru in torture movies and was probably the film that started the phrase "torture porn" as the genre is currently known. It provided one of a kind kills and a story that was different from standard slasher movies. Hostel 2 upped the ante and took the tortures to greater heights even if it wasn't quite as good a story as 1 was. Eli Roth was at the helm of both those movies and made a name for himself in horror because of them, and deservedly so.

Unfortunately he wasn't involved in this film and it shows. The writers took the basic premise of the movie and decided to take away everything that was good about the first two. About the only thing left from the original is the Elite Hunting Club, but even that's been tamed in this film. No longer are the individual members killers but instead gamblers (it takes place in Las Vegas) betting on how the victims should be killed or how long it takes them to beg for mercy. There's only one decent kill in this version because, for the most part, all others are done off-screen while we get to watch the gamblers going crazy making their bets.

I would have probably enjoyed this movie more if it hadn't been named Hostel III. The acting isn't bad and there's lots of naked women running around that more then make up for the lack of blood. The movie isn't terrible in itself, but since they named it as a sequel my expectations were a lot greater then what it provided. Watch it if you want (I gave it a 5 out of 10) but don't expect it to be anything like the other two.

It's been said before, but merits repeating. This is one movie you'll either love or hate. I'm still trying to decide which it is for me. Several times while watching this I was tempted to turn it off and forget how I'd just wasted my time, but I managed to get through the whole thing. While it is very depressing, scenes keep coming that make you want to keep viewing it to see what'll happen next.

Kirsten Dunst gives a great performance as the lead, showing a side in her acting abilities that I'd never seen before, as a clinically depressed woman who, at first, tries to go through life as others expect her to but ultimately can't be anything but herself. Charlotte Gainsbourg plays the sister who both loves and cares for Dunst, and at the same time hates her for being "uncaring".

The first 8 minutes of the movie is visually stunning, showing short, different versions of scenes that will later be viewed, and silent except for a hauntingly beautiful classical music soundtrack. What you see there does give away the ending of the film, but not how it'll end for the sisters.

So, would I watch it again? Probably not for awhile, sadness and anxiety are not something I want to revisit often, but yes, I'll see it again.

None of the films have been as good as the first three in this series. This one is no different.

Most of the acting, especially by the lead antagonist, Nick Eversman, is terrible. The effects and gore are nothing more than copies of scenes from the other movies with nothing new added to make it any more interesting.

I love the original Pinhead character, played by Doug Bradley in all of the other films. Stephan Smith Collins who portrays Pinhead in this sequel tries to recreate him but manages doing a poor man's imitation, instead of bringing anything new to the screen.

To future writers of any more sequels: STOP! Either come up with a new lead so we don't miss Bradley's performance so much or reboot the series from the start and try to come up with something new. Maybe consult with Clive Barker to see where he would go with it. Or better yet, put together some real money and have him write it instead.

I have to admit I'm not a big fan of Ray Liotta's. I've seen him in a lot of films, but usually in a co-starring or secondary capacity, and usually as a psycho, but the trailer looked good (don't they always?) so I watched this one.

The River Murders is surprisingly good. Liotta does a decent job portraying an aging cop victimized by a serial killer for some unknown reason. His character is mostly believable (100 women? Really? And you remember all of their names?) as he looks into reasons why his past lovers are suddenly being killed off. Severely underused actors Christian Slater and Ving Rhames go along for the ride as an FBI agent who thinks Liotta's the one killing the women, and his boss, who suspends him pending further investigation.

Although you figure out early who the real killer is the movie keeps you guessing the reasons why until the end and, even though he's a little over the top religiously, is believable.

This isn't the greatest movie you'll ever see, and it does have it's flaws, but you won't walk away thinking you killed an hour and a half for nothing.

I love horror films and I'm old enough to remember the great "rubber suit" monsters from the '50s so I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. The sad thing is...it reminded me of everything that was bad about some of them.

The first five minutes we have a beautiful nude woman going for a swim and our first death. Out of the entire movie this is the best part of it and everything goes downhill from there. Actually the first half of the movie isn't really that bad, except for the acting of some Louisiana Cajun bad-old boys led by veteran actor Sid Haig. Haig does his best with what he was given but it's really just a rehash of his role in House of 1000 Corpses (sans the clown makeup). Popular TV actor Mehcad Brooks has the best role in what I think is his first movie, but even he fell apart near the end because of some seriously bad writing. I've seen a lot of straight to DVD movies that were better then this and I have no idea why this movie got into theaters instead of suffering that fate.

The whole second half of the film just falls apart completely. People, whom you've never seen before suddenly show up out of nowhere. The monster easily kills a bunch of people but then suddenly goes weak and can't finish off the last guy. Someone gets shot in the leg and then a minute later is running through the woods, attacks and defeats several bad guys, jumps down a 20 foot hole in the ground and completely dismisses the hole in his leg.

This movie has an R rating simply because of a few nude girls running around and some drug usage. There's hardly any gore because most of the deaths and/or mutilations happen off-screen. Besides some beautifully shot bayou scenes there really isn't much to see here. There was one twist. The guy you think will probably get killed first, due to it happening 1000 times in other movies, survives. All in all I give it a 2, just because I did like the first few minutes, which made me hope for something exciting to come. It never did. My advice...see the beginning and then go next door and watch Contagion instead.

As a lot of other reviewers have said, I too was really looking forward to seeing this movie. The trailer did what it was supposed to do...bring people into the theaters to see shark attacks. Unfortunately, as usual, the trailer has most of the films good moments included and there's not much left to see that's original in the actual film.

I liked the concept of the movie, and the reason that the sharks ended up in a lake could have made for a great film, but the studio's decision to make this PG-13 killed it. Without an R rating all of the stuff that teens and horror fans actually like about this type of movie is missing. There's no real gore, no people being torn up by the sharks (at least not on screen), and no nudity. If you're 13 you may actually like this movie, and your parents will probably sweat a lot thinking they're sending you to see something a lot worst than what it is, but they have nothing to worry about.

The acting in this was OK, but nothing Oscar worthy. You don't really get to know anything about most of the cast and, to me, the one thing you do find out about the female lead came too late. Personally, I didn't recognize anyone in this movie, with the exception of Joel David Moore, and after his run on the TV show Bones, and his part in the movie Avatar, I expected better of him.

If an unrated DVD version comes out I'll probably watch it again, just to see if anything actually worth seeing was filmed. But I highly doubt it.

I've been watching horror films for 50 years and have seen almost everything. Slasher films have left me almost completely bored the last few years. With the exception of The Collector there really hasn't been a decent slasher film since Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and the Nightmare films (well, most of them).

Almost all current slasher films are the same. 6 kids (5,8... name your number) all go out to a party (the woods, a haunted house...etc.) and get killed in unusual ways by an unknown attacker. Boring. Bereavement changes all that. Without going into any detail here's a movie that will literally keep you glued to your screen from beginning to end. I've liked Michael Biehn since I first saw him in the original Terminator movie and, for the most part, he's never let me down with his acting. He gives another great performance here. Brett Rickaby is perfect as the tormented killer. He's scary, anguished, and ruthless and should be put up there along with Meyers, Vorhees and Krueger. Alexandra Daddario shows her best acting in any movie she's been in to date and Spencer List is perfect as the kid who's put through everything imaginable and makes his own future.

Unlike most horror films today there's no comedy in this one. It's flat out ruthless from beginning to end. Again, except for The Collector, this is the first slasher film I've seen in years where I truly hope they make a sequel.

I've never written a review before and joined IMDb today just so I could write about this one. If horror is your thing you certainly won't have wasted your time viewing this one. Hell, you might even want to watch it a second time right away. When was the last time you could say that about any of these?