It steals its entirety from a mix of other horror movies. Like, str8 up STEALS the plot, the cinematography, the characters.... everything. Its kinda offensive that they blatantly stole the first jump scare from The Ring.... when the daughter's face is shown briefly, showcasing the way the person looks when they die. And I'm waiting to hear the phone ring and someone say "7 days...".
Its like I'm watching It Follows 1.5, where people are stalked by a half-assed Babadook that isn't interested in sex. How could someone actually make this movie and not constantly complain that It Follows was already filmed and released?
This girl is so unattractive. I can't stop staring at the giant mole on her face. I'm sorry, its just ruining the movie for me.
Another pointless remake by someone who doesn't understand the original
Why does Hollywood keep doing this? Are they intent on trying to destroy every great film from other countries? I just don't understand the reason for this movie. It didn't bring anything new and exciting to the film. Its just a basic horribly done copy. There is no tension, there is no suspense, and the acting is HORRENDOUS. Naomi Watts is such a horrible actor, I just do not understand why Hollywood keeps pushing her in our faces. She always sounds like she is just reading her lines off of a piece of paper. No emotional connection to the script or the other actors. Ugh. It is obvious immediately off the gate that she is only talking to one child, whereas in the original you could not tell until the movie told you. Also, the original has you questioning whether she is really the mother, but this film doesn't do anything to cause you to question.... it just tells you when the kids say "maybe its not our mommy" and there you go, now you are supposed to question because she has different color eyes. Smfh, you can see her face through the mask and it looks just like her and we know it is her because we know what Naomi Watts looks and sounds like.
The first one is great. Its a cheap action sci-fi film with all the good characteristics that made the Sharknado movie into a huge franchise. This franchise could have ran for a good 4 or 5 films but they parodied things too much. Whats the phrase... "too soon"...? Too much suspension of belief is required with Guttenberg's rough & raw voice acting. Also, the side story with his daughter takes up too much time in the movie and has more action than Guttenberg's scenes. Its not interesting to watch these C grade actors say and do what they say and do. The props are a bit cheap looking too. I know they are trying to make fun of different action movies and movies Guttenberg has acted in, but its just not funny. Did anyone notice the black army officer's teeth?? Looked so weird.... like they were fake.
It is probably the unfortunate requirement of an all child cast. Not one single child knows how to act. Its really bad. The kids are directed to be overly dramatic with the storyline, and the director is trying to make the movie epic. But it just falls apart. The dialog is poorly written, the setting becomes too monotonous. And the story becomes convoluted as time progresses... almost as if its being written on the fly. A lot of pointless banter between people. And when all of your actors are horrible actors, you shouldn't make your movie 90% conversation. There is too little actual war in this movie, and too much bad acting. Did I mention bad acting?
How can so many reviewers know that the film was intended as a PSA, yet still complain that it isn't a good horror movie? Smfh. Its not a horror movie!!! Its a PSA that didn't fit the mold of a typical PSA, so it was shelved. Jeeez. The movie is intended to metaphorically describe the issue of elder abuse. Plain and simple.
On that note, it doesn't do a good job. The scenes are too confusing because they aren't realistic experiences one would have at an amusement park, regardless of an elderly person's mindset. Such as the bumper car scene..... its not realistic. So we are left to view it with suspended disbelief, which makes the film boring because there isn't a real story here.
Basically the film is too much movie to be a PSA, but too little movie to be a movie.
Though do not get me wrong.... it is still better than a lot of the junk made in the 70's. There are way worse movies from the 70's to watch. I am glad to have seen this, but it won't be on my replay list.
This movie can be lumped in with other great time travel movies like Primer, Coherence, and Triangle. It is very suspenseful and even managed to throw in some horror elements. But about 3/4 the way through the movie it begins to fall flat as the story steps away from the main setting (the lab and forest) into a new setting (the couple's home) and no longer has anything setup to entertain the time traveling idea. It works well in the first setting because you can see how each Hector affects each other's story. But at the second setting you see no remnants of each Hector affecting the other until the very last scene, which is lackluster at best. This is inevitably the problem with time travel movies.... how do you show four separate shots of the same scene with each shot revealing something new that affects the previous shots? Not easy. Triangle does a damn good job at this. And I personally feel Predestination is by far the best in this genre. That being said, this is a very low budget time travel movie and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It would have been nice to see all the Hectors killed, just to realize that there is still one more. Or see the universe explode because of a paradox. So I did feel a little let down by the ending. Nevertheless, I recommend it. 6.5/10.
Fake reviews popped up like liberty caps in a cow patty
Its unfortunate that this title didn't get more exposure because it does have its merit. While it is indeed a portrait of the daily lives of two cows, it has more value as the portrait of the daily lives of a cow farmer. Because, to be honest, cows are boring. But all the different aspects of cow farming are actually quite interesting. On YouTube there is a guy who makes vids showing how he fixes cows' hoofs, and he has amassed quite a following!
This film is being sold to the public as a documentary, but it is not a documentary. It is just a video recording of cows and cow farming. Documentaries have purpose... they at the very least have scripts. But this video has neither. Its just a bunch of random (and I mean VERY random) clips of cows on a cow farm, strung together with no narration, soundtrack, or anything. (Though there is a scene where the cows make whoopee and some fireworks are included with some uplifting music... nice touch!).
The people commenting that it is so sad, or so uplifting, or so groundbreaking, or whatever.... clearly they have never been to a cow farm, or simply been around cows for just a few minutes. There is absolutely nothing sad about this film. There is a scene with a dead cow on the ground and some construction vehicles in the background.... that's it. There is no music or narration, so there is nothing to be sad about..... what, a dead cow is sad? Scenes that could have made an emotional connection with the audience are lost to either the inexperience of the filmmakers or they simply did not care to showcase anything interesting..... such as when the cows can be seen in front of the starry sky.... why is that scene only 10 seconds long?!
One thing I can say about this video..... it shows that cows have personality. They are not just lifeless beings staring blankly into the air and mooing about like a cow being herded on a... ummm.... nevermind. That idea was lost on the filmmakers too, because no emotions are portrayed. The workers treat the cows like cattle on a farm. The cameramen treat the cows like cattle on a farm (to the dismay of the cow being tortured by the presence of a camera directly in her face right after she gave birth.... she moos "leave me alone" incessantly for the 5 freaking minutes that the camera states at her).
Overall this film feels like someone on the farm bought a camera, and just turned it on randomly throughout the life of the cows. That's it. Its cow farming, no more no less.
But I happen to find cow farming interesting, so I watched this film all the way through.
People, please stop artificially inflating the rating.... this is not a 7 star film. Its 4 or 5 at the most. But I'm forced to give it a 1 to try and balance things out.
Well we know who Stephen King robbed with Maximum Overdrive
An extra-solar object flies by Earth, leaving a remnant on the planet powerful enough to give a machine consciousness. That machine then goes on a killing rampage killing random people until a ragtag crew of individuals with witty snarky remarks are able to fight back.
You thought I was talking about Maximum Overdrive? No, I'm talking about Killdozer.
Its crazy that this movie came out almost a decade before Stephen King even wrote the original short story that was to become Maximum Overdrive. Sorry.... "NON-ORIGINAL" short story.
Now I will admit this movie doesn't have as much action and suspense as MO, but it has a lot of charm for being a tv movie. The acting is straightforward. You don't have to suspend much disbelief in order to understand the plot and follow the story. Its just as believable (or non-believable) as MO... an asteroid comes to earth with an alien power that gives a machine consciousness.
It is what it is. Decent movie to watch on the weekend while you are scrolling your phone. Glad I came across it!
Most of the issues lie with the inexperience of the actors and the director. The viewer must take into account these things and further suspend their disbelief to ignore serious continuity issues with the special effects, makeup, wardrobe, lighting, dialog, sound effects, set design, and even the story itself. This movie is not a masterpiece of filmmaking by any means. Many things are out of place, such as the stop motion effects towards the end. But overall I'd say the acting is really bad, and worse is the continuity with the amount of blood that splatters on Bruce Campbell's face vs. How clean his face/clothing are most of the time. If this movie was made today, with the same type of budget and whatnot, it would not be so well received because there is a higher level of standard required in filmmaking. Though in older movies, such as Night of the Living Dead, these types of issues were not present and there was a higher level of standard. So go figure. This movie became a "cult-classic" for (imo) unjust reasons, plus its not really a good movie.
Seeing Stallone move the way he does at his age.... he might as well be a real life superhero. This movie is a story about redemption masked as a superhero movie. I'm very surprised it is rated PG-13... they really are pushing the envelope here. With the level of violence and the language it really felt like an R movie. Congratulations is in order for that alone. The only complaint I have is that the cgi was pretty weak at times. Especially with the muzzle flashes, fire and age regression. But the actual story itself makes up for it. Along with The Boys and Brightburn, this movie is at the beginning of an emerging genre of dark superhero films that we really need after all the Marvel crap for the past few years. And by dark I dont mean simply R rated like Deadpool... I mean dark as in the story is dark.
Critics mad that gay/trans cast aren't a bunch of snowflakes
The thing to understand is that this is a B horror movie. Once you accept that, then this movie is much better than the critics say. The reason critics hate this movie so much is because the story doesn't empower gay/trans people as activists playing the victim card. Its as if critics think that all gay/trans movies should be sap stories that treat the actors like whiners that can't fight the fight themselves and instead need Hollywood to save them. As if Hollywood is the great white savior.
I applaud the openly gay writer/director for making this movie during the current political climate. I applaud Kevin Bacon for acting in it at risk of being canceled. Its great to see an almost all gay/trans cast that isn't constantly whining and complaining about how hard their lives are as gay/trans people. There is no preaching. There are no snowflakes. This is a cheap B horror/thriller with a gay/trans cast that want to be appreciated for being actors first, instead of being famous for being gay/trans.
AND the writer/director is a well respected and awarded gay man.
Its really just the product of a bunch of pervy nerdy immature post-teens who didn't get enough sex in high school or college and then became famous and now can do whatever they want with women because of their money and fame.... the overt sexualization of women makes it almost unwatchable in today's times. The story is very weak and loosely held together with erotic nonsense to keep your attention if your a horny teenager boy. I can't imagine women watched this thing in the early 80s. It hasn't aged well and will eventually be forgotten altogether. The one positive thing other than the artwork is the music.... there were some good songs on the soundtrack, especially the pink Floyd sound alike tracks.
Horrible movie. Horrible story. The woman is a horrible actor and so annoying. Did this man really have to deal with this lady? She constantly whines and complains about everything. What type of story would this be without the unneeded whiney drama with this woman? Jeez.
This thing builds and builds and builds into..... nothing.
I didn't know anything about the movie, so I thought at first maybe the kid was replaced by an alien, who then questioned everything that everyone said and did. But then I realized the kid is just a weirdo.
The movie builds up way too slow. Its not even suspenseful its so slow.
Why do directors keep casting Kristin Stewart in movies?!? She is such a horrible actor. It completely threw a wrench in the movie's spokes every time she talked. Other than her crap acting, the movie had many flaws. The acting by others was pretty weak, waaaaay too much exposition all throughout the movie masquerading as some weirdo philosophy about pain and art and bla bla bla. The practical effects were quite weak too... things looked like cheap Halloween Haunted House props, organs were designed by lackluster artists, and the entire movie (being filmed in a warehouse) feels like it takes place in a high school theater. So a man has 100 ears and listens to extremely dated techno music by dancing in an extremely dated manner... it all feels so cheap.
The casting is horrible... trying so hard to have a each actor represent a different geographical region and culture of the world... its not natural in any way. Its not realistic. The viewer has to suspend their disbelief waaaaay too much to get involved in this movie.
Excessive nudity, cheap music, cheap kills, and horrible acting. There is even a scene of a girl masturbating for no reason (that girl later became a porn star). And the film editing during that scene and throughout the movie is pretty weak... very amateur and annoying. Basically this movie is nothing special at all. I'm about to fall asleep watching it right now. This very minute. Yaaaaaaaawn.... yeah, gnite.
I wish people didn't summarize the plot in their reviews...
Because that is not a review.
This movie is slow like many movies from that time period. It has poor dialogue due to a poorly written script and poor directing, which is also reminiscent of the time period. The plot honestly doesn't make much sense if you think about it... mainly the interactions between Foster's character and everyone else. The conversations are supposed to highlight her gifted, mature nature against the overly-dominant adult predisposed to treat her like a child, but none of the conversations are realistic between an adult and a 13 year old. People simply did not walk into other people's houses uninvited during that time period, so Foster's and the adults' actions and reactions would have been much different. While it is possible for a child to survive alone in this manner (at least for a little awhile), this is simply not a realistic story. It seems that Hollywood wanted to continue with the theme of using Foster's young appearance to place her into roles that would give her sex appeal for all the real life perverts out there (and in Hollywood) after Taxi Driver. But she is not sexy... she just looks like a normal looking (though rather stern) teenager. The fact that she has a sex scene and is 13 years old in the movie is rather perverted and sick.
This movie had some potential... it could have easily gone into a horror movie with more dead bodies, or a suspense movie with more from the perverted son and cop, but it ended up more like a romantic drama with Foster and the cripple. It really is rather confusing and unemotional though... look how easily that gerbil was killed! Smfh, its always the gerbils that have the hard life.
The daughter is a horrible actor. When the scene occurs where she is watching the baby and gets kicked outside, she is not bothered one bit about the events that happened. More like an inconvenience than anything.
There is no logic in this episode. And casting Dawson and whoever the other guy is... horrible voice acting. I dont understand why people continue to think that Dawson is a good voice actor. And the artwork was horrible. But the story and plot were the most ridiculous. Why did the two people have sex? Lmfao, makes no sense. Totally out of the blue with no justification. Garbage.
Does anyone know exactly what is going on in this movie? Because the question of "is this a poltergeist or a haunting" is posed by the doctor and discussed for 10 minutes of the movie, and you might think its a poltergeist because of the title and all the pseudoscience technobabble from Tangerine and the doctor, but here are some reasons why its not a poltergeist and is instead a HAUNTING:
Dont forget that (based on the movie's explanations) poltergeists are attached to people, hauntings are attached to places...
1) once Carol Ann is taken, the ghosts continue to haunt the house instead of leaving
2) the house is built on top of a cemetery (possibly an ancient Indian burial site), and the entire yard attacks the family
3) the ghosts continue to destroy the house after Carol Ann is gone
4) the 2nd movie
If it was a poltergeist then what's up with the cemetery and the ghosts destroying the house? A haunting makes more sense.
Timothy Bottoms actually did a decent job with his original dialogue, given such a horrible script. But all of his dialogue that was recorded years later is absolutely horrid. And the other actors hammed it up big time. Lawrence Tierney is okay, but Musetta Vander has got to go.
Wanna hear Alicia Silverstone whine and complain the entire movie?.
That is what she does. Whines and complains the whole time. It is a bit annoying listening to her. And she sounds like she has lost her voice somewhat. What is the purpose of this movie? It's already been done so any times. Except somehow this babbling old lady didn't die and everyone else did?? Suuuuure.
Too many people rating this version based on the original
The main issue with this series is that the crimes that are covered on the show are not crimes that were solved with specific instances of forensics. What made the first series so great is that each episode involved specific specialized forensics that solved crimes that would have otherwise never been solved. But this series involves crimes that are solved with basic detective work and very basic (and sometimes non-existent) forensic work. Such as the episode with the man trapped in the house being tortured by his ex boyfriend.... the show acts like the crime was solved with forensics involving GPS triangulation, the perpetrator knowing the layout of the home, and the victims DNA being in the murderer's car.... but the actual crime was solved due to the victim calling 911 and saying, on the phone, that he was being held captive by two men, and a video recording that was made, by the murderer, in which the victim is stating that his captors are great people. That specific crime was solved not due to genius forensics but instead due to the perpetrators being absolutely dumb. GPS triangulation was amazing in 1995, but in 2020 it is nothing special. And that is why this series kinda sucks.... there are no genius forensics being used to catch criminals that would have otherwise gotten away with the crime.
It was clearly meant for UK market, incorporating two popular British actors that ended up working on Game of Thrones together just 4 years later. But ill tell you who else loves this stuff.... Latinos. My Latina wife barely speaks English and loves tf outta these types of story and action.
I have watched this video dozens of times with believers and skeptics, and...
The bottom line here is that the video introduces some information that is valuable. Is all of the information valuable? No. Is the entire documentary correct? No. Is the entire documentary incorrect? No.
This video was a great introduction into this conspiracy theory many years ago before Youtube had grown to epic proportions, so there weren't many videos that could debunk these debunks, or expand on them or whatnot. And now, unfortunately, Youtube is so censored you cannot find any real information that addresses these claims because the people controlling Youtube will not allow you to see/hear anything that they don't deem "scientific", which is actually just a cover for them not wanting you to be a free thinker. There are plenty of scientific claims in this video that are valid points to be made, but the people posing as "scientists" on the internet will shut down any conversation about these claims with the most evolved gobbledeegook strung-out explanations, completely ignoring Occam's Razor (the more assumptions you make about something, the less likely it is to be the best explanation).
The makers of this film set out to question what really happened on the moon by 1) sharing photo/video evidence that indicates the photos/videos were taken in a studio environment, 2) showing scientific evidence that explains the Apollo missions as having required on too much luck to be able to overcome the scientific obstacles, and 3) a loosely-woven historical explanation of the evolution of the rocket. The third part of the video is really out of place as it has nothing to do with the topic of conversation. Over the years of sharing the video with people I eventually omitted the third part.
The video is British and therefor it is extremely dry. There is no humor, except for boring attempts at humor. Some points that are made are extremely nitpicked beyond need, other points aren't discussed in enough detail. It is clear that some of the people contributing to the video had done plenty of research, while others had barely scratched the surface. I liked this format when I was younger because I was able to understand the science that was being discussed (I later became a Planetary Geologist), and my friends were able to understand the basic points being made the rest of the time.
There are things you will disagree with. There are things you will not understand. But maybe there will be something that you didn't know, and which intrigues you enough to search a little more for the answer. And hopefully you are able to overcome the online campaigns that seek to paint anyone who questions this as being a loony wearing a tinfoil hat, because the truth is that there is plenty of actual science that questions the official record with validity. (Continue reading for a couple of specifics....)
1) The thing I think is most important about this video is that it brings to light the FACT that there are many inconsistencies with the photo/video evidence of the Apollo missions, in comparison to the actual mission and the times at which the photos and videos were taken. The photos and videos do not match up at times. And they look staged. This documentary does a great job of showing how this fakery was done. Plenty of science is included too.... some basic science is used to show that there are missing elements to the photos that are present in the videos (and vice versa), and then you have a scientist going into great length and detail about how he mathematically calculated the position of an artificial studio light, based on the reflection of the light from the boot of the astronaut. And I checked... his math is correct. So if there is anything to gain from this documentary, it is simply the fact that NASA's official record DOES NOT ALIGN with the photo/video record that has been made available to the public. Why? Because NASA faked many photos/videos in a studio environment, and then released those photos/videos to the media and public as promotional material that was used to generate millions of dollars in revenue for NASA. And possibly also to hide what they actually photographed/videotaped, IF they actually went to the moon. But this documentary doesn't try to prove one reason or another... it simply provides the evidence and asks some questions. The best explained topic is in regards to the backgrounds of lunar surface shots, and how the backgrounds were recycled backdrops used at multiple locations on the surface of the moon. And of course the presence of multiple light sources in photos and videos, which is something NASA said they didn't do... the official record says they didn't take any additional lights up to the Moon. I also liked the before/after photos of the "Houston we have a problem" event, in which an explosion supposedly damaged the shuttle. But once you see the photos side by side you can clearly tell that the film makers' explanation is on point (I wont give it away).
2) The second thing I like about the video is that it is a good introduction into the Van Allen Radiation Belts, which many conspiracy theorists say is proof we didn't go to the Moon. The video explains it, but in short it is an area of cancerous radiation in space that humans would need to pass through in order to reach the Moon. NASA says the astronauts went around it and that it wasn't that harmful, but scientifically we know that it is very harmful. And it is easy to question this explanation of just going around it. But regardless, this is the most interesting part of the documentary as it discusses physical and chemical science, and how nature was such a barrier to the Apollo missions that the whole thing was more of a human guinea pig test than it was well-planned exploration. And since the official record says that everything went off without any major catastrophes, it honestly sounds just a little too perfect.
3) If you are interested in learning how Hitler's Nazis created the rocket, and the US brought those Nazis to the US (after they had already murdered untold amounts of people that they did human testing on), and those Nazis then created NASA... then the third part of the documentary will interest you. Because everything I just said is true.... its the official record of all history books, but the film makers go into some other details that might interest you.
One of my favorite parts of the video is when the public relations person for NASA is talking to a group of journalists asking questions, and when he is asked about people questioning the official record, this guy says "I don't know why you are asking these questions... we already told you the answers, and we are NASA, so you shouldn't disbelieve us. We are telling the truth, and the fact that we are NASA should be enough for you to believe us". The ego of this man is beyond ridiculous, and the notion that we should just believe official records without questioning them, especially when there are many inconsistencies, is even more ridiculous. We should not silently stare at the tv and believe whatever we are told. We are not lemmings. We are not sheep. We are free thinkers, and we should ask questions when things don't add up.
Overall I give the video a 10 when I was a kid, but as an adult I can see some aspects of the video that are incorrect, poorly done, and just straight up boring. I think a fair score is 6/7, because it is a good intro into this conspiracy theory. And there are many truths in this thing, even if the internet says there isn't.
Btw, if you want to watch this you can find it on Youtube.