tiailds

What can be said about this movie. It is shot alright. The acting could use some work, though they could only go so far with the script. This one was more for fun and not as serious as the previous ones. I wouldn't recommend this movie unless you really liked the first 2. I would give this a 3 out of 10, though for most independent found footage movies that is not that bad.

The more I heard about this, the better it sounded. I knew Ryan Reynolds had potential, but that isn't always enough.

"Was it interesting?" I'm glad that for a origin story that it's not told in a linear way. The characters view of the world and how they interact with each other was done well. I did think the X-men aspect seemed jammed in.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The fight scenes, while some were a bit fast on the editing, were great. The humor was spot on, though much of it was so today that a few years from now will seem dated compared to Guardians of the Galaxy's humor which wasn't as good but will survive longer.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The acting was fine, the special effects weren't exactly top notch but adequate, and even the music fit the mood well.

2.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because?), 1 + 2 + 2 + 2.5 = 7.5

I'll give it an 8, but it seems right on the bubble. Most of the criticisms are nitpicks. For a comic book movie, this is what to aim for.

I was optimistic when seeing the trailer for this. I knew it wasn't going to be amazing but could be alright.

"Was it interesting?" The first half or so is a lot of preparation. A lot of clunky dialog given by characters that are trying to be unlikable.

1 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The second half is almost nonsensical. The tone of the movie is all over the place.

1 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The pacing is a mess. The acting was alright, but not enough to really do anything.

.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (for classified reasons), 1 + 1 + 1 + .5 = 3.5 This is a 3 just for the last line. By now, we should know how to make a comic book movie.

Rolled my eyes every time I saw a commercial for this movie.

"Was it interesting?" The first half wasn't impressing me, but over time I got more into it. Not sure if I like the message.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" Some of the special effects were alright. Other effects were cringe-worthy. When Terminator 2, a movie made 25 years earlier, has better effects doing the same thing, someone isn't trying hard enough.

1 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The script is too optimistic for most people. Some of the plot relies on what I would call either magic or fate. These thing really annoyed me.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because tachyons or some insanity), 1 + 1.5 + 1 + 1 = 4.5 This is a four mostly for the blatant waste of money just to get some annoying point across.

Saw on a lost of recent horror and knew nothing about. Had to give it a try.

"Was it interesting?" The story was far from typical. While most of the time that can be good, in this case most of the plot details were ambiguous.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" The acting was about as flat and boring as the environment for most of it.

1 out of 3 "Was it entertaining?" While a lot of bad horror has characters that you either want to die or don't care if they live, this movie had characters I never thought they were in any danger.

1 out of 3 Starting with 1 (so that ghost in my head will stop telling me to), 1 + 1.5 + 1 + 1 = 4.5 This is a 4 simply for not portraying any real threat, either to the characters or to me. This was too independent and artistic to be scary or enjoyable.

Didn't think much of the trailer. Why Will Smith? "Was it interesting?" The plot had good information, when it got around to giving it. A lot of filler.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The acting was pretty good. The story is very low key.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" While I wanted the protagonist to succeed, since it's based on a true story I knew what was going to happen.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because the league has ruled so), 1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1 = 5 This is another true story movie that needed to just be a documentary.

The hype for this movie was rather high. Had little idea what to really expect.

"Was it interesting?" I like there being little back-story. The setting was believable.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" This movie has some of the best child acting I have seen. Some of the drama is a little overdone for me.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" While some of the pacing was a bit off, most of the movie was rather suspenseful. My biggest problem is the last 10 minutes. Entirely unbelievable.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (For it's a sin otherwise), 1 + 1.5 + 2 + 1.5 = 6 While a rather suspenseful movie, anyone considers this a horror or even somewhat scary is a lightweight.

Saw a article online about it and gave it a shot.

"Was it interesting?" It definitely tells the events well, though the lead-up is far too long.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The acting was good for a TV movie. Spader did well, but would have casted someone closer in looks and temperament.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The back-story was so long, I wondered where the movie was going to end. The "antagonists" are somewhat comical.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (or else military intelligence will come looking), 1 + 2 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 6 While flawed and slightly cheap, this movie was done well.

Horror from other countries is usually deals with something unexpected. This one was as well.

"Was it interesting?" I like the idea of little back story. Our characters are put in a situation and just go from there. The "science vs mysticism" was alright as well.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The acting wasn't anything special. The special effects were adequate with exception of the green screen "outdoor" shot which were horrible. The twist at the end was slightly predictable but still good.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" Not fighting ghosts while still fighting back was a bit annoying. The ghost hunters that don't seem to check their evidence consistently is always a bad part of supernatural horror. The character interactions were boring.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because "he" said so), 1 + 2 + 1.5 + 1 = 5.5 I'm going with 5. This movie tried to do things different, but not enough to make it above average.

The simple description was not encouraging. Was adequately disappointed.

"Was it interesting?" The research these film students do is bizarre at best. The antagonist has strange motivation and rules.

1 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The acting at time is atrocious. The characters are so archetypal to be almost caricatures. The camera work kept moving away from anything that would need more than 1 second of special effects.

.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The twist ending was OK, but the rest of the story was just tired. Another horror with characters that I want to die, not to mention an enemy that has little to do with me so why should I be scared.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because I saw it on a react video on "the deep web"), 1 + 1 + .5 + 1 = 3.5 I'll grudgingly go with a 4 for the few interesting special effects. For found footage, this is bottom of the barrel.

If you want a 90's horror made recently, this is what somewhere close.

"Was it interesting?" The basic story was alright if just a retooling of a classic plot. Some of the characters were asking to die, but not all.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The doll was mostly disappointing, just there to be creepy. The antagonist was rather cliché.

1 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" Most of this movie was just bad writing with even worse dialog. Special effects were fine though cheap.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because the bad writers want it that way), 1 + 1.5 + 1 + 1 = 4.5 This is definitely a 4. This is a movie that was made 2 decades too late.

From the majority of the reviews and opinions of this movie, I was expecting the usual Nick Cage flop.

"Was it interesting?" I was impressed with the characters. They were fleshed out just enough. The settings gave the right impression of what they were dealing with.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The acting good in parts and adequate in others. The investigating was realistic. The cinematography was great in certain scenes and was annoyingly bad in others. The music was the most unique thing to this film. Must have been the inspiration for Sinister.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The few bits of action were good. The suspense for the most part was what was needed. The ending was a bit too far fetched to believe.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because that's what the client wants), 1 + 2 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 6 This movie was definitely above my expectations. I probably won't want to really see it anytime soon, but don't know what all the hate is for. If it's because it's dealing with sleazy things, that's the whole idea.

I was hyped about this one. The previous 2 were great, and wanted to see more.

"Was it interesting?" The story wasn't as good as the earlier films.

1 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" The fight scenes were good as usual. The "cameo" was a tad strange.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The character development slowed everything down. The plot didn't have any urgency.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because the British say so), 1 + 1 + 2 + 1.5 = 5.5 The ending was disappointing so I'd say a 5. I'm not sure if they were implying another sequel, but I doubt there will be.

Finished watching one movie and this was on. Watched it through, but wasn't sure what it was.

"Was it interesting?" The world building was rather unique. There are all different races living in this kingdom, the technology goes from Renaissance to later 20th century. The geography can't pin down even what continent this place is. Kept me guessing, I guess.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" With the exception of the 2 protagonists and the antagonist, everyone else seems unnecessary and has a good chance of dying by the end. The trope of the hero arriving too late to save the day was used a few too many times.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The action, though unbelievable most of the time, was enjoyable. The sound effects were bizarre at times.

2 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because I'm afraid of Shang Tsung), 1 + 2 + 1.5 + 2 = 6.5 I'll bump it to 7. This movie knows it's not a blockbuster, and it does it's best with what it has.

Wanted to see this early on and also wanted to wait for what type of reception it would get. Didn't really get a strait answer.

"Was it interesting?" It seemed to bend over backwards to be interesting. Plot is busy and cluttered. Characters are what you would expect for the most part.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" Most of the acting was better than expected. With the exception of Lex Luthor (and annoyed at a lack of a promised more buff Wonder Woman), I would like to see more of these actors reprise their roles.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The action (when they get to it eventually) is impressive, though can be a bit excessive on effects. Surprising how Batman doesn't have any real fight scene till the third act.

2 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because it's part of my continuity), 1 + 1.5 + 2 + 2 = 6.5 Eisenberg knocks it down to a 6, but grudgingly. A re-cut or re-edit could probably do wonders for this film, if not just cutting it into 2 films.

I just liked the story, so I assumed the movie would be somewhat good.

"Was it interesting?" There was plenty of character development, maybe too much. I would have preferred more of the film being cat and mouse revenge, but most was the setup. Everything seemed to make sense.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" Jim Caviezel performance is like most of his roles, bland. The amount of money involved in the story is a ridiculous amount.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it entertaining?" A well planed revenge story is always fun for me. The action was OK, the sets were impressive, and the most of the acting was fine.

2 out of 3 Starting with 1 (where I learned in prison), 1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 2 = 6 A nice enjoyable movie with a few flaws that don't take away and of the fun.

The trailer made me curious. Wasn't that disappointed.

"Was it interesting?" The characters were rather unique and fleshed out. The story wasn't too original. There were few surprises.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" The acting was decent. The cinematography, especially some of the animations, were rather artistic.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" Besides a few monologues and asides, most of this movie was bland. So much deadpan deliveries just got me more bored.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because that's how you make an opera house),

1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1 = 5 I would only recommend this to someone who likes these type of films. An ordinary everyday viewer probably wouldn't appreciate it.

This film doesn't deserve a full review. Though not as bad as many are saying, this is not good by any means. I give it a four, but a 3.5 might be closer. The first half is a lot of sentimental fluff which tries to make a mediocre script passable. Most of the accents are almost impossible to understand, the rest are just fake. I think it would have gotten more attention if all of the dialog were in whatever language they truly were spoken in and subtitled everything. The second half is strait-up propaganda extolling the virtue of Sepp Blatter. Seeing as he pretty much payed for this, I can't fault him for trying. I also understand why it made only $600 at theaters. Believe what you will. I just kept rolling my eyes.

The trailer for this looked as bad as everyones expectations.

"Was it interesting?" I have always like an evil mastermind, and this film does a good job at that. The portrayal of the time period was a little shaky.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The major flaw is that the script is trying to be dark like most films of this kind today, but with a story that is not that exciting. The accents came and went depending on the scene.

1 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" This was a movie that was made in the wrong time. If this was made 40 years ago with rather good actors, it could have been amazing. Especially if it was given a good budget as well. Today it comes off as a well-intentioned B-movie.

1 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because that's what critics do), 1+2+1+1=5 This is such a middle of the road, Sunday afternoon cable movie. It's either this or watch golf.

I had heard this recommended from various people. Knowing who made it, I had no idea what I was to expect.

"Was it interesting?" It's portrayal of the future is a almost Futurama level strange. It definitely gives a unique perspective.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" Anything by Don Hertzfeldt is memorable in some way. The sound, the amazing artwork, the voice acting. I would ask for more, but would have probably overstayed it's welcome.

2.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" Like most of Hertzfeldt, you are along for a ride. The bitter-sweet feel of the whole thing made it more poignant than most of this type of short.

2 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because that's what my previous clone always did) 1 + 2 + 2.5 + 2 = 7.5 Giving this an 8 seems well deserved. There is so little to complain about it. Hope there is more like it in the future.

The trailer for this looked really interesting.

"Was it interesting?" It told a unique story. Some of the events seemed a bit beyond belief. Some of the characters were complex while others were somewhat cartoon-like.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it memorable?" One of the main problems for me was the meandering story. About the first half is just a series of episodes. The acting was good overall.

1.5 out of 3 "Was it entertaining?" About half of the impersonations of known celebrities were convincing. The rest were vague attempts at best. The ending was a entirely different tone than the rest of the movie, but was the most enjoyable.

1.5 out of 3 Starting with 1 (because it's the "American" way), 1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 5.5 I'll knock it up to 6 because Louis CK does a decent job. I'm glad I watched it, but wouldn't really recommend it to anyone I knew.

I've always avoided Wes Anderson movies, but like Tarantino and Reservoir Dogs, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

"Was it interesting?" This movie might be shot well but is mostly about the characters. I was afraid the quirkiness was going to make them into cartoons, but they had be made into complex people with involved back-stories. The way the interacted with each other was understandable, though a little weak at times.

2.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" Wes Anderson's style is noticeable throughout, but it doesn't distract too much. While there are occasionally some vibrant colors, most of the movie is dingy, but I feel that was somewhat purposeful.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" As a comedy, it's rather light. As a drama, it's a little weird. It's not a fun movie, or a powerful movie. It's somewhere in the middle being just an enjoyable movie. Good things happened, bad things happened, people learned various lessons, life goes on. Just done in a unique way.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (why ask), 1 + 2.5 + 2 + 1.5 = 7 The performances were good, though I thought the casting was a little mismatched.

From all the hype, I had to see how good the best movie ever was. Tried keeping my expectations reasonable.

"Was it interesting?" It is extremely interesting, which was a bit of a problem. I kept getting distracted by trying to analyze what the internal mechanisms effect had on the outside world.

2 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" With great characters and wildly imaginative world, this definitely is one of the best Pixar movies. I did find the outside characters to be a little flat.

2 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" I always love a good adventure. This one had a few parts that were somewhat formulaic, but overall a great time.

2 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (for some reason I seem to forget), 1+2+2+2=7 A solid movie, and for an animated movie made in the US, that is saying something.

The synopsis for this got me interested. The music helped as well.

"Was it interesting?" The characters were well thought out. My biggest problem is with the "twist" or "reveal" at the 2/3 mark. Pretty much ruined the rest of the movie for me. I just didn't buy it at all.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The music was rather good. The cinematography, especially in the montages, was amazing. The ending felt a little flat.

2 out of 3.

"Was it enjoyable?" Until the reveal, it was a good sit. Afterward, I was just waiting for it to end.

1.5 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because it's a secret to everyone), 1 + 1.5 + 2 + 1.5 = 6 I can't say it was a waste of time, but probably will never watch again. Was Lawrence Fishburne really necessary? I understand William H Macy.

Most of this type of comedy is not what I prefer. I am glad that this one was not what I was expecting.

"Was it interesting?" The pacing was good. The story was just predictable enough to fit the comedy. There were a few surprises.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it memorable?" The performances were well done, though the baddies were rather underwhelming. The family dynamic was good.

1.5 out of 3.

"Was it entertaining?" The combination of writing made for these particular comedians was what really helped make this enjoyable.

2 out of 3.

Starting with 1 (because it's the law), 1 + 1.5 + 1.5 + 2 = 6 A movie I wouldn't mind seeing again, though wouldn't go out of my way to. I would recommend it in passing.