Relaets Reviews

Grizzly Rage (2007 TV Movie)

I love a bad movie, but they took advantage of the situation

[3/10 · 20 May 2008]

The movie seems to start out with the makings of a good Sci-Fi Channel creature flick - average acting, questionable plot, teenagers in the middle of nowhere, and a mutant bear. How did it go so wrong? (I mean that seriously.)

I am of the persuasion that if you don't want to see a bad movie, you would not be watching (or even looking up) a movie with "Grizzly" in the title. Hence it is not fair to hold the movie's own lousiness against it - you should have known that, expected that, and indeed -hoped- for that going in. So disregard anyone giving this movie a 1 right off the bat - if you were looking for a masterpiece, and picked this to watch, you aren't too bright yourself.

But here's a review for the -rest- of the crowd, people who wanted something crummy, low-budget, with mediocre acting and bad special effects - something comparable to all the other Sci-Fi channel movies. I -love- those movies, and appreciate the fact that their crumminess is part of their charm. But I think what the writers here failed to realize is that there's a difference between eating a delicious steak a few bites at a time, and having 72 ounces crammed down your throat at once. (Maybe comparing a delicious steak to a movie's crumminess isn't the best metaphor, but it's the best I could come up with). The point is there's just too much awfulness to take in, and it's just unpleasant.

The first maybe 30 minutes or so are actually pretty decent, but after that the movie just sort of meanders around and nothing happens (I don't mean in terms of plot - no plot is fine, but no action? Come on.) In hindsight, I should have expected this - after all, how much can really happen between 4 teens and a bear? So although special effects, acting, etc are more or less on par with other Sci-Fi Channel movies, this movie fails in the one place a lousy movie never should - it fails to entertain. And without any entertainment value, all the other weaknesses begin to shine through, and you realize just how bad it really is.

So - I'd recommend pretty much anything else. If you have your heart set on the bears-attack genre, "Grizzly Park" was not too bad. If you want a decent Sci-Fi Channel movie, "Aztec Rex" was pretty awesome. If all else fails, I guess watch this, but maybe consider doing your taxes during the middle hour to throw in some excitement.

Tyrannosaurus Azteca (2007)

I... I don't quite know how to feel

[8/10 · 17 May 2008]

I LOVE these Sci-Fi Channel movies. But usually when I say they are "good", what I mean is that they were bad, but in an entertaining way. But this, this turned my whole world upside down. It was actually... almost... sort of... gosh, kind of good (and I don't mean 'bad' this time).

Well first, let me get this out of the way - I think it is only fair to rate a movie independently of what it is about - if someone wants to make a movie about googly eyed pet rocks, you should then rate it based on how well they accomplished what they set out to do - not give it a 1 just because it's about googly eyed pet rocks. So in that light, realize that yes, this is about Spanish explorers meeting Aztecs who worship a dinosaur who has apparently survived for millions of years in their valley. But no, it doesn't deserve a bad rating just because of the ridiculous plot.

So with that said, the movie easily deserves an 8 because of its pretty decent special effects, pretty decent acting, pretty decent story, and highly entertaining result. The key for the viewer is being able to get past the silly premise - if you can do that, I guarantee you will enjoy yourself.

Strange Wilderness (2008)

I Hate Critics

[9/10 · 15 May 2008]

0% on Rotten Tomatoes? 28th worst movie of all time on Metacritic? Please. Ridiculous. It just shows how unbelievably out of touch critics are with the main stream, and how little their opinions mean to the lay movie goer. This is not supposed to be a work of art, it's supposed to be entertainment.

The film was not half as bad as most people say, and not 1/100th as bad as most critics say. It was stupid, immature, meandering, and hilarious, exactly what it was supposed to be, so give it a break. In general, if you liked other Happy Madison films, you'll like this one. If you hated them, you won't like this either. Big surprise.

So ignore the critics, ignore the bad reviews, and, heck, ignore the good reviews too. Just ask yourself "Do I like Adam Sandler type humor?" If the answer's yes, see this. If the answer's no, skip it, and spare it an unfair negative review. It's that easy.

Never Cry Werewolf (2008 TV Movie)

Immensely Enjoyable!

[8/10 · 14 May 2008]

First note that I have different scales for Sci-Fi Channel Originals and regular movies - an 8 for this movie does not mean the same as an 8 for what you would go to the theaters to see. But amongst sci-fi channel movies, this was a classic!

The characters were more or less believable, acting was okay, Kevin Sorbo was DELIGHTFUL as always, save for a few spots the special effects were pretty decent, some funny parts, some scary-ish parts (in a kid sort of way), all making for one very fun to watch movie.

Only complaints were, 1, it looks like it was shot in 1980 or so, you know, with the kind of off lighting and low quality image; 2, the middle 30 minutes or so really seem to drag on; and 3, some of the werewolf shots are really bad, in one I actually got confused and thought the werewolf was a trick or treater wearing a really bad costume, because (I kid you not) you could actually see that he was wearing a monster glove, because you could see where it stopped and his real arm began.

Overall, if you think you can overlook its flaws, and if you like some of the other sci-fi channel movies, you'll probably like this one. If not, stay away.

The Mist (2007)

Spectacular Disappointment

[3/10 · 20 March 2008]

3/10 is a little harsh, and mostly reflects the chasm between my expectations of this movie and the end result. A horror movie - a *Stephen King* horror movie - with a 7.5 on the IMDb? I had high hopes. Talk about a disappointment.

I read this short story about 10 years ago, when I was a kid, and I loved it. I don't know if I had low standards back then, or if this movie fell horribly short, but something was very wrong here. You should never be watching a movie and thinking of the protagonist "hurry up and die or something so I can get out of here".

There's two things to compare to when judging this movie -> other movies, and other Stephen King movies (they are two very different entities).

Special effects and acting -> maybe a 5/10 for a normal movie, 9/10 when comparing to other Stephen King movies (I've seen them all). No complaints here.

Scariness -> 7/10 compared to other movies, 5/10 compared to other King movies (judging from what people I was with said. 0/10 in my opinion, but I never think movies are scary)

Directing -> 3/10, 3/10. The camera jerks around quite a bit, and zooms in quickly on action, it gives the movie an amateur homemade feel - the kind that worked well, in, say, Cloverfield - that is very out of place when used here.

Character Development -> 5/10, 5/10, pretty much non existent, characters are painfully one dimensional -> there's the crazy religious lady, the hero father, the scared kid, the black guy, the dumb maintenance guys, ... well it goes on, the point is everyone can be summed up in about 3 words.

Dialog -> 5/10, 5/10, very poor, seems like lines were maybe cut out of various tabloids? Taken from reality TV? I don't know. Wouldn't have been a big deal, except for when the 1-D characters are trying to have an important philosophical discussion about the goodness of man, you just can't help but roll your eyes.

Writing Fails -> Normally, I wouldn't say any of this warrants a bad review, especially in a horror movie (who needs character development?) The problem is that the writer had a choice -> focus on the action, or focus on the psychological aspects. There's nothing wrong with either choice, but you need to be able to back it up -> if you want to focus on the psychology of the characters (as the movie did), you need some character development and intelligent dialog, and the movie had neither. A debate about philosophy? The meaning of religion? They ruin the movie, they are about as home here as they would be on MTV. Everything seems painfully trite, pretentious, and out of place.

Directing Fails -> I don't think it's fair to compare a movie to a book, they are two vastly different mediums, but this situation really calls for it -> the book had this sort of "creeping doom" feel to it, the story moved slowly along, very slowly building the horror, until it was on top of you, surrounding you (do I need to say this is analogous to the mist itself?) The movie just sort of drops you into the mist, leaving you wondering "how did I get here?" and "why should I care?"

Movie Fails -> Clichéd drivel.

Again acknowledging that it's not fair to compare this to the original story, the fact remains that I think you would enjoy reading (or re-reading) the story far more than watching this piece of junk (and the story's about 100 pages, it should take you about the same amount of time)

Hatchet (2006)

Answer these simple questions

[9/10 · 13 October 2007]

There's no reason for this movie to get a bad review. You should know in the first 5 minutes whether or not you will like this movie. If not, just stop watching, it's that easy.

In the first 5 minutes, I count:

2 deaths

10 gallons of blood (way more than there should ever be in 2 bodies)

21 breasts

and background music from Marilyn Manson

Does this sound good to you? Then watch it. Does this sound bad to you? Then don't watch it. This movie deserves at least a 7 simply for letting us know right away if we will like it or not. You don't need to waste 90 minutes figuring out if the movie is going to be good, it only takes 5. It's really that simple.

Walking Tall: The Payback (2007 Video)

Way Better!

[10/10 · 5 October 2007]

Very simply - if you liked the first, you should like this one, it's got more violence, more vulgarity, more plot, and more Kevin Sorbo - to put it another way, it's just way better.

In relation to the first movie - Kevin Sorbo seems like a much more down-to-earth, everyday hero, not a cartoonish superhero; A.J. Buckley is a more down-to-earth, everyday villain, not a cartoonish supervillain. The motive for revenge is better and more believable, a bit more than someone sold drugs to a kid. Sorbo (and everyone else) has more experience acting than The Rock (not that I don't like The Rock), and it shows.

There are a lot of negative reviews for this movie but for the life of me I don't know why. Ignore them, take this simple advice - if you liked the first movie, watch this. If you liked Payback, watch this. If you liked The Brave One, watch this. If you like revenge movies, watch this. If you like Kevin Sorbo, watch this. If none of those apply, skip this movie, and spare it another unfair negative review.

Supergator (2006 Video)

Pretty Awful, I loved it

[5/10 · 13 August 2007]

This was pretty awful, but if you go in expecting something any different, you simply aren't too bright. Of course it's going to be bad, that's part of the fun. So I repeat - if you want to watch a GOOD movie, do not watch this. It's that simple. There's no reason anyone should be giving this one star and writing a bad review for it, because there is no reason you should have seen the movie if you wanted something decent.

The plot was pretty much non-existent, like 10 or 20 other sci-fi channel movie plots, genetic engineering gone wrong, violence ensues.

Save for one or two actresses (who are fortunately eaten very quickly), the acting was pretty decent, and some of the dialog between characters is actually pretty well written, it's almost a shame that no one lives long enough to develop their character.

Special effects were so-so, exactly what you'd expect from a sci-fi channel original. Aside from the fact that it seemed to drastically change size throughout the movie, the 'supergator' was not bad at all. The blood however looked like it was put in with mspaint. You know the spraycan tool? It's like that. Perhaps they did this on purpose, so that when someone you liked gets eaten, you at least get the comic relief of ridiculous blood effects.

Overall, it was very entertaining, an excellent movie to watch with friends on a Saturday night. If you really like the crumminess of other sci-fi channel movies, you will like this too. If you hate their movies, why on earth are you even looking this up?

The Lion King 1½ (2004 Video)

Downright not awful!

[7/10 · 8 August 2007]

This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.

My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risqué like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).

A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.

Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)

All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)

The Hitchhiker (2007)

if you've got nothing better to do...

[4/10 · 11 March 2007]

First, the current IMDb plot description seems to be misleading, the movie is about a group of girls who pick up a misogynistic hitchhiker, who plans to kill them all. They stop at a small motel, where he holds them hostage, but develops an intense attraction for one of the girls. Violence ensues.

I picked this up by mistake thinking it was the other 2007 movie "The Hitcher". Not that The Hitcher is any better, and I was looking for a crummy movie to watch anyway, but this was almost unbearable at times. I think I could have vomited on a piece of paper and come up with a better plot than this.

I can't even count how many movies I've seen with virtually the same storyline, so this was almost painfully predictable at times, but what really made it awful were a few scenes that ... well let me give an example. At one point a door is covered in (what is very obviously) blood, and two police officers, at the scene because of a 911 call, are looking at it from 30 feet away, see a man, also covered in blood, walk out of the door, agree that it looks suspicious, but decide to not investigate further.

But, however ridiculous it may be, the movie was never boring, was well produced, directed, and acted, complete with good special effects, gratuitous nudity, and violence. I probably would not recommend actually spending 90 minutes of your life sitting down to watch this movie, but it turned out to be perfect to have on while I cleaned my basement. Also highly recommended for fans of crummy movies, and would be a good movie to watch with friends when you plan on doing more talking than watching.