MadWatch Reviews

Death Tunnel (2005)

I lost $5 and 25 minutes of my life.

[1/10 · 2 July 2010]

Wow. Wow. I wish that I was a poet so that I could adequately find the words to describe just how awful this movie is. Nay, I cannot even call this a 'movie'; movies have stories and plots, even the bad ones do. It is rare that I will not watch a movie through to the end, regardless of how bad it is. But Death Tunnel was not even worth more than 25 minutes of my time.

This was not even a movie; it was a random, mish mash of sometimes extremely quick and sometimes sort of long scenes, with no coherency. I am serious.

1) The movie jumps around from 4 different time-lines, with some jumps being as quick as 3 seconds to as long as 5 minutes. 2) There are scenes and/or images that are just randomly inserted with no introduction or explanation as to why the scenes are there. 3) There were many scenes in which I had no idea whose Point of View the scene was supposed to be from. Some scenes appeared to be intended strictly from the audience's POV, which makes no sense in movie making, since the audience is not actually IN the movie. But there was no other explanation for why the scenes were shown.

And this was only in the first 25 minutes!! I kept asking aloud, "What is going on? What was that about? Whose POV is that supposed to be? What was the point of that?" This was NOT a movie; it was merely a haphazard collection of scenes that *overall* followed some vague story about teenage girls that went to the bar and ended up in an abandoned hospital.

2 Minute scene of teenage girls in a bar. Sudden images of a hospital gurney. A girl locked in a dirty, hospital room. She takes a sack off of her head. A 2 second image of 2 topless women walking down a hall. A 10 second video of teenage girls outside college. Sudden images of old video footage of people in a hospital. 1 minute scene of teenage girls in a contest at a bar. A 1 minute scene of a teenage boy watching video monitors and....something happens. Followed by static footage of random building images. 3 minute scene of a teenage girl walking through a filthy hallway. and so on.

Horrible, horrible, horrible. I saw no point in even watching any more. And now I am out of $5, which I could have spent on candy. At least I would have gotten more enjoyment out of candy, and it would have lasted longer.

Kröd Mändoon and the Flaming Sword of Fire (2009)

Lost potential

[3/10 · 15 July 2009]

Krod Mandoon started out as an interesting premise, mainly a fantasy sword and sorcery sitcom. However it just becomes a platform for more anti-male/pro-female bullcrap that is considered "humor" in our society. In between scenes of fantasy style questing, scenes of medieval castles/towns and characters like warriors and wizards, are the messages that "women are awesome and sexy" and "men are idiots and buffoons" while pointing out that female sexuality is awesome and sexy and male sexuality is disgusting and ugly.

I would have rated the show higher, but could not stand the misandric garbage. I had enough by the 4th episode.

Next!

Transmorphers (2007 Video)

I cannot say much more other than, this movie was bad.

[1/10 · 23 September 2008]

I have watched a lot of movies during my lifetime and frequently buy movies from the $5 bargain bins. Every so often you get a gem that is worth keeping, but most bargain bin movies are at least watchable enough to actually watch the whole thing.

Transmorphers was so horrible, I could not even sit through the whole movie. The story was basic and offered nothing new, the characters were clichéd, annoying and horribly acted. Also, what was up with the constantly moving camera??!! Seriously, the camera never stays still; it was constantly bopping around, just making the movie that much more painful to watch.

I kept watching, hoping for at least a worth while special-effects/action scene. When such a scene did appear, it was worse that what is offered by most modern action video game titles. I have seen better graphics and action scenes in video games like Half-Life 2, Gears of War and similar games, than I have in Transmorphers.

Horrible, horrible, and now I am out of $5, which I could have spent on candy.

Rating: 1/10.

One Missed Call (2008)

I wish this could have been, "One Missed Movie"

[3/10 · 5 January 2008]

This review may contain spoilers.

This movie follows the 'standard' template of a lot of horror movies that have come out in the last few years: Main characters friends are dying/getting-killed by something creepy and supernatural. Main character teams up with another person that is also somehow involved in the events. They follow clues to the 'source' of the problem. The 'source' of the supernatural problem is related to some tragic event, usually tied to a young female character.

If you have seen movies like; Fear Dot Com, The Ring, Dark Water, Phone, Pulse, The Eye, The Grudge then you have seen the formula that One Missed Call is based on.

I also rated the movie low due to the following: 1) The plot is rather simple, but the movie is dragged out by long "5 minutes walking through a desolated building with nothing happening" scenes. 2) At least half of the 'scary moments' are traditional "fake scares", like when the scary music builds up and.... A CAT JUMPS OUT!! 3) Once you find out the "reason" behind all of the strange happenings it just opens up a crap load of new questions: If *that* is the answer, then why did *this* happen? How could *that* have happened? Why would this or that happen? The "answer" makes no sense overall and does not explain why the events you saw over the course of the movie happened.

As for point #3, this seems to be a trend these days: movies that involve the "spirit" of a dead person that is wreaking havoc after-death. Why is the spook able to cause all this mayhem? Control technological devices? Appear anywhere in the world? Make living people hallucinate? Why is a corpse able to just animate itself? Is it just taken for granted these days, that "spirits" have all these wacky, superhero powers just because they are "spirits"?

I rated the movie 3 out of 10. It was far from great, but definitely not entirely bad either.

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)

As others have noted: This was a misrepresented movie

[4/10 · 29 December 2007]

I just felt the need to add my voice to the many other reviewers that felt that this movie was 'misrepresented'. I do not want to counter anyone that did like the movie, because I am not saying that Bridge to Terabithia was a 'bad' movie. I am simply saying that it is NOT the movie that was advertised.

I can actually summarize, very briefly, my whole issue with this movie: The advertisement for this movie was tailored in such a way that it leads the audience to believe that it is a light hearted fantasy movie about some teenage characters that travel to the mystical world of Terabithia, have adventures and meet fairy tale beings.

However, that is not true. Instead the movie is actually a drama about a teenage boy, his relationship with his new friend and how he copes with the death of his friend.

Imagine going to see a rip-roaring action movie, because the trailers showed all manner of 'action' scenes. But when you watch the movie, you find out that it is really a romance/drama movie and the 'action' scenes shown in the trailers were only daydreams that one of the main character had.

As a drama movie, it was okay (I would rate it 5/10). However, as a fantasy/adventure movie that I was led to believe I would be seeing, I rate it 1/10.

Transformers (2007)

Exactly what meets the eye.

[8/10 · 9 July 2007]

I was expecting an exciting science-fiction/action movie about giant robots that transform, and that is what I got.

Transformers is very entertaining movie. This movie had humor, action, great special effects. The basic story: The American military seems to be under attack by strange forces that is trying to gain information from their computers. As they struggle to find out who is behind it all, a group of giant sentient robots comes to earth to battle with their evil counterparts. The humans and the good Autobots side up to defeat the evil Decepticons. Caught up in the struggle is Sam and his friend Mikela, because Sam, unknowingly possesses the secret to the power that the Transformers are battling over.

The good:

-The special effects were incredible. It is great to see thatCGI has developed to the point where it is really difficult to tell what is an effect what is the actual background in a movie. The robot characters were awesome looking.

-The acting ranged from decent to great across the many characters. Overall, I would have to say that the acting was well done.

-The story was interesting and compelling. I was really engrossed in the movie when it was portrayed the conflict that was going on as something that was affecting 'the world', or at least got the attention of the world. This made the movie feel more 'epic-like'.

-The movie did not go into too much detail about the alien characters background and history, which I class as a good thing, since that would probably open up too many nitpicks.

The bad:

-I like seeing attractive female characters as much as the next person. However, I would like to see them as an actual character. I am tired of the female characters that are put in movies, *just* to be a male characters girlfriend.

-On that note, I am also tired of movies telling men/boys that their lives MUST revolve around women. I am tired of the message to men/boys that their lives are meaningless unless they have some (attractive) woman/girl in their life.

-I don't think that the movie made good use of the alien character's ability to "transform". Throughout the whole movie, they chose one form and stuck with it. I just thought that it would have been better to show the characters actually changing forms more often to suit a situation.

-The movie focused TOO much on the humans. I mean, the movie was about 140 minutes long and it wasn't until 50 minutes into the movie, that the "main" robot characters were introduced. Even after that, the robots were secondary characters to the human characters, which did not seem right.

-I thought that the Decepticon, Frenzy, was way too "bizarre". I think they should have toned down the 'bizarreness' of that character.

-I thought that the robot 'urinating' scene was totally inapprorpriate.

-There is a scene where the giant robots are trying to 'hide' in the backyard of the house was too goody and WAY too long.

Overall, I would have given the movie a 9/10 rating, but there was enough 'low' points to drop that to 8/10.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

A Thrill a moment

[8/10 · 27 June 2007]

Live Free or Die Hard is the latest in the series of 'Die Hard' movies with Bruce Willis playing the iconic character: John McClane. In the first movie, bad guys hold a building hostage. In the second movie, bad guys hold an airport hostage. In the third movie, bad guys hold a city hostage. Now in the fourth movie, bad guys hold a country hostage!

If you liked the first three movies, then you should like this movie: It is more Bruce Willis, more John McClane, more action, more stunts, more explosions! The movie is non-stop for the entire two hours. I mean, there is hardly any 'downtime' where the story is not advancing or something is not happening. It is go, go, GO! The acting was great, as far as 'action' movies go. Even secondary characters were acted and portrayed well. A lot of the stunts were really over the top, but all in good fun.

I didn't like the McClane's comments on the hacker, "You play with dolls" "Don't have a girlfriend." or telling his daughters prospective boyfriends that he will 'kill them', because, to me, it is just more anti-male sexism, but not enough to ruin the movie.

So, if you are looking for an entertaining, thrilling, action, "popcorn" movie, then Live Free or Die Hard is the movie for you. In fact, I watched the movie opening day on Wednesday, if my friends go and see the movie this Saturday, I may join them and watch it again. :) I rated the movie 8 out of 10.

Flightplan (2005)

Unholy Blightplan

[4/10 · 23 June 2007]

Story summary (from the movie trailers): A woman and her daughter board a plane. The daughter goes missing and others on the plane claim that the daughter never existed.

My review The trailer summarizes the first 45 minutes of the movie, literally. You could watch the trailer, get briefed on what is happening , then watch the remaining 55 minutes to see how it unfolds. THAT next portion is where the movie falls apart. The main reason to watch this movie (which was my reason, at least) is to find out the answer to the question: "What happened to the daughter and why would other people on the plane deny ever seeing her?" How could it be that a whole airplane, have some 400+ passengers and NO ONE remembers seeing the daughter? Did aliens abduct her secretly? Is it some sort of government cover-up? Was it some strange science-fiction warped reality thing happening?

Unfortunately the answer is an unbelievably implausible piece of claptrap.

***Major Spoilers next. BUT!! You may want to read the spoiler to save yourself from watching the last 45 minutes of the movie***

The daughter is kidnapped by a fellow passenger (the air Marshall) and his accomplice (one of the flight attendants). This was done with the pretense that the mother would go 'crazy' looking for her daughter. Then, the plan is that the 'crazy' woman will make her way to the cargo hold and open the digitally locked coffin that her dead husband is in, where a bomb has been hidden. Then the air Marshall can convince the captain that the woman is secretly a hijacker with a bomb on the plane and convince the captain to have the airline wire money to a bank account. Then, the plan is that the FBI would shoot the woman, thinking she is a terrorist/hijacker and the girl would be 'vaporised' by the bomb that the air Marshall and his accomplice had planted on the plane.

Whoa. What an unbelievably complicated and contrived plan. The plan is based on SOOOOO many random factors (mostly on people and their reacts) that it is ridiculous to see anyone actually thinking the plan would work. The script seems like it was written with the first part in mind (mother frantic about missing daughter on airplane), THEN the writers had to come up with a reason, fast!! They concocted the whole 'secret hijacker for money plan', BUT with NO research into how that part of the plot would be handled when you thought about the impact.

Oh, yes as to the answer to the big question: Why did the other passengers/crew claim that they did not see the daughter? Simply, because (highly improbable!!!), NO ONE did see her. That is the answer. No intricate conspiracy. No sci-fi explanation. Just bad writing.

I give the movie 4 out of 10. The movie gets 1 out of ten for the first 45 minutes which *were* interesting, 0 out of 10 for the stupid plot that happened in the second half and 3 out of 10 for the good job done by the actors (who did good with what they were given).

A Scanner Darkly (2006)

A Scanner Boringly

[3/10 · 13 June 2007]

***Spoilers Warning*** The story: In the near future, police are trying to trace the origin of a narcotic called Substance D, which ultimately destroys the persons brain. Bruce is an undercover cop, who goes by the name Fred, sent to infiltrate a small group of substance users (undercover as a fellow user called Bob Arctor) in order to get more information from Donna, who is a drug supplier. During his mission, Bruce/Fred/Bob gets hooked on the drug as well, as he pals around with his 'buddies'. Drug users can go to a rehab place called New Path and live out their lives, if they are too far gone. After Fred has gone to far and his brain is deteriorating, he is sent to New Path. Now we find out, at the end of the movie, that his supervisors planned this and secretly manipulated him to this point so that he could enter New Path, whom the police believe are the ones actually creating the narcotic.

The story sounds interesting, however the movie has many huge flaws: 1) It takes 70 out of the 90 minutes to get to the point. The first 70 minutes are almost all about "Bob Acrtor" undercover and just 'hanging around' with his drug user buddies as they philosophy about life, bicycles and who is 'out to get them'. At the 48 minute mark, I actually said aloud to myself, "What is the POINT of this movie?" This movie was like a 22 minute Twilight Zone episode, or even a 45 minute Outer Limits episode, that was 'padded' to a 90 minute movie.

2) There was no point to the animation, whatsoever. The whole movie could have been done as straight live-action.

3) There was no point to the "scramble suits" whatsoever. It seems like the whole reason for these suits would be so that no one would know (till the end) that "Freds" supervisor was really Donna (or vice versa) or that the supervisor would not know that they were putting Fred on a case to spy on himself. This could have been handled with a *much* simpler excuse, without resorting to ridiculous sci-fi gimmickery.

4) The movie is presented as a sci-fi, "rubber reality" type of movie. However, if you remove the "scramble suits" and used live action instead of the distracting animation style, this would have been just a normal, drama movie. Nothing else.

Some people may say that "I just don't 'get' it". No, I understand the movie completely. If there is still something that I do not 'get', then it is the movie producers fault, not mine. Those that rated this movie highly because they found some sort of "philosophic" and deeper meaning is because they WANTED to find a deeper meaning to the movie.

I rated the movie 3 out of 10. It was boring, took a long time to get to the point, but was interesting to a degree.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Stranger than real life

[9/10 · 31 May 2007]

**Some Spoilers** Harold Crick is an IRS agent who comes to the realization, by hearing a narrator's voice in his head, that he is a character in a novel. He then finds out that he is going to be killed in the story. He tries to find the author and urge them to change the story.

The movie is a combination of drama and comedy, with a touch of "rubber reality" (examples: Vanilla Sky, Jacobs Ladder) thrown in. I do not like traditional Will Ferrell movies because he always seems to play a buffoon and his comedies seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator in our society. However, Stranger Than Fiction appealed to me and seeing the movie, paid off. Will Ferrell is great in this movie. He plays a straight-forward character who has a very ordered life that he finds is suddenly turned upside down. So completely different from the buffoon characters from other movies, Will Ferrell manages to be serious and genuinely funny, but without going over the top. By the end of the movie, I felt sympathetic and empathic towards the character of Harold Click.

Supporting characters/actors were great as well and really hit the mark. Dustin Hoffman was great as the literary professor that tries to help Harold understand the issue of finding oneself a character in an, as yet, uncompleted novel. Emma Thompson is great as the writer-blocked author that has trouble deciding how to complete the book. Queen Latifah (another actress whom I do not like most of the movies she is in), does a great job as the assistant hired to help the author. Maggie Gyllenhaal does a good job as Anna. However, Anna is a somewhat a clichéd character: She is a wanted-to-be lawyer that instead opened a bakery store thinking she could help others better that way. How many movies have female characters (especially love interests) that are "good natured, loving people", simply because they are female? A lot.

It is difficult to point out the main *good* aspect of this movie without spoiling something. Therefore, I would urge a review reader to just go and see the movie. If you want more insight, but this may spoil the end, keep reading.

During the course of the movie, it is difficult to determine where it is heading (I mean this in a good way!). As the character Harold tries to determine about his own life, it is difficult to determine if the movie will continue/end as a tragedy (hero dies) or comedy. Without giving everything away, I will say this: The movie ends in a touching, feel-good type of way that made me feel emotional *long* after the movie ended. :) The movie ends in such a way that when the movie ends, you will look around and think, "Hey! Maybe life really isn't that bad."

I rated this movie 9 out of 10.

The Messengers (2007)

The message says "Dont watch"

[2/10 · 17 May 2007]

******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.

The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, "Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the "attack" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another "evil man" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!

As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were "fakes". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!

How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.

I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.

Casino Royale (2006)

It was okay I guess.

[5/10 · 18 November 2006]

First of all, I really like James Bond movies (hence me going to see this one). This one was ....okay.

I understand that it is supposed to be "newbie" James Bond when he first started as a 00 agent, but there were things about the movie overall. First of all, the movie was too long and too drawn out. There is a scene near the beginning where James chases a bad guy for like 10 minutes! That's a LONG chase scene and unnecessarily so.

Next, this is *supposed* to be a prequel: why did it take place in modern times? I was initially confused about all the modern cars, cellphones and gadgets. Is this supposed to be a prequel to the previous James Bond films?? If so, why did this movie take place in 2006? If Judi Dench played "M" in the Pierce Brosnan movies and she was taking over the previous M, why was she M when he was getting started? What they heck? The plot line is not the "typical" James Bond story (i.e. no powerful villain with a device/plan to threaten/takeover the world. It was a pretty weak story, as a James Bond story. However, this is probably explained by this being a "rookie" James Bond character.

Most of the stunts were good, but frequently were overdone. When there was action it was good. I can see how some parts of the story could confuse people. It just seemed a little odd that most of James' investigation came from cellphone information.

Overall, I give the movie a 5 out of 10. It was a decent action movie, it just wasn't great and it was drawn out to much.

The Eye 2 (2004)

It was okay

[3/10 · 18 September 2006]

****Probably will contain spoilers****

After a successful attempt to get attention (I would not call making sure that you get help before you die a "failed suicide attempt"), Joey finds out that she is pregnant and starts seeing images of spirits.

Overall the movie was a little slow going, but entertaining enough to watch the whole thing. For a horror movie, there were only a few minor creeps and thrills. Halfway through, however, was a really good scary scene (I wont give it away though) :) I watched this movie because I really liked the preceding movie, The Eye.

I was a little confused, however to determine that, other than being a "supernatural suspense" movie from the same creators, The Eye 2 had NO relation to The Eye, *whatsoever*; different cast, different story. The Eye2 does not even have anything to do with eyes :\

The movie had a few questionable scenes: Joey attempts suicide 3 times (4 times, if you count the time when witnesses say they saw Joey trying to jump in front of the train), she is associated with brutally defacing an attacker, she freaks out in a restaurant and witnesses say she was "attacking" people and yet she is allowed to go about her business freely, without even so much as a psyche evaluation or put in the hospital (for reasons other than her pregnancy).

The movie was not the greatest horror movie, the story was rather far-fetched (even for a fiction movie :P ), the spooks were either few and/or nothing we have not seen before. However, it was an "interesting" story and once you know what the "truth" is behind the spooks, it was an interesting twist on the "ghost" story.

I rate the movie 3 out of 10.

Pulse (I) (2006)

Started as a great supernatural horror, then degraded in a B sci-fi movie.

[5/10 · 12 August 2006]

Spoilers within.

I thought that the first half of Pulse had some genuine creepy, scary moments. In the first 45 minutes, I was already planning to sleep that night with the lights on and probably not even turn on my computer or TV set. I found it to be THAT creepy.

Then, in the second half, the momentum dropped. The creepy atmosphere, the unknown supernatural presence all dissolved away into a ho-hum science fiction movie.

I had 3 MAJOR problems with the movie:

1) These spirit beings have been able to grab *anyone* that they want at *anytime*. The WHOLE planet is in a crisis because people are being converted and absorbed\killed by the spooky spirit things that live in the electronics. For some reason the 2 main characters are able to waltz around spirit city and the spooks CANT get them. Come on!!! People are dropping left and right because there is no defense (other than red tape), yet the 2 characters walk into the HEART of where all this began and walk right back out again??!!! Yes, the spooks "seem" to be following them the whole time but are *unable* to get them. Whatever!

2) Therewere plot holes galore mainly because of the inconsistencies of the spirit-creatures. They can appear anywhere, even in normal mirrors, yet they are driven off by a cellphone that cant get a signal, because they need cellphone signals .. . .? What...? There was just TOO much inconsistencies in how the spooks could appear and what their limits were, etc.

3) Okay, after you see the same, creepy white skinned guy 50 times, he stops losing his spookiness :P

Overall, I thought that the first half was great, then it just went downhill. I rate this movie 5 out of 10.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Wow. This was one boring movie.

[2/10 · 12 May 2006]

Wow. This was one boring movie. I'm not sure why, but when this movie first came out it seemed to appeal to me, but I did not get the chance to see it in the theater. Then I forgot about it and did not rent it either. Recently I got the chance to watch it on TV. Boy, am I glad I waited.

The movie is about 2 people that are in Tokyo for different reasons. Seemingly because of the culture difference, they are unable to fit in enough to find anything to do and mope about how bored they are and how they want to leave Japan. At least Bill Murrays character was somewhat interesting and he is always fun to watch as an actor.

The female lead however, generated absolutely no sympathy from me. She is supposed to be the 'neglected wife'. However, her husband is shown as a loving and devoted husband, who happens to be away on business a lot, which is why they are in Japan to begin with. I kept thinking that she was a whiny spoiled brat that should make the best of the situation (she's in Japan for crying out loud; its like a long vacation!). The whole "husband works all the time"/neglected wife scenario has been done to absolute DEATH. Bleh.

So, as the the story continues, the two of them do normal everyday things, like go to the bar, hang out and talk and go out for supper. As the movie progressed I kept asking "So, when is something going to happen?" "What's the point of this movie?" And then it ended.

After reading some of the discussions it turns out that this is a brilliant, subtle movie which is fantastic for those that "get it". Well, the subtleties were too subtle for me and chalk me up as one of those that don't "get it".

Soul Plane (2004)

Soul Plain

[1/10 · 16 November 2005]

I have watched a lot of movies in my life time, in the theater and by renting. No matter how bad I thought the movie was, I have not yet walked out of a theater, and have only returned 1 rented movie before watching the whole things (Robot Holocaust).

Soul Plane is the second movie that did not bother to watch the whole DVD. The first 30 minutes alone were insulting and stupid enough that I did not need to see the rest. I was literally, *embarrassed* to watch this movie, and I was watching it ALONE!

This movie pushes stereotypesto a whole new level. There is a scene where a security guard uses their power to get a passenger into a back-room and rape them, and it is supposed to be "funny". The dialogue was tired and stupid. Most of the characters were stereotypical: The women were attractive and desirable and the males were stupid and sex-hounds.

I think this may be the first movie I have rated a 1 out of 10, because it has NO redeeming qualities. Normally, when I see a bad movie, I will watch the whole thing to give a full movie critique, or at least bring it my friends "Bad Movie Night". However, this movie was not even worthy of that.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

Trailers are misleading. Not a supernatural movie.

[3/10 · 12 September 2005]

The Exorcism of Emily Rose. I recall the trailers and commercials depicting supernatural events like demonic faces appearing in window moisture and a guy with black stuff oozing from his eyes. The creepiest part of the trailer was a taxi driving by and the guy in the back seat had a grotesque distorted visage. That part of the trailer gave me the creeps. The trailers and commercial led me to believe that this would be a supernatural thriller, like the Exorcist or the Omen.

****Spoilers in this review****

However, this is all bunk. This was not a supernatural thriller at all. It was a courtroom drama, much like LA Law or The Practice or even Century City. The whole "supernatural" aspect was simply a plot point in a courtroom drama story. Even then, the "supernatural" aspect may not even be true, considering that the court case itself was debating whether or not the character Emily Rose, *actually* experienced a supernatural encounter or simply had medical issues. ALL of the "creepy" parts of the movies (and there were only a few) could have simply been coincidences because the movie did NOTHING to prove that they *actually* happened.

Okay, so it's a courtroom drama movie. How was it? Meh. It was okay, I guess. I'm not one for watching dramas, however. It was entertaining enough that I didn't walk out and ask for my money back, but I sure the heck would not advise others to pay for this movie. I would recommend seeing this movie for free, like when a friend rents the video or when it comes to television.

My final rating: As a supernatural thriller: 2/10, as a "general" movie: 5/10, overall: 3/10.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Interesting movie

[6/10 · 29 August 2005]

****Spoilers in this review**** I was really eager to see this movie and saw it opening night. I am finding it difficult to come to a conclusion as to exactly what I feel about the movie, so I will just say this; The movie was interesting, had some really nice visuals and was entertaining enough to watch the entire thing without feeling I lost my money.

On that note, the movie is just missing .....something. Something that prevents me from saying that it was a "good" movie, but, for some reason, I just cant deduce what that missing element is.

The story takes place centuries ago in France-occupied Germany. Two brothers make a living by swindling townsfolk into believing in horrible, fairy-tale creatures and get paid for "rescuing" the townsfolk. After getting caught by the French militia, they agree to investigate a series of strange happenings in a nearby town. This leads them into a strange encounter with an enchanted forest and a variety of uncanny, enchanted beings and creatures, eventually finding the truth behind the bizarre events and releasing the town from the enchantment.

The story and various individual elements are pretty decent and the visuals are really well done. I found that the acting by the main characters was decent enough, just not good enough to really grab you. Also, I found that the acting by Peter Stormare was problematic because his accent was so heavy that I could not understand his words half of the time. For most of the main characters, I could not discern what nationality they were from their accents and how they interacted with others. First I thought the brothers were British, then German, then French, then I just stopped trying to figure out their nationality.

There were some bizarre elements in the movie, that when I reminded my self it was a Terry Gilliam movie (who also made similar "bizarre" movies like Baron Munchausen, Brazil and 12 Monkeys), then it made sense, sort of. You had to view some elements through a "Terry Gilliam" filter or they may just seem bizarre and out of place.

**Spoiler alert** Even though I had no trouble following the story, it appears that other reviewers were confused by what was happening. The movie explains that the forest is enchanted and oozing magic and enchantments. The movie also explains that the Witch Queen is kidnapping young girls to steal their youth. So, why are people confused by things like the mud-creature kidnapping a child or the horse kidnapping a child or the children appearing in a pool to be gathered by the woodsman?? Answer: The horse, mudman and pool were enchanted to get the children to the tower.

One part that *I* was confused by, however, was this: If the Witch Queen needed young girls to steal their youth for her spell, then why was Angelika used in the ritual? She was a full grown woman. Also, why did Cavaldi's character change so drastically? First he didn't like the brothers, he wanted to torture and kill them, but at the end he was saving them and dancing for joy with them. Odd.

Conclusion (as best as I can): I was disappointed in the way the story was carried out, not with the actual story itself. The acting needed work. People may be turned off or even confused by the Terry Gilliam style of movies. Overall I give the movie a 6 out of 10.

Sky High (2005)

Sky High fun!

[8/10 · 2 August 2005]

***May contain spoilers*** Quick Plot: In a world where super-powered humans exists, Will is the son the the greatest super-hero couple, The Commander and Jetstream. Children of superpowered parents are sent to an exclusive school called Sky High in order to train them to use their super powers. The movie follows Will as he encounters various obstacles while trying to live up to the standards of his famous parents.

Basically this movie is a stereotypical "teenagers in high school" movie combined with a superhero plot. It has all the standard elements of a teenage movie: dorky male character, female friend who really loves him, group of nerdy misfits that save the day, high school "tough guy", high school bullies, prom night dance, attractive teenage girl that is desired by all the guys, etc However, the formula works with the superhero aspect added and combine to create a fun, entertaining movie. The special effects for the super powers really blend in well and the actors all do a great job (both adult and teenagers alike). The pacing was good and the flow of the movie went well.

A downside though, is that the movie was pretty predictable, at least for me anyway. I was already figuring the identity and plan of the villain long before it was shown in the movie. But that's just me.

Overall, this was a thoroughly "fun" movie and good for all ages. This movie isn't going to change your life, bring about world peace or be titled "Best Movie Ever", but it is a fun movie to watch and entertain.

I definitely recommend this movie. I give it a 7.5 out of 10.

The Island (2005)

Decent movie spoiled by glaring nitpicks

[4/10 · 25 July 2005]

NOTE: Spoilers galore in this post.

I was really disappointed with this movie. I was expecting a decent science fiction movie, instead I got a hacked up attempt at a sci-fi action/romance combination, with too many large nitpicks that it spoiled the experience.

The story is pretty straight forward. A group of people live in isolation after being told that they are the survivors of some global catastrophe. They a mundane, but secure and physically fit life with promises that they will one day go to The Island, the last Utopian location on the planet. The main character, Lincoln-6-Echo, discovers the horrible truth; the people are in some kind of prison and everything they've been told is a lie. Eventually he escapes with Jordan-2-Delta and they discover that they are really clones of people in the "real world" that use the clones for body parts. They escape are on the run, then eventually return to free the other clones.

The movie overall was good, it just had too many plot problem that just nagged on me enough to spoil the movie in general:

1) The 2 fugitives escape from the compound with relative ease. Where is the security? How come they are able to walk down a long access bridge to freedom with NO ONE spotting them? They already fought security guards; no one is able to keep tabs on their position? 2) The main characters supposedly have the education of 15 year olds and they supposedly have almost NO knowledge of the "real world". Yet once they get to a train station and then to Los Angeles, they don't seem to have any problems getting around. I mean, they act stupid and don't know phrases like "the can", "taking a dump", "dude" and act incredulous around this. Yet they don't seem to have a problem navigating around a metropolis, which to them would be an alien environment. 3) The main characters get by with 5 movies worth of luck. They dodge trained military personnel. Survive drops from a skyscraper hundreds of feet in the air and manage to take out a helicopter while doing so. They are in a car when it gets totaled (cut in half!!) after getting side-swiped by an armored truck and walk away, not even dazed. I found it hard to empathize with the characters when they were in "danger" because they seemed to be invulnerable! 4) Clones with memories. This is a pet peeve of mine. Memories are NOT a part of a creatures DNA structure. A clone is simply a copy of a creatures physical make up. It cannot have the experience and memories of its donor, because the clone itself hasn't had those experiences or memories. Yet movies frequently portray a clone as not only having the same physical properties as a donor, but the same memories as well. Although, in this movie, the memories were mostly "subconscious". 5) When Jordan was brought back to the institution towards the end, NO ONE thought to search her for a weapon?!! 6) During some of the big action scenes (fighting with the guards while escaping and the big highway chase scene with the flying attack bikes) the camera kept shaking and it was hard to see what the heck was going on. Whats the point of seeing a movie, when the movie *itself* makes it difficult to see what is on the screen?!

As the movie went on, these issues just keep accumulating until by the end, I just wanted to see the end.

As a side note, I noticed that this movie was almost identical to merging together two other movies: Logans Run and Freejack. The movie has a man and a woman on the run, leaving an isolated society and encountering the world outside, only to return and "free" the people from the society (Logans Run). Meanwhile, they are on the run and hunted down by mercenaries, because their bodies are actually owned by some rich person (Freejack).

Overall, I give the movie a 4 out of 10. I would give the movie a 7 out of 10 for just the story, but this is reduced for the annoying issues I mentioned previously.

High Tension (2003)

Decent slasher film with a great twist

[7/10 · 31 May 2005]

The story is pretty simplistic: Two female friends (Marie and Alex) are visiting Marie's family. During the first night an anonymous stranger breaks in, kills the family and kidnaps Alex. The majority of the movie is Marie following the killer, trying to avoid a confrontation while rescuing Alex.

Most of the movie is a cookie cutter hack and slash film. Gore, violent, blood, etc. A killer with no motivation that just kills. There is, seriously, not much to talk about. Then the ending comes and this makes the movie. Like Sixth Sense, I wouldn't want to spoil the ending for anyone, because that may spoil the whole movie. But let me just say that the ending alone raised my rating from a stereotypical slasher film (5/10) to a non-"typical" slasher film (7/10).

GhostWatcher (2002)

This movie is so bad only ghosts should be watching it.

[2/10 · 31 May 2005]

This movie was pretty good for a college film project. But really sucks that I spent $5 to rent this. Seriously. I rented this at blockbuster because it had professional looking packaging and even though I figured it was a "B" grade horror movie, I at least thought it was done professionally. Nope. The cheap camera quality, the high school drama play acting, horrible directing, numerous plot problems and simple special effects showed that this movie was done by amateurs.

Now, the movie was not *totally* bad; it kept my interest enough to watch the whole thing. But it was hard to miss the bad plot, numerous blatant plot holes and sub-par acting.

Some of the nitpicks (spoilers abound):

1) The main character video tapes someone in her bedroom holding a knife to her throat while she is sleeping (the intruder is the one holding her camera). I understand that she is scared to go outside, but why doesn't she call the police??!!!!

2) The main character is seeking help with her "ghost" problem. So, she decides to enlist the help of someone who maintains a web site that is part paranormal equipment dealer and part peepshow. All I had to say was, "What the....?" Then, she is downright catty and confrontational when this person comes out to help.

3) The web/paranormal person is basically told that she is not wanted and to leave. So, she sticks around because she wants to help. Why? This is a total stranger that was under the impression she is there to sell equipment to a customer, then is greeted by a confrontational customer. Why does she stay and offer to help?

4) The friend said that she is the one that murdered the stalker. Afterward she is shown as being easily scared and intimidated. How did she ever get the motivation to commit first degree murder?

5) They come across the "ghost" of the dead stalker and have a pretty major encounter with the supernatural. Then afterward, la-la-la-la, they resume their normal life and go to a party, like seeing supernatural specters are an everyday occurrence.

6) As with a lot of supernatural movies, the "powers" of the paranormal entities seems to keep changing. Multiple times the ghost would do some ability, but would not repeat that ability at a later time. Or would not do something that was shown to be well within its ability to do so.

As with a lot of movies these days, this one just smacks of misandric (anti-male) messages. No need to flesh out a villain, just make a male character that harms women and voilà! instant villain. I am so sick of these movies. No need to create a background or personality for the "bad guy", just create a male character that harms women. If the villain happened to be female, we would be given all sorts of background information on how she came to be that way and what horrible events happened in her life and how the audience should feel sorry fer her.

I give this movie a 2 out of 10. The bad acting, poor quality filming, amateurish feel and misandric story makes a bad movie, but it was *just* interesting enough for me to watch the whole thing, therefore I didn't rate it a 1.

The Ring Two (2005)

Not as good as the first movie

[5/10 · 21 March 2005]

This movie was rather disappointing. I really liked the first one (The Ring) enough to buy the DVD. I prefer these supernatural horrors to 'slasher', 'monster', or homicidal maniac horror films.

The first movie was innovative and creepy. The sequel was rather bland and repetitive. The first movie was creepy enough to make you want to stay away from your VCR or TV for a few days afterward. The sequel made me want to rush TO my VCR and TV and find something else worth watching.

On top of that, like the movie The Forgotten, Ring Two had a 'mother-centric' storyline. There is a lot of emphasis on 'motherhood' and 'mothers' and 'mothers and their children'. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this, its just that it was droned over and over again.

As others have mentioned, this movie is low on the actual 'scares'. There are a few "jump" scenes, like everything is quiet and....suddenly Aidens hand grabs his mother arm!!!! Whoopy do. ***Spoiler*** There is even a scene where Rachel is in the basement of the farm house rooting through boxes of clues and the lights in various parts of the basement start to go out. The movie makes this seem like an important event and you think that something scary is about to happen. But nope, Rachel just walks out, la da di di da. What the...? The story itself was a decent continuation of the story from the original, it just wasn't all that interesting and, as a horror movie, just wasn't scary. 4.5 out of 10

Lethal Target (1999)

Wow! What a bad movie.

[1/10 · 4 February 2005]

I like science-fiction movies and even, low-rated, made for TV, bargain bin, movies I may still find interesting. Well, I found this one in a bargain bin and brought it as a selection to a movie night with a group of friends.

I was, literally, *emabrrassed* that I brought this movie.

Right from the beginning, the acting is bad, the story is bland and the plot is almost non-existent. All this leads right to what the movie really was: A soft core porno graphical movie.

The movie started with a woman prison where the prisoners are all sexy women working in some sort of mine. First clue that this movie is NOT serious: attractive women in a prison being forced to do physical labor. Yeah, right! Whatever. :P Once the "plot" continued, it was overshadowed by pointless scenes of people having sex. Halfway through the movie, my friends and I stopped watching, it was so stupid. The next day, I thought that I would give the movie another chance and watch the rest. I watched about another 15 minutes and gave up again.

If you are looking for a decent, science-fiction or even a sci-fi monster movie DO NOT watch Lethal Target! If you want to see a low-budget, soft core porn that is light on plot, then see Lethal Target.

Pleasantville (1998)

Oh, how the world has changed. Or has it?

[1/10 · 12 October 2004]

Brief recap of story: A brother and sister from the 1990s are magically transported into the world of a fictitious television show from the 1950s. There actions have consequences and result in major changes with the characters from the show.

The misandric (anti-male) messages abound. As the (positive) changes occur in the town, the adult males are the ones that are shown as being adamantly opposed,and are shown as stereotypical stuck-in-the-muds that don't like change. The adult males are shown as incompetents that are unable to even cook for themselves and gripe about having no one (i.e. their wives, which they are *dependant* upon like children) cook, clean or prepare their clothing for them.

The movie goes into depth to portray what the expectations of women back in the 1950s (e.g. cooking and cleaning), yet does NOTHING to portray the limitations and responsibilities imposed upon males, like providing for the family, wearing a suit and tie everyday and "male"-oriented work like yardwork. As with most aspects of modern culture, only the lamentations of frustrated women are shown and males are shown as living in a utopian society with no worries or limits.

Just as other movies, this movie shows a woman having a extra marital affair and it is "justified" because she has grown weary of her married life. Despite the fact that she never *discusses* the matter with her husband, who remains OBLIVIOUS to the changes that are happening, she has decided that her husband cannot cope with her newly discovered sexual desires and seeks out another man. This, of course, would be *taboo* if a man had done it; there are enough movies showing what a creep a man is who cheats on his wife, yet a when a woman has an affair it is always "justified". The father character is shown as being a nice guy, who never accosts his family, provides for them and seems to do nothing wrong, yet this also portrays him as being boring and therefore needs to change.

The movie started with an interesting premise and had really good acting and good special effects, I just found it difficult to stomach the frequent negative attitudes about males and the male bashing. This movie would fit in well in the book, Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Males in Popular Culture.

Overall the movie was pretty hypocritical. The basic premise was, "People should be free to do what they want, as long as what they want is what we tell them they want." For example, the father character was comfortable and happy with his old life. *That* was the life he wanted and he was happy with it. But this is portrayed as wrong because he is not "changing" his lifestyle to conform to what the other people are saying. Huh?