TheSonomaDude's Reviews

Spiders (2000)

2/10

31 January 2014

Oh, the irony.

To be frank, I only sought after this film because of how much I adored Mosquito, another giant bug movie from the same director, Gary Jones. Let me tell you, this is no Mosquito. Not even close.

Spiders has some cool aspects. For example, the climax of the film is surprisingly enjoyable and the animtronic effects look somewhat decent half of the time, as the DVD cover proudly boasts "from the same effects team as Army Of Darkness, Spawn, and Wishmaster!" But the compliments end there. Porn stars would be facepalming in embarrassment at the lack of acting ability present at the set, but I'm not sure who to blame; the actors or the abysmal script.

This has got to be one of the worst screenplays I've ever seen translated into film. Every line of dialog is clichéd and laughable, with laughable line delivery by the elementary school play actors to top it off. Yes, Mosquito had some terrible acting too, but it had good acting to even it out. There is only one good actor in Spiders, and he says two lines before getting shot. Excellent casting guys, bravo. It also doesn't help that the characters are written with zero likability as they make dumb decision after dumb decision after dumb decision. Truly, the characters and actors are what subtract so many stars from the rating.

Gary Jones made Mosquito with only $200,000 but created an enjoyable and extremely entertaining B-movie with lots of gore and high rewatch value. Gary Jones made Spiders with $2 million, but created an embarrassing, appalling mess with little to no redeemable factors.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Paradox Alice (2012)

4/10

A generic sci-fi with more things wrong than right.

15 January 2014

Warning: Spoilers

Being part native American, human transformations have always been something I've been intrigued by. Almost every native American folk tale (from my tribe, at least) ends in a transformation of some sort; man to animal, man to object, or even man to woman. The ladder was usually the coolest story.

It seems like no films on Earth involve this idea, but it appears I have found one, Eric Dapkewicz's Paradox Alice. However, Paradox Alice is a generic independent film with nearly no redeemable qualities at all.

With better writing, this film could have been worth it, but as it is, the only thing this script is good for is testing to see if your new paper shredder works. The concept of sequential hermaphroditism being a plausible way for a species to survive is compelling enough for me to suspend my disbelief, but the film gets lost in this pretzel a tangled "love" triangle. The two other males, one being a nerdy Christian mama's boy and the other being a rigid old captain, both fall for their friend who has just become a woman in an unsettling and sporadically amount of time. If my best friend turned into a woman overnight, it would be extremely hard for me to forget he was once a dude, thus, it would take years for me to actually fall for him/her, if I even ever did. But these guys forget it instantly and pursue her after just a few days. The captain character is begging for a kiss after what seems like 45 minutes.

The acting is abysmal. Andrew Hernon as the captain character gives such wooden delivery in every scene of the film and he makes me want to throw my remote at the TV screen; every scene he's in is just completely torn to pieces by this guys lack of acting skill. Stewart Calhoun as the nerdy Christian somehow manages to be even worse, but it doesn't help that his character is written unbelievably poorly. The only credible actor in this film is Jeneta St Clair, who actually does a pretty good job and she deserves better work than this.

The overall look of the film is very cheap. The lighting is atrocious; the film takes place in a futuristic space ship, not a damn cave. The ship computer/robot thing looks like a Sony camera with a tin can taped to the side, and I swear the film was shot in a garage. There are wooden bookshelves in the control room and the characters use futuristic visual trans-space communicating devices that look identical to iPads (gee, I wonder why?) But I will partially dismiss this because the budget was, what, $1000? If even?

Most people seem to bring up the rape scene. Honestly, I did not find it that disturbing for two reasons. One: it is extremely brief...I mean, it lasts like three seconds before the male climaxes. The only thing I was thinking was "Wow, this guy finishes really fast." Two: the acting is so horrendous that it made it obvious that the rape was not real, therefore, I was not disturbed by what I was watching.

The most baffling and confusing part in the film is the very ending. As the film begins to wrap up, we see the Xenomorphs (the creatures from the Alien films) aboard the ship while the ship computer spouts gibberish. This is obviously a twist ending...but what the bloody hell was the twist? Was the computer working in cahoots with the aliens the entire time? Was the gender transformation all because of the computer? Were xenomorphs on board the ship the entire film? (How else did they get on the ship at the end, besides just spontaneously appearing on board?) Most importantly, why the hell were there Xenomorphs in this film at all? Was Eric Dapkewicz trying to imply that this film is in the same universe as the Alien franchise?

I've checked out the other works of Eric Dapkewicz, or "MakoDap" as he goes by on YouTube. He is the editor for several major Dreamworks films such as Flushed Away or and Puss In Boots, and those are some of the best edited animations I've ever seen. In the past, I also listened to and reviewed two albums by his band, Imaginarious, and both reviews were pretty positive. However, I have also checked out some of his stuff on YouTube. This man is very into transformations, man-to-woman specifically. He has created online comics depicting male-to-female transformations in graphic detail, most of which are sexual and contain some form of eroticism. Also on his YouTube account are the films he has directed, The Kiss and The Last Piece Standing, with Eleven being uploaded this summer. All three of these films have male-to-female transformations as the main theme. Another reoccurring plot point among nearly all of Dapkewicz's YouTube work is that after a man transforms into a woman, he/she becomes very horny and has sex with another man, usually willingly and very happy to do so. The ladder theme is very peculiar and disturbing, and it seems like this is just a masturbation fantasy for Eric Dapkewicz to get out of his system. That said, most of his YouTube work is actually crafted very well and he has a natural talent for storyboarding, but I don't recommend any of it.

Overall, biggest problem with this film is that its just forgettable. The script is awful, but not so awful to the point of where its memorable. The acting terrible, but none of the actors are among the worsts (except maybe the captain). The effects are just mediocre, the sets are mediocre, the editing is mediocre, everything just blends in. Its the solid definition of a 3/10 - 4/10 film. I honestly don't recommend it even in the slightest, but I do think Eric Dapkewicz can make something good given some money, a good script and actual actors.

21 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mosquito (1994)

10/10

I like it. So what? Its an awesome movie, and there's no shame here.

4 July 2013

As a kid, I would often find myself sitting around the TV late at night on the weekends, eagerly awaiting what new movie would come on. All you could see in the pitch black darkness was the glow of the TV shining onto me eating a sandwich with the clock flashing 12:30 AM. Among my midnight horror favorites where Tremors and its sequel, John Carperter's The Thing, Critters, Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla 2, and Mosquito.

Ahh Mosquito. Its a bad movie I realize, but there's just something about Mosquito that makes it humanly possibly to dislike it. It has such a cheesy, entertaining, awesome charm that creates and aura of coolness. And, in the end, whats better than Gunnar "Leatherface" Hansen attacking puppet mosquitoes with a chainsaw?

The plot is simple. An alien satellite crash lands in the Oklahoma swamps and mosquitoes feed on the dead carcass of the aliens. This causes the mosquitoes to grow to human proportions and they start sucking the blood of people in the countryside. Its up to a meteorologist, two lovers, a park ranger, and a criminal to team up and fend off the evil blood swarm of giant mosquitoes for chances of survival.

Its a hit and miss movie. The acting is mostly terrible, but I could care less honestly. All of the actors are obviously trying their very best (well, maybe except Mike Hard). Some actors, such as Tim Lovelace, Steve Dixon, and Leatherface himself Gunnar Hansen do a pretty decent job. Ron Asheton gets credibility because he is the bassist for one of the best punk bands ever, The Stooges, and Mike Hard also gets credit for being the vocalist for Sick Of It All, one of Brooklyn's finest punk-metal bands. Unfortunately, both of them are horrendously bad actors and should really just stick to music. Many people diss the effects for being bad, but they have a charm that kinda make them good. Hell, when it comes to the actual animatronics (such as the mosquito on the stove during the climax), I'll even call them good effects! Yep, I called the effects good! Considering that the budget was 200K in 1995, the effects could've been much worse. But most of all, the movie is very entertaining with not a single dull moment in the entire 97 minutes that this film runs for. Every scene has some awesome gore, an explosion, a mosquitoes vs guns fight, Gunnar Hansen doing something badass, and animatronic mosquitoes. Its a blast.

If your a fan of low budget films loaded with bullets and gore with a slice of cheese on the side, this is THE film for you. It may be bad, but its awesome. I'd honestly watch Mosquito on a 24 hour loop than just 24 minutes of Battleship or any Transformer movie, and those costed nearly 20 times more to make. Mosquito: Gunnar Hansen vs the giant bugs. AWESOME.

P.S.: If you are a fan of the giant mosquito genre, then Don't bother with Skeeter. That one truly sucks. End of story.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Fish Tale (2000)

8/10

People seriously didn't like this movie?

21 March 2013

A 5.6 IMDb rating for a kids film like this is usually not a good sign; after all, its the same rating as Transformers 2 and Quest For Camelot. Frankly, the DVD art looks absolutely horrendous and the plot sounds like an episode from Johnny Test, but however, this movie is the ultimate example of "Dont judge a book by its over" because not only did it far exceed my expectations, but it was a near great movie in almost every aspect.

The film involves three kids who get turned into fish after drinking a potion created by a nutty scientist. The kids have 48 hours to find an antidote or else they will be stuck as fish forever. Plus, the antidote has leaked into the sea and has started to turn regular dumb fish into talking genius fish, and the villain fish (voiced by the perfectly cast Alan Rickman) has become a super genius and is bent on taking over the world. A cliché plot, yes, but this is probably the weakest of the films flaws.

The animation is stellar. The 2D looks gorgeous and flows fluidly. The 3D animation...yah, it looks pretty choppy and mediocre, but fortunately it is not used too often. The characters are well written and their interactions with each other and their surroundings are believable and fun. The songs (this is a musical, kinda sorta) aren't bad either, and I actually was humming Alan Rickman's villain song. The film is also devoid of clichés, for the most part at least. There were at least five or six moments were the film did something totally unexpected and completely original. Bravo for a kids film I say, Bravo!

One thing I must touch on is the abundance of violence. On the surface (no pun intended), this film seems extremely harmless. Wrong! This film is full of senseless death, including a shark that eats innocent fish and some of the main characters in the movie. One scene that sticks out is when the main character, Fly, gets stabbed in the face by a crab and blood, yes, BLOOD, floats around in the water. But most of all, this film has possibly THE ballsiest villain death of all time. I wont spoil it, but it is an original and fantastic way to finish the villain. Also, there is a fake-out death that occurs involving Fly that actually made my jaw drop.

Overall, this is a very well made animated movie, and the 5.6 rating is extremely harsh. I've tried to find out why this movie isn't well liked by audiences, but I cant find a decisive answer. The only negative things I can find about this film through my eyes are the brief moments of CGI animation, the main pop song is annoying, and maybe some were offended by the violence, but that still does not answer the hate this film gets. The IMDb reviews that rated this a 1/10 are completely delusional, with one person saying the only good thing was the 3D animation (which was surprisingly the worst thing), one review seeming to imply that it was made solely to cash off Finding Nemo (despite the fact that this was made four years earlier), and one reviewer did not even seem to have watched the movie, claiming that it was full of clichés, it was full of bathroom humor (which it had none) and the animation was abysmal. I am willing to bet this last reviewer simply saw the DVD cover at his local rental store and went home pretending he had saw it. Shame, he missed out on a great movie.

This is a total recommendation by every means of the word. Hopefully, you'll be just as surprised as I was, and just as satisfied too. If this movie had better marketing, it would be much more known and loved. I guarantee it.

22 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure (2012)

2/10

...I saw it.

24 February 2013

That's right guys, I actually found and viewed this...thing. Is it as bad as everyone says? Is it as bad as the trailers make it look? Is it as bad as the 1.7 on IMDb? Is it as bad as the mere $411,050 it grossed on its opening weekend? Well...yes.

The story involves three....three..."things" that have to throw a birthday party for their talking pillow, but they are waiting for their talking vacuum cleaner named J Edgar (I'm serious about that name) to deliver some balloons to make the party complete. However, the vacuum cleaner trips like a dumbass and accidentally releases all of the balloons into the air. Now its up to our three friends to go on a wild and quirky adventure to find the balloons and meet some new pals along the way.

Other than some bright colors and poorly written songs, Oogieloves offers nothing for children at all. The plot is extremely repetitive: the Oogieloves bump into a new character, sing a song, get a balloon, then move on to the next character, rather rinse repeat. The costumes for our protagonists look like they could've been bought in a Halloween store. I mean, the mouths move like an old kung-fu movie dubbed into English, and they all have severe camel toe. And also, why the hell did they name the vacuum cleaner after the head of the CIA? Is it some sort of inside joke or something? Did they think toddlers would really know who J Edgar Hoover is?

The characters and their actors are very...interesting. Clorice Leachman plays Dottie Rounder, an old lady who is obsessed with circles. She doesn't seem genuine at all, as if she was dragged out of bed and forced to dance. The same can be said with Christopher Lloyd, who doesn't even talk at all (except for the line "Oooooooogie!"). Cary Elwes as a bubble-spewing, ADHD cowboy truck driver seems likes he's having fun on the set, but he cant sing worth a damn, unfortunately. Personally, the worst of all is Toni Braxton as the singer who has a cold. Trying to describe her performance here is like trying to describe a dragonfly sexually assaulting an elephant with a coloring book. Simply put, her acting is just pitiful, and the song her character sings is one of the worst songs I've ever heard in a movie; its in my top 5.

The ONLY character worth sitting through in this movie is Chaz Palminteri as Marvin the Milkshake Guy. Wow, is this character fun! I'm not a kid, but if I were, I would've jumped outta my seat and started dancing along with his song. His acting is over-the-top, which is perfect for this movie and perfect for the role too. Not to mention, Chaz has the best line in the movie: "Oooh! Mah favorite!"

Overall, Oogieloves And The Big Balloon Adventure is not a movie I'd take a kid to see. There are no lessons at all for one thing. At least something like Dora The Explorer or Barney teaches lessons like sharing, being kind, speaking Spanins, etc., but this movie teaches kids squat. This is the kind of movie that would lower a kids IQ. I'm not sure what to rate it, but it wont be a high rating because this movie was just flat out awful.

14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Son of the Mask (2005)

1/10

84 Million Dollars to make this?

29 July 2012

I'm shocked. Thats all I can say. Who in their right minds thought this would be a good movie?

The movie involves some new schmuck family (that seem to live in a house designed by Dr Seuss) find the mask, as Loki (the man that was trapped in the mask in the first film) is in human form, trying to find the mask. It is filled with poor CGI, terrible writing, awful acting, and just joke after joke AFTER JOKE of nonstop boredom.

The Mask itself is totally different. In the first film, it was an obnoxious sex machine, knowing perfectly how to push the buttons of certain people and evade situations in the most cartoonish and childish ways possible. Now, its just a cartoony man that spews fart jokes and other jokes than even Pauly Shore would be embarrassed to mutter.

The make-up on The Mask is just bad. It literally looks like a mask! The mouth only moves like a centimeter and the overall effect just looks like garbage.

The attempt at humor is just pitiful. Some scenes in this film are actually quite disturbing in my opinion! Such as the scene where Loki transforms an old lady's face into a giant nose, rendering her to be blind, deaf, and the inability to talk. I would be fine if at the end, they turned her back to normal. But no! We never see her again! Are we just to assume she spent the rest of her life as a giant nose? I don't know, I just kinda find it disturbing. Just the way she is seen lumbering around, pleading for help because she cant see or hear. They play it as a big joke, but it just is downright disturbing to me.

Overall, 84 Million Dollars for this? Wow.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

8/10

Unique and creative with some flaws...more than I can say for most horror films now...

26 July 2012

Sitting down in a theater in 2001, I assumed this would be another crappy teen horror film with useless sex scenes and cheesy unrealistic plot points (I reviewed movies at the time for my community). However, I was pleasantly surprised.

First off, I think we all know now that director Victor Silva is a convicted child molester. While that is without a doubt awful, he does a great job directing this film. His criminal background shouldn't effect the film he made. I'm not supporting him at all, but I did like this movie.

Anyways, the movie starts off extremely chilling and terrifying. The first 15 minutes of this movie will send a chill down your spine. However, once the kids go into the house, the film slowly starts to descend at a slow but sure rate. By the end of the flick, the film is very 'meh', but maybe that's because the film couldn't live up to the beginning.

The Creeper, the villain of this horror film, is easily one of the most terrifying villains of horror in a long time. The way he looks, what he wears, his truck, what he does. All of it is horrifying. I proudly tilt my hat to whoever did the makeup design. However, the "twist" at the end, while definitely unique, kind of takes away from the seriousness the film had. It looked good in Vilva's head and on the storyboards, but when it transferred to screen, it just isn't subtle.

As I said, the first third of the film is great. The second third isn't as good, but still manages to keep up the thrills. The climax in the police station is sadly quite boring and loses all the tension the film was building up (despite that the scene involves a massive shootout), but its the VERY ending, the last 2 minutes of the movie that satisfy me. The film in general has a very dark, subtle, and eerie feeling that you just don't see in horror films nowadays. The camera angles are very Evil Dead-esque at times and really add an evil tension to the film.

Overall, this is a nicely made horror film with some flaws here and there. If you can get past the directors terrible criminal background, then check out this film. However, I don't recommend the sequel.

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Fog (2005)

1/10

Debra Hill's ghost shall seek vengeance.

27 May 2012

I rarely ever rate a 1/10, but I had no choice but to do it here. Debra Hill probably wants to return from the grave and take revenge on the film makers of this movie, just like the ghosts from this film. From the director who brought us such classics like "Blank Check" and "Stigmata" comes THE FOG...remake.

First off, the 1980 The Fog isn't one of John Carpenters best, but it is still a good horror movie with great chills, cinematic directing, and a creepy musical score. Remaking The Fog was a risky decision, but it could've worked; the original was missing a lot of things, so a remake could piece them together to make an excellent horror film. For example: GORE. Despite an R rating, the 1980 film has very little blood. So a remake could've added the gore to make it even more cringe-worthy. Look at The Blob, the 50's version has no gore at all, but the 80's remake is basically the same film, just arguably one of the goriest films of the 80's. But no, the producers went with a PG13 rating here just for more money.

The acting is bland, the writing is like something out of a SyFy channel movie, the CGI is hokey and laughable, the ghost sailors aren't scary whatsoever, and everything in between just sucks. The ghosts and fog are CGI, and it looks abysmal. The ghosts in the original were dark, mysterious, quiet, and had glowing red eyes that haunted your mind. Here, they just look like typical Haunted Mansion ghosts. Most of the time, we don't even see them, people just get attacked by nothing. The fog itself doesn't look as near as scary as the real fog in the original.

The characters suck too. The originals' cast was played by ADULTS, who did ADULT things in ADULT situations. This time, 90% of the heroes look like they haven't graduated from high school yet, so we have TEENS doing TEEN things in adult situations, which doesn't add up. Every girl in the movie is hot, and has at least one skimpy dress scene. The love interest that the producers through in was terrible and pointless. We even have a token black guy for comic relief! Why does THE FOG need a comic relief black guy? Imagine if Halloween had a token black guy, or The Thing.

Overall, this is by far the worst remake of a Carpenter/Hill film, and one of the worst horror films to be released in theaters...ever. The Thing prequel may have been disappointing, the Assault On Precicnt 13 remake may have been bad, the Halloween remake may have been even worse, but THE FOG takes the cake. I'll be waiting for an Escape From NY remake with an all teen cast, CGI explosions, and a token black guy.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Thing (I) (2011)

4/10

Could've been better, but I was overall satisfied.

23 November 2011

Well, I haven't had the time to write an IMDb movie review for a long time, so now that I finally had the chance, I said "why not?".

I am a HUGE fan of The Thing 1982, along with most of John Carpenters work. John Carpenters The Thing is, in my opinion, a 10/10, A+, 5 stars, large thumbs up, whatever. I think its one of the best horror films ever made. So I was quite excited to find out that a prequel was to be made. After several debates on the movie boards, Friday October 14th arrived and I saw The Thing in theaters opening day.

I recently saw it again at my local dollar theater (it was completely empty...) and my opinions haven't changed much. I like it, I really do, but some things could've been improved:

-the title. SO many people were convinced that this was a remake. I think they shouldve named it "From Another World", because if you place it with the Carpenter movie, you have "The Thing" and "From Another World".

-CGI was overused. The Carpenter film is famous for having groundbreaking effects, but no CGI (it didn't exist in 1982). Tom Woodruff and Alec Gillis are 2 great effect workers (they did Jurassic Park, Tremors, Aliens, Starship Troopers, and AVP), so I was eager to see their work; they advertised "80% animatronics, 20% CGI". Well, it was more like "40% animatronics, 60% CGI." Oh well. The effects were very good, for the most part.

-they never use the Ennio Morricone theme. Well, they do, but its at the end credits for about 30 seconds before it switches to some other music. Morricone wrote a spine chilling musical score for the 1982 film. The main theme for the 1982 film is, I think, one of the best ever. So I was disappointed to only hear it once in this film.

-what we see and what we don't. This tool was used extremely well in the 1982 film. Here, the paranoia factor seems to be minimized for the gore and transformation scenes. But even then, I think the gore could've been upped. The scene where the thing reveals itself on the helicopter could've been really gross and awesome, but we don't see any of it. Why?

-its too damn rushed. The 1982 film had patients and was building up on the paranoia. In this one, as soon as the Thing breaks loose, its like a 90 minute roller-coaster, which is both good and bad. Its good because its never boring, but its bad because it just seems to fastly paced and seems to be overwhelmed in itself.

However, there are some good aspects. The acting is good, the effects range from "meh" to outstanding, the ending is brilliant, and the cinematography is really fabulous to look at. Overall, I think a 7/10 is a fair rating. Not as good as the Carpenter film, but its still better than...most horror films from this year.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Alpha and Omega (2010)

5/10

Pretty bad, but it could've been much worse.

6 August 2011

Seeing previews of this on TV instantly made me think "by God this looks awful". And even though it IS pretty bad, it could've been way worse.

First off, the visuals are appalling. It looks unfinished. It would go perfectly for a PS2 game. Its the kind of animation for a direct-to-DVD spin off of a famous action figure line.

Secondly, the jokes are lame at best. Judging from the trailers, I was expecting this to be jam-packed with innuendos and adult humor. It was, but not anywhere near the levels I was expecting. Most of the jokes involve repopulating and breeding.

Third:...the plot. Its just as thin as a Michael Bay film. It is extremely predictable and cheesy, mainly because we know whats gonna happen. We know that the hot chick will fall in love with the nerd. We know that no one will die. Its just so cliché.

There is one thing, however, that saves this film from being a total disaster: the characters. These characters are actually likable, and we don't want to see them in trouble. Justin Long and Hayden Panettiere do a great job in their roles, and it sounds as if they had a lot of fun doing it. And that fun should transcend onto the audience, in which it did, but not good enough.

Overall: it IS bad, but not as bad as the trailers make it look. 4/10.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

3/10

The Worst So Far, I Think

25 May 2011

POTC4 isn't really apart of the POTC saga. It seems like a spin off. It should have been called The Jack Sparrow Chronicles Part 1: On Stranger Tides. It really has no relation to the series.

One thing I'd like to mention is that this film has a 150 Million dollar budget, which is strikingly lower then the rest of the franchise, but maybe for a good cause.

This film is 90% action scene after action scene after action scene. Every 5 minutes, Jack Sparrow is swinging from chandeliers, jumping off an exploding lighthouse (in slow-mo), jumping from treetop to treetop, or getting into sword fights on cliff sides. While it may seem exciting, it is surprisingly VERY boring. There were several scenes that made me almost fall asleep. We've seen all of it before, and we know whats gonna happen.

The story involves trying to find the famous Fountain of Youth. But it seems like the story and script was originally a National Treasure film, but they changed the script and put in pirates. When they finally get to the fountain, nothing is accomplished. Its just like "we found it...lets fight!" and another big action scene pursues.

In conclusion, its the worst one yet. If you wanna see it, fine, go ahead. But its definitely the last I wanna see of Jack Sparrow.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Grizzly Rage (2007 TV Movie)

Wow is this stupid.

2 May 2011

Wow is this stupid.

First off, you have 4 teens (that look like 30-year-olds) cruising in their Jeep Cherokee at about 60 miles per hour while listening to awful pop music. They brake into some park and accidentally run over a baby bear. But...uh oh, MOMMY'S ANGRY!!

Thats right! Mommy bear is angry! Good thing she drinks toxic waste from a pond that makes her grow 2 her size (I'm dead serious about that.)! This film is simply about 90 minutes of bad dialog, and, occasionally, a giant bear. But there are so many huge plot holes. 1, a jeep that has been flipped over TWICE, hit a tree, and over heats, STILL RUNS. 2, an already large grizzly drinks toxic waste from a pond that Doesn't kill it. 3, Even though the bear in the film is a female, it sometimes has male genitalia. WTF?

This film also is in my top 10 for 'Worst Endings Ever'. Why? Because: When the last 2 survivors are trying to run away, one trips and falls. The other person goes back to help, but he says "No! Leave me here!" but the other one says "No! We can still make it!" They argue this for about 45 seconds before the bear gets them. And when the bear gets them, fake animated blood splatters on the screen, like something you'd see in a Windows Moviemaker project.

There were 2 things I liked. 1: The bear used was never CGI, it was actually a trained bear that was 100% real, living and breathing. 2: This is one of the few movies where the monster actually wins and kills everyone. Even though the execution sucked, it was still a nice twist.

Overall, its STUPID. Its really, REALLY bad, but if you wanna see it, I wont stop you.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Merry Christmas, Drake & Josh (2008 TV Movie)

3/10

Not awful, I just wish it were much better.

22 April 2011

With a bland and generic title such as "Merry Christmas, *name of show*," one must expect a bland and generic film.

I'll come out and say it now: I like the TV show this film is based off of. The comradery of Drake Bell and Josh Peck usually work with humorous results, often much more than most kids shows of the same genre. However, that's the show, and this is the movie, two totally different things in term of writing, creativity, and watchability.

The premise? Drake and Josh get arrested and are forced to help an orphanage have a truly merry Christmas. Along the way, the group encounters hilarity, self discovery, and the true meaning of Christmas. Mean the while, a cop (this movie's Scrouge) attempts to stop them because he got urinated on by a monkey as a child. True story.

The absolute worst aspect about this film is the writing. Almost every major problem of this film can be traced back to the abysmal screenplay written by Dan Schneider, the creator of the original show. Exhibit A: Drake and Josh need a reason to be arrested so the plot can begin. How so? They are throwing a LEGAL party at their business when some thugs come and crash the party. Like any reasonable person, Josh calls the police. However, in one of the most confusing smacks to the face I've ever seen, the cops come and arrest Josh for no apparent reason whatsoever. To make the, a cop accidentally shoves Josh off of the building, in which he plummets several stories before crashing into the bed of a pickup truck (completely unscathed, of course). The drivers of the truck drive off, oblivious to the man in the back screaming for help and oblivious to the dozens of cop cars chasing them in high pursuit. Josh eventually flies out of the high speed vehicle (again, completely unscathed) and the entire posse of cop cars immediately stop, collect Josh, and go home. Uh...what about the truck? For all they know, the people in the truck were accomplices in crime. But no, they got one guy, its all good.

Exhibit B: When the children of the orphanage find out Drake and Josh are only helping them out to stay out of jail, the children become crushed. Each of them go into in a separate depression that is so phoned in that I thought some of them would attempt suicide. The person who tells them this is a highly compulsive, possibly autistic person who constantly blurts rageful gibberish; if this guy told me anything, I'd just smile and shoo him away. I find it hard to believe these children would believe anything this man says.

Exhibit C: Drake & Josh try to redeem themselves to the children by doing several acts, all of which result in property damage, further depression for the kids, and some possible casualties. However, at the end, the children surprise Drake & Josh at their house and declare this Christmas to be "the best Christmas ever" for absolutely no reason. These jerks destroyed house with an wood chipper and set their Christmas tree on fire, yet they suddenly forgive them? There isn't even a scene when Drake and Josh apologize, its just property damage, property damage, depressed children, best Christmas ever. No transition whatsoever.

Exhibit D: of course the Grinch of this film must have a reason to have a grudge Christmas, but the reason in this film is ridiculous. The grudge: a monkey peed on him as a kid. That's the honest reason. We even get a flashback scene with terrible special effects.

There is literally hundreds of other exhibits, but there is word limit on these reviews so I guess I'm done here. Drake & Josh has worked in other film mediums: "Drake & Josh Go Hollywood" and "Really Big Shrimp" were two entertaining films staring the Drake & Josh characters. For a series finale, "Merry Christmas Drake & Josh" is a complete mockery. To make matters worse, this movie actually replaced the largely hyped "Drake & Josh Take New York" which was meant to be a big budgeted theatrical released blockbuster. What a bargain deal.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spider's Web: A Pig's Tale (2006 Video)

1/10

Makes Delgo look like Toy Story 3.

6 February 2011

Wow is this awful. Appalling visuals, bad voice overs, and an awful message to kids that is poorly executed.

It involves Walt the pig, who is invited to be an actor in Viperwood. Along the way, he must learn many lessons, like: Don't turn on the TV, or else it will try to kill you. Or: Don't lie about aliens taking your mothers pie.

There are many WTF moments. Like when Walt turns on the TV, and then all the sudden, it comes to life and attempts to eat him! Where did this come from, and what since does it make? None. And apparently, Viperwood is supposed to Hollywood. But they never tell you that!

The voices are awful. Walton, who is supposed to be 11, sounds like a 45-year-old woman. And you can also hear the actors breathing on the microphones. And that German wasp? He never shuts up!

This movie makes Delgo or Doogal look like Toy Story 3 or How To Train Your Dragon. And the overall lesson is: Don't Lie. But this lesson is SO poorly executed and stated, it hurts.

9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nature Unleashed: Tornado (2005 Video)

1/10

Proof that God is not real.

6 February 2011

I am dumbfounded. We have churches and synagogues and books about this superior being that rules us, we have billions of people who worship this figure and devote their every fiber to him...but why? If God was real, why would he allow a movie as abysmal as "Tornado" to be created? "Tornado" is, shortly put, the worst thing I have ever seen.

Just from the prologue, I should've been able to tell that my eight bucks had been wasted down the drain. In a humorous flashback, a father photographs a tornado that has touched down on his ranch, and he straps himself to a tractor for security. However, the tornado is getting closer and closer, and time is running out! So what does this man do? What any sensible father would: he unstraps himself and commits suicide by getting sucked away into the whirly vortex behind him for no reason. This should have been forshadowing to the horror that awaited me, but I pressed on.

What is "Tornado" about? Well our characters drive somewhere, talk to some throw-away character for about five minutes, drive somewhere else, talk to some other guy, drive somewhere else, talk to another guy,rather rinse repeat 50x. In this films 98 minute long runtime, I'd say about 80 minutes are spent on talking in the car and talking to some overly dramatic expositionist. And the dialog is some of the worst and clichéd I've ever heard, with brilliant and witty lines like "God, if you're there, please help us all" or "I haven't touched myself in 20 years" "Nobody can stop me now! I am the ruler of a new world! *diabolical laughter*" Although, you could say the reason why there is so much dialog is because the film team was so embarrassed by the CGI; that would actually be a legit reason for filming so many pointless dialog scenes.

Speaking of CGI...oh, my, word. I cannot describe how asinine the effects in this movie are. I know this film is low budget and all...but, c'mon, this film was directed by a special effects artist, he couldn't give his team some input? The tornadoes look like the result of little kids drawing on the film tape with their crayons.

Actually, I think this film might be worth it for the ending. The 1st and 2nd act of this movie might the biggest waste of film tape in history, but the final act is where the crap hits the ceiling. Ever want to see a tornado with a face and arms? Ever want to see multiple tornadoes with faces and arms, picking up people and eating them as they twist along? Well, here is your movie. Seriously though, this is one of the funniest climaxes I've ever seen.

In all seriousness, the funniest part might not be in the movie itself, but in the "behind the scenes" extra. In it, the director goes off about how his film is "modern day art" and a "flawless masterpiece in every field." To this day, some say my jaw is still there, sitting on the floor. I understand wanting to show pride in your work, this guy goes on and on and on about how flawless this movie is, when he is absolutely oblivious to the steaming pile of feces he has produced. Even if Werner Herzog were to speak this way about Fitzcarraldo it'd be annoying, but Alain Jakubowicz's regard makes him look like a fool.

If I pass away and head on to the pearly gates, God will ask me "You were an atheist? Dear man, why did thou not believe in me?" and I will just pull this DVD out of my pocket. Then again, I would be carrying this DVD around in my pocket, so I guess I lose on every account.

5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ghosts of Mars (2001)

7/10

Surprisingly a good, fun, action flick!

13 November 2010

I remember when this movie came out. I had almost seen it in theaters, but the plot seemed so stupid. I mean, alien ghosts? I had also not realized it was directed by horror movie legend John Carpenter. If I had known that, I would have willingfully seen it. But I passed up my chance.

About 2 years ago, I rented it, remembering it had been made by John Carpenter. I wanted to see if it was worth it, because every John Carpeter movie has been worth it, even if it had a 19% on Rotten Tomatoes.com and a 4.3 on IMDb.

But, it was a good, fun movie.

The sets looked awesome and believable. The acting was pretty good, and there were some great, cheesy quotes (Ice Cube: "C'mon you mindless motherf*ckas!") The make-up and costumes are also pretty well done. With an A- cast, huge sets, and well done special effects, you'd think this was a 75 million dollar+ action movie. But it was done for only 25 million dollars. Wow.

Yah yah, the story sucks. So what? Everything else in the movie takes its place! Its not fair this movie bombed at the box office. I mean, only 9 million dollars? This is a fun movie. If your hosting a party, and you want an action film your sure no one has seen, check out this one.

P.S. if you are a fan of Anthrax or Buckethead, check this movie out. They both have a few songs written for the movie that cant be found anywhere else!

5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War of the Worlds (2005 Video)

9/10

Very nicely made. Just sit down, relax, and enjoy the film...

26 September 2010

In 2005, Steven Spielburg decided to make an attempt to make "War of the Worlds", the second adaption of the classic 1898 book of the same name written by H.G. Wells. However, this meant that rip-offs were coming. But it all started in 1997...

In 1997, C. Thomas Howell AND Tom Cruise BOTH signed on to an alien invasion movie. However, as time passed, the script was sold and sold to many different companies. Eventually, in 2003, Steven Spielburg got a hold of the script, and took just Tom Cruise for unknown reasons. C. Thomas Howell still wanted to do an alien invasion movie, so with Tom Cruise in an alien invasion movie, C. Thomas Howell went to a company that would do an alien invasion movie too. But can a $985 Thousand direct to DVD B-Movie compare to a $123 Million Steven Spielburg Tom Cruise summer blockbuster? Surprisingly, it can.

Lets begin with the acting. C. Thomas Howell is actually a nice actor, and he himself pretty much holds up the movie. But some people like Andrew Lauer also do a nice job. But some people like Jake Busey are awkward. Its almost like the director said to him "Here, Jake. Because you play a military Sergeant, just be mean, say the F-word a lot, and come up with a bunch of funny cuss word combinations, like 'assdick', or 'Sh*tweiners'." Seriously, it is very stereotypical. Also, the actors, even C. Thomas Howell at times, interact very poorly with the CGI. They just run around on screen without direction. Its like the director said "Just run! Run anywhere! Aim your guns and fire bullets anywhere! We'll just add the CGI later!".

The special effects are acceptable for a low budget picture like this. While the shadowing and lighting isn't very good (lights don't reflect off the alien space ships and there are no shadows when they go under neath a bridge or any objects), the movement is quite fluent, and it's kind of like CGI you would see in a summer blockbuster. Any other company would spend a good 10 million bucks on CGI like this. There is a scene when a meteorite explodes on a mountain side. The explosion almost looks real, but it is CGI. Overall, the CGI isn't as nearly as bad as people say it is.

The characters aren't bad. C. Thomas Howell plays a workaholic Astro-Physician named George Herbert, and he puts his work before his family. When the aliens invade, he travels the country to get to his family. On the way, he meets other people. Andrew Lauer plays a laid-back soldier named Lt. Kerry Williams. He is a likable character and Lauer does a good job with the performance. George also runs into an Australian pastor played by Rhett Giles. While not as good performance as Andrew Lauer, Giles is still okay. The pastor is a little bland. All he does is make biblical references ("It is the time of Judgement. God will destroy the sinners and take the believers with him." or "The Lord is always with us during this invasion. Don't ever stop believing in the Lord, George." etc.) and whine about being hungry. But I guess he did that in the book, right? Other characters include Commander T.W. Samuelson played by Jake Busey, who is just a stereotypical army leader. We also meet George's brother, Matt, who is a U.S. Ranger. He is only seen for about 2 minutes before he {SPOILER!!!} dies. He makes a good performance though. George's next store neighbor, Michael, is only on screen for 67 seconds. But in those few seconds he is in the movie, he says the F-Word 4 times. Wow.

In the classic novel, the aliens drive 3-legged tripods. But in this movie, they have 6 legs. The body of the ships look like crabs. So basically, the alien machines are 50-feet-tall 6-legged crab monsters that shoot lasers that turn people to skeleton. When people are 'zapped' by the alien heat rays, they turn into bloody skeletons. In the other versions, people just disingrate completely.

I was surprised that this was rated R. Just about every alien invasion movie is PG-13 (Independence Day, Mars Attacks!, the Spielburg WotW, etc.) for scenes of people getting killed. But in those movies, there isn't very much on screen gore. But here, there is a lot of gore! George finds a corpse that is split open completely. Also, a man is ripped in half, and the aliens shoot acid, that melts peoples faces off. Not to mention, a kid is eaten by an alien on screen. Its a sad scene. The language is also strong. This is the only alien invasion movie I can think of that says the F-word. The f-word is used 9 times, most are said by the stereotypical commander, and the next-door neighbor. Actually, the N-word is used once! Yes, the racial slur against black people is used in this movie in racial fashion. But this is only on the original VHS, which are very rare. In the DVD, it is replaced by the f-word.

But finally, I must get to....the cinematography. It is outstanding. The scenes of the aftermath and destruction are absolutely great to look at. Like a giant cruise ship being 5 miles away from any water, a semi truck crashed through the roof of a house, and all of the destruction aftermath of Washington D.C., Greensburo, along with many other scenes. These scenes could have been in a 10 million dollar movie, but this movie cost less than 1 million. How the makers of this movie did it, I'm not sure. Its truly something you must see to believe.

Overall, this is a good movie. There are some other things, like the music, which is really good, but the film company uses the same music in every movie they make. In my opinion, it's better than the Spielburg version.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

TheSonomaDude

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed