The story is creative- as being a Netflix film, this one was outside of the usual box (though the beginning felt familiar?)... Anyways, I have watched a many dubbed over films and tv shows, but the lip syncing was so off it was painful to watch the musical numbers. Not that I am bothered by musical numbers, just by the quality I'd expect in a french film dubbed over in english that are in fact english films in english, where the lip sync should be spot on?.... On another note, I'm not sure if it was the movie or bogus volume setting on my tv, but the movie track was super loud, while the voices were hardly audible at times. This isn't the first time I've noticed this problem in Netflix film.
Reviews
10 Reviews
Riverdale
(2017–2023)
Didn't want to give up until this happened...
30 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Season 3 episode 16... So throughout the series they have thrown in a few songs here and there- Josie and the Pussycats on stage, for example. But this whole episode is like watching a pg13 Disney cartoon. So done with this series.... Wait. Is this a Disney series?.... No. It just sucks.
Exorcist: House of Evil
(2016)
So much wrong to be a "right".
20 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First to say, there may be spoilers here... Can't say knowing anything ahead of watching this film could really spoil the experience- it does that all on its own.
I give them a couple props on the "Kilroy was here" doodle on the boys notebook! (A popular tag from the WWII era.) The second is the surprisingly NOT bad quality of lighting and camera use. Too bad the camera can't fix poor acting...
In my humble opinion... The movie was low budget- bad effects, poor sound quality, and little direction in plot. The main actress had stiff acting, and all other acting was just as shoddy. I believe watching Fantasia would make a better Exorcist movie than this one. And no, this film has nothing to do with the popular Exorcist franchise. There is no exorcism in the actual film, besides a short glimpse in the backstory. Also, I can't tell if the interior of the house was the actual house in Missouri or a staged home... They tried their best to make it look as though vandals had been in the vacant house, but a few scribbles in a few corners could have just been left out.
Lastly, when they showed letters appearing in people's skin... In one scene with the dementia patient, the Aunt, she had letters etched into her forearm. It was supposed to be the initials T.E.S. However, I seriously thought they said SEX. Anybody else see that?...
I give them a couple props on the "Kilroy was here" doodle on the boys notebook! (A popular tag from the WWII era.) The second is the surprisingly NOT bad quality of lighting and camera use. Too bad the camera can't fix poor acting...
In my humble opinion... The movie was low budget- bad effects, poor sound quality, and little direction in plot. The main actress had stiff acting, and all other acting was just as shoddy. I believe watching Fantasia would make a better Exorcist movie than this one. And no, this film has nothing to do with the popular Exorcist franchise. There is no exorcism in the actual film, besides a short glimpse in the backstory. Also, I can't tell if the interior of the house was the actual house in Missouri or a staged home... They tried their best to make it look as though vandals had been in the vacant house, but a few scribbles in a few corners could have just been left out.
Lastly, when they showed letters appearing in people's skin... In one scene with the dementia patient, the Aunt, she had letters etched into her forearm. It was supposed to be the initials T.E.S. However, I seriously thought they said SEX. Anybody else see that?...
Hollow
(I) (2011)
What is better than this film? Birdwatching at Night.
20 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have watched numerous amounts of "handy-cam" and "found footage" movies, and more keep returning to the big screen- ever since The Blair Witch Project became a big hit. Before watching I try to start with a fresh mind, hoping to find that diamond in the rough. Sadly- this movie did not make the cut. Per usual to this genre, you get a small background to both events and characters in blips of "film footage". The day filming is more coherent however, than the night filming- where you will only find ambiance in the camera light. The movie rarely picks up pace; and it seems only to do so when people are screaming and running away for no apparent reason- other than seeing mangled animal remains, complete darkness, or a man's jacket. (I also didn't appreciate how the last 25 minutes of the movie was filmed in a car... Main shots were knees in that great ambiance I spoke of.) There is also brief nudity (cute blonde takes her top off)- which seems to be found in most B-Horror these days. In conclusion, if you enjoy people yelling for missing company, noises you would never really hear in the dark, and a lot of shots of tree branches, then I would suggest this movie to you! However, I would use considerable hesitation in doing so.
The Cloth
(2013)
Don't Be Fooled By the Familiar Faces- It sucked.
7 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
With Danny Trejo on the scene, I knew this movie would either be epic... or a total cheap fail. Sadly, within the first (literally) three minutes of the beginning to this movie, I noticed how horribly done the CG special effects were (describing the "breath" and "live-action injuries"), and continued on throughout the entire film. Had they've just exhaled smoke vapors and makeup-ed a few bruises and cuts instead, I wouldn't be writing this review lol. With that being said- it is a good thing the beginning "possessed" girl simply body-contorted.
Moving onto the bad acting- yes, even with all the other familiar faces casted; acting all around seemed forced. Maybe poor directing can be to blame? The Cloth, based on CG effects alone, could be compared as though The SyFy Channel had produced another "original movie" in the horror genre. The unspeakably horrendous acting however, shares no comparison. (I have seen better in forensic file reenactments.) Seriously, line-by-line was awkward, to say the least.
As far as ideas (emphasizing the use of science fiction-esc weaponry), attempts at humor in the characters (but poorly produced), and actually showing the demons (in obvious latex masks) rather than making them a shadow or mist, makes the film less excruciating to watch. I say judge for yourself- watchable if you can get past
Moving onto the bad acting- yes, even with all the other familiar faces casted; acting all around seemed forced. Maybe poor directing can be to blame? The Cloth, based on CG effects alone, could be compared as though The SyFy Channel had produced another "original movie" in the horror genre. The unspeakably horrendous acting however, shares no comparison. (I have seen better in forensic file reenactments.) Seriously, line-by-line was awkward, to say the least.
As far as ideas (emphasizing the use of science fiction-esc weaponry), attempts at humor in the characters (but poorly produced), and actually showing the demons (in obvious latex masks) rather than making them a shadow or mist, makes the film less excruciating to watch. I say judge for yourself- watchable if you can get past
Attack of the Gryphon
(2007)
Typically the B-move of Films.
7 March 2013
I have read other reviews, and understood where everyone is coming from. Although, I do disagree with the "worst movie I have ever seen" reviews... If you can get past the part when the Gryphon first "breaks out of its' shell", then the movie isn't half bad. Personally, I didn't like the Sorcerer's two female counterparts either. They reminded me of soft-core porn stars (acting quality as well), rather than witches. So yes, the CG animation takes the quality of a Sy-Fy channel film. And yes, there are a lot of references recognized that were taken from others' works as well. The story is predictable, the characters accents are shoddy, but the acting isn't as hoax-e as your usual "bad movie". So overall, I wouldn't call it absolutely terrible and a waste of time... just a typical b-movie fantasy. 5/10 because it's not intolerable, but I wouldn't watch it a second time, nor pay to add it to my film collection.
Time Changer
(2002)
Christian propaganda
6 March 2013
Don't let the description fool you- this film is slow moving, boring, and with little climax. With the back drop of an above average "home-movie-feel" and poor acting, this film took me back to remembering "The Wylds" movie. This film would be better set up for church youth to watch, as it would be a more appropriate film there- or a "family movie night" on a Sunday- if you get my drift. But don't expect tears or leaving with a warmth in your heart from everyone, because this movie is TRUE Christian fundamentalists! IMHO (Each to their own, but not my cup of tea.... My interest fizzled out about 30 minutes in... Sadly, I had to see it in theaters when it first came out, thinking it held similarities to "The Time Machine"- woo, epic fail there!)
CRISTIAN PROPAGANDA, indeed...
6 March 2013
Don't let the description fool you- this film is slow moving, boring, and with little climax. With the back drop of a "home-movie-feel" and poor acting, this film took me back to remembering when I went to theaters and saw "Time Changer" in 2002... I walked out on it after 30 minutes. (However, this film I didn't have to pay to see. Luckily.) This film would be better set up for church youth to watch, as it would be a more appropriate film there- or a "family movie night" on a Sunday- if you get my drift. But don't expect tears or leaving with a warmth in your heart from everyone. (And if the "christian propaganda" is more your speed, I would try the book it's based on before spending cash on this... js.)
Walled In
(2009)
Odd film with plot holes for the imagination to fill!
26 February 2013
I have read other reviews of this film. I must say, it was very odd and had a few twists expected and unexpected. I enjoyed it. My mate enjoyed it as well. It was a slow-going movie, but the end- while leaving us with a few questions- also left us feeling that if we watched it over a second time we might understand more. I wish they had developed the characters a little more, other than a creepy mother-son relationship (IMHO) and a dull been-doin'-this-all-my-life main character. (I wouldn't say it was "bad acting", just- undeveloped personalities!) Perhaps if they used more time explaining the bottom line story and less time trying to creep us out, the movie experience on the hole would feel more complete. I guess my favorite part was the ending- because after all of that time waiting thinking "where's the twist", they gave you one... if you'd consider it a "twist". Once you figure out what is going on, you'll think to yourself "oooohhhh!...well... it wasn't too bad!" *shrugs* (Didn't go the full 10/10, because it isn't perfect.)
Asterix in America
(1994)
For Children?
26 October 2012
Although I had never heard of the character "Asterix", I decided to chance the classic cartoon. Upon watching, and reading the synopsis of the film, I clearly understood the "effect" it reasonably portrayed. However, I also realized that within this film, there is clearly a nude scene of male genitalia! (The man had his pants down. *Also noted in a recent post in the message board.*) I myself was just as surprised. As an adult, I laugh at "hidden jokes" a lot of cartoons insinuate and even word around what should be "adult humor". However, this is flat out unrighteous! They may have gotten away with that in the 70s, but "new age" cartoons can only give fart jokes and bare-bum shots! (Including their resort to subliminal messages for the older generations watching along.) Rated 2/5 due to the distasteful display of a crotch-shot, but short framed enough that most (luckily) don't catch-- sorry kids.
Tell Your Friends