**WARNING**
If you have a squeamish stomach, Do not watch this film! If you have trouble with bad acting, Do not watch this film! If you have a problem with bad CGI effects, Do not watch this film! If you have a problem with gratuitous nudity, Do not watch this film! Got all of that? Now we can continue.
I love this movie! I love it for what it is. And what it is is a throwback to the 70's exploitation grindhouse movies. As I said before, this has pretty bad acting from all involved. Every single actor, even the ones you know to do a good job most of the time, are bad. And the bad actors do an awesome job being bad. So the only Oscar your gonna see here is there may be someone with that name on the crew, but I am still not sure of that.
When it comes to the practical effects, they are done really well. I mean that too as they are pretty gruesome and look cool. The CGI effects on the other hand are terrible. They are almost as if a 10 year old was doing them on his own Wal-Mart brand PC. But in their defense though they are pretty fun to watch at the same time. It was filmed specifically for 3-D and I am not the one to like that sort of thing. I believe that any film in 3-D loses alot in the process because the filmmakers purposefully throw shit at the camera. Just a stupid gimmick to me that they use to hike up the price of a movie ticket. So whether you watch this film in 3-D or not it still is just kinda fun to watch. Just don't think into it too much. Something that is not special effects but is awesome is Kelly Brook is in this movie. She can't act but damn if she isn't good to look at.
Piranha was directed by Alexandre Aja. The man behind the remake of The Hills Have Eyes and the awesome french film Haute Tension. So the man knows his way around a bit of gore. I do believe he did a good job, considering the script he had to work with and what he was trying to accomplish with it. What I believe he was trying to accomplish was to make a fun movie. Not for a dramatic story, just a movie you can watch and get lost in its absurdity. Like the way movies used to be made. I like this movie alot and have returned to it a few times just for its ridiculous nature.
I've known of this film for quite some time but for some odd reason it never struck me as something I would be interested in. What's even weirder is the fact I have a fairly long relationship with cheesy B movies. A good relationship too, mind you. But, I never saw a trailer for this until recently and that is what got me to really watch it. And watch it I did.
This film is s whole lot of fun! And I really mean it. It is a cross between Friday the 13th, Evil Dead and a really good comedy. I have no name for a comedy in this particular realm so that is what I used. The picture is basically a mistaken identity and that is all I will give you for the story.
Acting is okay. Some are really bad but in my honest opinion the two main characters, Tyler Labine, who I've never seen before and Alan Tudyk, who I only remember from the awesome Firefly series. They do play the hillbillies quite well and are the real reason for the comedy throughout the entire film. The other actors are kinda forgettable and at times just annoying but the main two are reason enough to watch this little known gem.
Directed by Eli Craig, I ain't gonna lie to you, I have never heard of him and had to look him up myself to see what else he did. And what I found out was he is known for not much at all. He did direct the T.V. version of Zombieland which I didn't see and was canceled, I believe before it even aired. But I will say that if he keeps making films in this style then I think he can have a good career. Mr. Craig also wrote the movie and it was written well because I laughed and was generally interested in it. The two main guys were very funny and believable as morons.
Anyways, give this film a chance if you like B movies or comedies or a film that makes fun of an old slasher flick. I enjoyed it immensely.
I have been gone for a few days but I am back online with another remake review. This time it is another remake of an American classic horror movie. My mistake, I always mess that up, I mean a re-imagining of an American classic.
So I won't lie about it, I do like this film immensely and not because it has anything to do with the original Dawn of The Dead that was released in 1978. But, because it brings other things to the table. And I tell you what, that zombie table is quite full. So, what does it bring to the table that is new you ask? For one it shows us that a modern day horror films can still use prosthetics instead of relying heavily on CGI like fantasy pictures do. The effects are really good but definitely don't watch it if you are a bit squeamish! Lots of head shots which is par for the course in a zombie movie. For all the rest though, even the sprinting zombies have been done before like in 28 Days Later but that is for another post entirely.
Directed by Zack Snyder and loosely based off of George Romero's original script, and I mean loosely based to the extreme. The only thing this film has in common with its predecessor is the mall and that is it. No names are the same, what the people do for a living isn't the same, the zombies obviously aren't the same, what happens through the course of the film isn't the same and the outcome isn't the same. So like I said, only the mall. I will never, ever understand why Hollywood feels the need to change all aspects of a movie that was damn awesome to begin with! I mean, really if you want to make a film that was already made by someone else two and a half decades ago and you feel you can make it better then I am all for it! But what I have a problem with is when they decide "I want to remake Dawn of The Dead, but want to make it completely not like the other one". So what they are really saying is they want to make a new film but give it the other films name to capitalize on the title alone. That's really some kind of cheap!
Don't let that previous statement throw you off because this is a good film. The acting is the same as you would find in any other film on the same subject. I enjoy this movie to the maximum and would honestly recommend it to anyone that likes zombie type things. I have to say one last thing in an honorable mention type of way, and that is this picture has a really odd but very good soundtrack to it. Some real great choices thrown in to make it just a little different from the pack. For instance I will throw 2 picks out for you right now. What kind of zombie film starts with Johnny Cash and has Richard Cheese's remake of Disturbed's The Sickness? An awesome one!
I really can't believe this film came out a decade ago now. I was living in California at the time when it was released and had quite a build up to it with the trailers and such. I really could not wait for it. It seemed like we finally had a new and original story for a horror flick.
So the story goes like this...no I'm just kidding, I told you I wasn't gonna give a synopsis of any film so I am gonna stand by that. Unless you want me to, in which case just sound off in the comments section below. I would have to change my whole strategy then. The original story part I mentioned is that this film's about a serial killer that doesn't kill people. That's all you get.
The acting is passable at times and then just freakin terrible at other times. There are no true standouts as everyone involved does a good scene and a bad one right after or vice versa. But in its defense though, horror movies are not known for their acting. Scary movies aren't even known for it. With the very few like The Silence of The Lambs being the obvious difference.
The Saw films have gotten a reputation of being the beginners of the "Torture Porn" genre of films. Sad to say that but it is true. Even sadder is it wasn't until part 3 where we get that style of film. The first one is a first rate thriller with a good and different story that shows minimal amounts of blood and gore. It is my favorite of the series by far and the only one to live up to the hype. From part 2 and onto part 7 I believe the filmmakers lost their way in a very extreme way. Instead of the stories having an actual story they decided to see just how much gore they could put into each sequel in an attempt to raise the "Gore Bar"! The director of the first, James Wan, did a great job and then jumped ship and went on to make some other very interesting horror films. I kinda wish he stayed on with Saw so we could have had it done the proper way. But if he stayed we wouldn't have Dead Silence, Insidious or The Conjuring. He appears to have a thing for dolls! But he had one thing right with them, dolls are freakin creepy!
If you are in the market for some Saw films I would suggest stopping after part 1. The sequels add some interesting back story but if you have a weak stomach you may want to skip them. But first is, like I said, a first rate thriller and shouldn't be missed by any lover of horror.
I do enjoy, for the most part, all comic book movies for some reason or another. Some I like way more then the next one and some I dislike even more but I still can find some redeeming factor in all of them. So that being said I suppose I will chat about the second installment of the Amazing Spider-man.
Every actor in this film does, at the very least, a decent job. I thought at first that the choice to make Jamie Foxx play Electro was an odd choice. Not for his acting talents because he has proven he has the chops in his repertoire, but for the reason that Electro has always been a white character. I am not racist in the least bit but I have been reading comic books since I could read and when these films are made after stories I read I just want them to stay true to the story and that includes a persons color. This is where all jump in my business and say I am either racist (even though I just said I wasn't) or they tell me to forget about the source material! I am sorry because I cannot forget the source material and the reason is that the source material is what made me and millions like me fall in love with these characters. Now that that has been said, I have to say that Mr. Foxx was absolutely perfect in the role! He knocked it out of the park, great job indeed. Andrew Garfield as the title character does a great job as well. If you were to ask me I would say he is the best choice right now for Peter Parker, he has the correct build and just looks the part. There is one standout that I will mention and that is Dane Dehaan! He does a fantastic job as Harry Osborn and the Green Goblin. He reminds me of a young Brad Pitt or maybe Leonardo Dicaprio. Fine job, he should have a very long career if he keeps this up.
Story is written well, even for one containing 3 villains. Miles ahead of Spider-man 3 anyways but that doesn't take much. It is a good story about love, teenage life and the most important one, truth. Truth about his family and what happened to them. Regardless of what the critics say the story works in the universe created. I have one big problem with the writing and that is the ending of the film. How can they be writing this huge action scene and think it was okay to just end the film in the middle of a battle? That was so not cool. I understand you want to make a story that can be made into multiple movies but I believe every film, no matter if it is a part 2 or 3, must have a beginning, a climax and an ending that at least ends that little part of the story. In this day and age of film it is not a guarantee that you will make another sequel.
Special effects for this kind of film are 99% CGI and are pretty good for the most part. There are a few times in it that Spidey looks like he is completely breaking the laws of physics but I find it entertaining as hell to watch so I am okay with it. Very cool fights scenes throughout the picture and Electro looks like one of the coolest CGI characters I have seen in a long while.
Overall I would say check it out for the comic book nerd inside all of us. Just be warned of the surprise ending. Not like a twist in the ending either, I mean the ending that just surprises you when it shows up.
I knew nothing of this film before watching it other then I know the city it is named after is destroyed by a volcano. So, I naturally think to myself that I know the ending. Kinda like watching Titanic, I don't care who you are, you know the gist of the story.
I will start by saying there is a large all-star cast in this led by Kit Harington, Emily Browning and Jack Bauer. Some do pretty okay and some do incredibly bad. Joe Pingue is so terrible that I was shocked to read he had so many acting credits. He is just bad, no other words describe it. And it saddens me to say that one of the worst ones is Jack Bauer, pretty upsetting to say the least. I add one simple question to this section. This film takes place in Italy, a place where Italian should be the language. Why do film makers think that if you have to make the movie into English because Americans refuse to read subtitles, how is it an English-ish accent take its place? It makes no sense and this isn't the only film to do it. All do it when they need English words but have it take place in a none English speaking country. Very not cool in my eyes!
A very pretty movie though. Great effects throughout for the most part. I would have to say that 90% of the effect are damn good. The eruption itself kinda takes place in the background but looks wicked cool when it is on screen.
This picture is a meld of a few different films. It has a Romeo and Juliet thing going on, a Gladiator thing going on and a Titanic/Disaster movie thing going on. It really is just Titanic with the ship taken out and replaced by Mount Vesuvius but it still has bit parts of the others thrown in for good measure.
I enjoyed it a little bit but just the fact as I knew the outcome it takes alot away from the dramatic pieces so this may have an effect on all who watch it. So, unless you have been living under a rock and never heard the story of one of the most infamous volcano eruptions in history then you may enjoy it just that much more because you don't already know the ending.
I am not gonna waste much time with this piece of...Gem...that's what I meant to say, Gem. For mere production values it gets a score of absolutely nothing. This film is really not very good from start to finish. Not one actor in it seems like they are actually trying so everyone just phones in their performances. There is a few actual great actors but if you were to base their careers on this one movie then these fellas would be poorer then I. One stand out exceptionally bad one is Miranda Otto, she really cannot act at any level and shouldn't even be put in a high school play. On the other hand we have Yvonne Strahovski who can't really act either but I can say this, she could be wearing a trash bag reciting gangster rap and I would watch her all day. I know, I know, double standards!
Special effects are just that, special! Some are decent but most are just terrible as to being an embarrassment to special effects technicians everywhere. The way I see it is if the techs you hired on to work the movie magic can't actually do the work at hand then time to let them go. Not just give a dog a bone and allow them to destroy the one aspect of a bad film that may have saved it.
So the story goes like this...if you want to make an Underworld film then just make it. Don't just change a couple things around and and give it a name that will lie to the public into thinking it has to do with one of films greatest characters! Which brings me to why is the Frankenstein Monster even in it? I understand it is from a comic book, so you can't blame the filmmakers for that but lets look at it this way. You have a crappy story of gargoyles versus vampires and you know it won't sell at all because it is gargoyles versus vampires. So how do you fix that? Add in a character that has already proven to be a beloved and money making character obviously. Then you commence to making just a bad film about gargoyles versus vampires with a guy that has a scar on his face that's supposed to be the likes of Boris Karloff!
You should probably skip this one as it's not even a popcorn flick at any rate. But, that's up to you.
