Change Your Image
bikey1277
Reviews
[Rec]³: Génesis (2012)
A warning and a review
I've read some of the user reviews about this movie and felt like I have to put in my two cents. Or at least give you a heads up on the movie. So, first a warning. Genesis does not follow the story of the first two REC movies and it is definitely not a prequel. The character of Angela Vidal, the journalist that is now the host to the worm/cocoon/demon or whatever that was, is not in the movie. At all. Not even for a second. Genesis also does not tell the viewer anything about the origin of the Medeiros girl and her transformation from a normal person to the monster we saw in REC 1 and 2. If that is what you're looking for, my advice is pretty simple. Just skip this one and wait for REC 4 Apocalypse. If, on the other hand,you are a horror fan, you might want to give it go. Although I have to say that the movie is pretty average, full of clichés, bad jokes and face-palm moments. 3 out of 10 seems fair enough, at least to me. The user rating of 5 is pretty accurate for this one, unlike so many pumped up ratings I've seen on this site recently.
Basically, REC 3 is a horror action zombie flick. It doesn't require too much thinking. The movie is set in the same time frame as REC 1. So while Koldo and Clara, the happy couple, are about to have their wedding day destroyed by a bunch of blood-hungry zombies, Angela Vidal and the rest of the REC 1 cast are trapped in the quarantined apartment building trying to figure out what exactly is going on. Paco Plaza, who's doing this movie without the co-director and co-writer of the first two movies Jaume Balaguero, doesn't waste time with lengthy introductions and foreplay. About 5 minutes into Genesis we're introduced to Koldo's uncle, who arrives at the wedding with a nasty bleeding wound on his hand. Apparently he's been bitten by a dog. 15 minutes later he's already puking blood and takes a big chunk flesh out of his wife's neck. Just seconds later there is a full scale attack of a horde of the infected on the wedding guests. The rest of the movie is focused on the few survivors, most notably Koldo and Clara, trying to get away from danger but ultimately failing to do so.
I loved the first two movies and I was really looking forward to seeing REC 3 until I read an interview with Paco Plaza a couple of months ago. I'll summarize what he said: Genesis will be a completely different movie than the first two REC installments. And yes it is very different but it also isn't a very good movie either. I fail to see the reason for making a movie that has no or very little connection to the story line previously set up by REC 1 and 2 and calling it REC 3. I just hope Balaguero returns for Apocalypse and I can erase this one from my brain as quickly as possible.
EDIT: Just for some of my fellow reviewers who apparently did not pay enough attention to the plot of REC and REC 2.The movie has a lot of flaws. There is no tension, no suspense. We know what is going to happen after 5 minutes of watching it. Second, slapstick comedy has no place in a REC movie and it doesn't work in this one. There are major plot holes and the characters' actions and behavior is monumentally stupid at times. But I really don't know how you can miss the religious aspect of REC which was firmly established in REC 1 and REC 2. These are not zombies. They are infected by a virus or an enzyme that causes demonic possession. The primary source of the infection is the girl from Medeiros and she can control the actions of her minions. Remember the priest calming an infected person with Rosary beads and a prayer in REC 2. At least Paco Plaza included that aspect of the story. Although the behavior of the infected while the priest reads passages from the bible was very awkward. But then again the whole movie is awkward.
The Divide (2011)
No, not worth it.....
That's the answer for those of you who might see the trailer and think about watching this one. No, don't be fooled by it. I've rated this at 3 mainly because I rated some awful low budget crap even lower. One star for the fact that I did not get bored (enough) to just stop watching it and a star for not having giant plot holes (because there is no plot to talk about). One star by IMDb default equals 3.
I was disappointed when I realized this isn't a movie about a nuclear fallout. Its not. Its a movie about a group of people trapped in a cellar. Sure they are locked in a nuclear shelter and they hid there because someone decided to attack the USA with nukes but they could have been running away from Godzilla or hordes of zombies. It really doesn't matter. Once the door is locked the movie turns into a survival horror/thriller flick. Like Alive, Robinson Crusoe, Lord of the Flies, The Beach.....The opening sequence with Lauren German (the eye candy of the movie) staring out the window at the falling warheads and the complete destruction is spectacular. But its only about a minute long and the trailer pretty much covers that one. The attempts to explain this issue just confuse things even further. In the end someone just welds the shelter door shut from the outside and we're left with a bunch of people fighting for cans of beans and water. And going insane.
It could have worked. Its not a bad idea for a movie. The Road is a great movie about surviving a nuclear fallout. But The Road was based on a novel by the great Cormac McCarthy. This one wasn't. Its boring, clichéd and predictable. The screenplay is bad. The characters are unrealistic and poorly developed. None of them seem to have had any family or friends on the outside because none of them shows any concern of what might have happened to his/her parents, girlfriend, etc. They're too busy trying to figure out what kind of goodies Mickey the grumpy super has hidden in his safe. The movie is predictable to a point that you know what's going to happen after the first 10 minutes. I did. And I also did you a big favor by watching the whole thing so now you don't have to.
The Watermen (2012)
so awful its not even funny.....
You've probably realized by now that the excellent viewer reviews are fake. Its just advertising. Movie trailers with words. Something like that. Don't buy into it. The movie is awful. Apparently this is Matt Lockhard's first venture into movie making. Honestly, Matt, if it were up to me this would your last one as well.
The Watermen is supposed to be a low budget, lots of blood and guts slasher movie. There is no need for brilliant acting and a potentially Oscar-winning screenplay. Just keep it simple. SIMPLE, not retarded. The setup: 3 guys and 3 girls go on a fishing trip, their boat breaks down and they get stranded in the middle of the ocean only to be rescued by some fishermen who intend to cut them up and use their meat as fish and crab bait. Apparently the fish and crab just love human flesh. Like I wrote, low budget slasher. No need for a realistic plot. Even with that crazy premise you still could have pulled it off. But you didn't. I'm writing this as a warning to other horror nuts like me. Its not worth it. I actually feel like I've been insulted. Mr.Lockhard seems to think that some gratuitous nudity and fake blood is going to satisfy an average horror fan. In short, he seems to think horror fans are dumb. The plot, acting, dialogue, characters are all big contributors to the overall awfulness of the movie, but the execution is the real issue here. The movie is only an hour and a half long but it seems like its longer than The Titanic. At least a third of it are long, drawn out shots of people running away, people chasing the runaways, girls showering, the guys watching the girls showering,....I was fast-forwarding a lot because I didn't want to watch a girl run by the same tree for the third or fourth time. And that was despite the fact that one of her breasts was out on full display and I'm basically your average horny straight guy. I don't really know what to write about the bad guys of the movie, you know, the sadistic fishermen. The phrase "worst of the worst" comes to mind. And yes, the worst part of this awful movie are the bad guys. All I can remember are those yellow plastic pants and boots that fishermen wear moving around on the screen and all the while someone was muttering insanities like "I'm gonna git you" with a heavy southern accent in the background. I couldn't understand/hear half the things that were being said but that was fine with me because the things I did hear made me shake my head in disbelief. Even Richard Riehle, a veteran among actors, was awful in his role. There is no excuse for making such a mess of a movie. Being a rookie director doesn't cut it. It should have been simple, instead its in full on retard mode. Skip it. Unless you want a headache.
The Tunnel (2011)
Incomplete
Quick synopsis of the plot; a TV crew decides to investigate the abandoned tunnels under Sydney because of what they believe to be a government cover-up. They are absolutely right. It is a cover-up.
First of all this is one of those first person footage shaky cam movies. To make it more documentary-like they include interviews with two survivors of this trip. I have nothing against movies shot this way. It can be very effective if used properly. Cloverfield is an example. And REC is an excellent horror movie. One of my favorites of all time. I read some reviews where the reviewers complained about the lack of mystery about who survives and who doesn't. Honestly, I can watch about 10 to 15 minutes of any mindless slasher movie and predict which character is survival material and which ones are 100 % cannon fodder. It does takes a long time for the movie to really get going but I thought the long intro makes the plot and characters more believable. The acting is OK and the characters aren't just props and one dimensional buckets of blood running around screaming until they get killed. Don't get me wrong, this is not exactly Oscar material here but its better than your average low budget horror movie.
I give it a 3. The plot is decent. At least it wasn't an insult to my intelligence. The characters are believable. I didn't find it boring, despite the slow build-up. BUT the problem is the ending. The last third of the movie is set in the tunnels with some jumps to the fake interviews with the survivors. The writers did a good job with building the tension but they really screwed up the ending. The last sequence of REC is a really good example of how effective the first person view combined with a night vision camera can be. Sadly The Tunnel exposes all of its flaws. There is a mildly creepy scene involving a policeman and the monster or whatever is hunting them in the tunnels. It is followed by a lot of running around the tunnels and screaming. And jerky camera movement. But if you are a horror nut like me, you're going to tough it out because you want to see the conclusion. Basically you want to see what exactly is chasing them around the tunnels. You would hope for some kind of an explanation. What is it? How did it get there? Where did it come from? None of those questions are answered. We really don't even get a hint. In a nutshell, this movie has no ending. Its like a murder mystery movie or book that ends without revealing who is the murderer. Incomplete and thus flawed.
American Horror Story (2011)
went from bad to awful
Best thing in the show so far: Alex Breckenridge The absolutely worst thing so far: McDermotts playing with himself scene. The scariest thing so far: an 8.5 rating and a whole bunch of good reviews. Maybe its the ghosts???
We all know the primary reason this show was 'created'. Its the money. Horror or the supernatural is trendy. Look at Twilight, True Blood, Paranormal Activity, The Walking Dead (an awesome show, by the way) and others. Just throw in some sex and you got a winner. I battled through the first season and it was rough. If it wasn't for 45 minute packages arriving every week I probably wouldn't be able to watch this horror. And I have seen all kinds of horror movies before. I am a fan of the genre. Honestly, I thought the show hit rock bottom in the Halloween episodes. But it went straight through that rock and landed in the cesspool beneath. I had extremely low expectations and it turned out to be just what I expected from Glee with ghosts, monsters and other whatnot's. Why am I disappointed by this horrible American story then? Well, there is this lack of creativity. And I mean lack as in there is no creativity. The story is a collection of every horror cliché known to mankind. Not to mention all the plot elements that were just copied from old horror movies, polished and repainted for people who have never heard of or seen The Amytiville Horror, The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Poltergeist and countless other movies. The house itself has a serious ghost infestation. They are everywhere. More importantly, they have abilities that are not ghost-like (if you don't understand what I'm trying to state here, watch The Shining please). They can materialize anytime and anywhere inside the house, have therapy and a prescription for Prozac, have sex with each other and with the living thus conceiving a child, hurt the living with weapons like guns and fire pokers, stealing newborn babies, eat a sandwich and drink coffee, fall in love.....This premise is completely illogical since most of them died violently, often by the hands of another ghost, and are now stuck in this house forever. No ill feelings, resentment, revenge, no making someone suffer for a long, long time ??? Apparently not.
Positives? It looks good. Oh, and Miss Breckenridge in a French maid outfit. That's about it. EDIT: THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE FIRST SEASON.
Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings (2011)
The worst movie I've seen in a while
And as a horror genre enthusiast I'm constantly watching some low budget horror flicks. I can forgive a few plot holes, bad acting to a certain degree, stupid screenplay and other flaws. But not here. This movie is just awful in every category. I'm not really a fan of inbred mutant hillbillies from hell horror. The Hills Have Eyes and Deliverance are a couple of exceptions. I should have seen it coming. The second and third installment were silly so I am a bit angry with myself for watching the fourth one. But I did and its too late for regret. So, congrats to Mr. Declan O'Brien ( and I will remember the name ) you have now surpassed Uwe Boll on my list of the worst directors ever. That is quite an accomplishment.
The subtitle of the movie is very misleading. It just might have been the reason for my viewing of the film. It sounds like a promise of an explanation. Don't be fooled. There is no explanation. I got screwed. So will you. All we get is a sort of copy/paste scene of Jodie Foster and the director of the mental institution walking down the corridor towards Hanibal Lecter's cell in Silence of The Lambs. Here we have the head doc and the newly hired doc walking down the corridor of horror in a sanatorium. The latter being an institution for keeping patients away from society because they might spread a disease that has no cure yet or they might harm, kill and eat people. A sanitarium, on the other hand, is where the crazy but mostly harmless people are kept. Well, at least I learned something from this movie. The last cell in the corridor of horror is the home of our three stars of the movie. The head doc quickly explains that they were found in the woods by an old lady. He calls the youngsters very dangerous. He also says they're very smart and explains how one of them chewed off a couple of his own fingers and ate them. The other poked out one of his own eyes and ate it. Smart??? The third one just kept biting people so they put a mask on him. And on top of that they all suffer from a very rare genetic condition which makes them immune to pain. Guess what? They get out of the cell. Surprised? Probably not. They immediately unlock all the doors in the sanatorium and kill the guard and the two doctors. The movie then jumps about three decades into the future where we meet 8 people, which are really not worth mentioning at all. They are planning a snowmobile ride to a cottage that is probably near the now seemingly abandoned sanatorium. There is a snow storm and the 8 friends end up taking shelter in the building. And then the fun begins. Or ends.
I have already written way too much about this piece of s#&@, so I'll just list a few things that, in my opinion, contribute mostly to the all together awfulness of the movie.
1. Acting. Atrocious. Think of porn stars having a go at a serious movie. Then go one notch lower on the scale and thats it. I am sorry to write this, but the female actresses were cast on looks instead of talent. It is sorely obvious. The cannibal brothers can't speak. They communicate through grunts, screams and one of them giggles like a little girl. Hilarious at times but this is not supposed to be a comedy.
2. After almost 30 years since the cannibal brothers took over the running of the sanatorium our heroes and heroines find the place 30 years older and dirtier but somewhat untouched. When they wander around the place they find loads of medical equipment like old wheelchairs, a working generator in the basement, old movies about the treatment of various diseases. Eventually they find the office of the doctor who ran the place. Everything is still there. The patient's files, other paperwork and a 30 years old bottle of whiskey. Am I supposed to believe that in thirty!!! years no one had inspected the place? Nobody missed the employees like the guards and the doctors? And if the first search party didn't come back, why not send another? If the second fails to return because, like the first one, had been killed and eaten by the brothers, would the authorities not send an armed squad of policemen or soldiers to inspect the place because there is something not quite right up there if all the people keep disappearing? The brothers just killed and ate everybody?
3. The gore. Just way over the top. The heads keep popping off. Arms and legs popping off. The blood is squirting all over the place. Watch out for the hysterical screaming. It might damage your hearing.
4. At some point midway through the movie our heroes and heroines actually manage to trap all three brothers and lock them into a cell. Do they kill them? No, some of them want to but the stupid female lead character says no. And this is after they killed 3 or 4 of her friends. You know what happens next. This is an easy one.
5. Where the hell did they get onions and potatoes? Did they go shopping to the nearest town? The brothers are frying some human flesh for dinner at one point and the one that giggles like a girl is chopping away at some fresh onions and potatoes. Seriously??? Just awful. Stay away. Don't ever watch it.
Priest (2011)
It could have been much better
The trailers for this movie looked great. It looked like a movie I would enjoy. When I read that this was another comic book adaptation, I got skeptical. I am getting weary of movies based on comics or graphic novels. They are getting from bad to downright disastrous and bizarre. Like Seth Rogan as the Green Hornet. Seth is not an actor, he's a comedian. He always plays himself. So it works in comedies. Didn't work in The Green Hornet. Green Lantern? Who and what? And the worst of them all, I had to watch one of my favorite comic book characters Dylan Dogg get sodomized on the big screen by some director and writer who have never read a Dylan Dogg comic in their entire life. At least it seemed like they didn't. Priest is a better movie than all I mentioned before. But it isn't a faithful adaptation of the Korean comic by the same name. There is just one Priest in the comic and not half a dozen. No vampires, but only a dozen of fallen angels who got cast down to earth from heaven after a failed attempt to overthrow God. One of them uses a young priest, Ivan, as a key to escape from his prison. The demon promptly crucifies Ivan and kills everyone in vicinity, including Ivan's family. Once he's healthy Ivan swears revenge and goes off to find all the fallen angels. The cross on his face is not a sign of the church or the sign of the vampire slayer. Ivan sells half of his soul to a powerful spirit Belial who had imprisoned the demon in the first place. The spirit promises to help Ivan get revenge and puts his mark on him, a cross and a circle. None of this is actually in the movie. Only Ivan the Priest. Even his character is not the same as in the comic. The term "very loosely based on this or that comic" comes to mind. I give Priest 5 out of 10. It means its watchable but not really special in any way. Its an average action movie. The plot is straightforward, there is no unexpected turns or surprises. The pace of the movie is quick. Moving from a fight scene to another very fast. It comes to a grinding halt a couple of times so the main characters can have a discussion about something really important for them but very trivial to us, the audience. It all ends at one hour and 27 minutes with a big explosion. The bad guys are dead, the good guys survive. The characters don't really have the time to develop or grow as they're just moving from a fight scene to another. Despite some personal moments here and there, they still end up being the same person as they were at the start of the movie. Paul Bettany was a great cast for the Priest. He looks the part. The stern features with a hint of sadness and depression. Karl Urban, the chief villain Black Hat, was really not used well and often enough. The other actors were average. Just like the screenplay. And the movie. There is a couple of things and concepts in the movie that don't make any sense at all. The Vampire reservation. Vampires are predators. They look like a cross between Raptor dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and a hairless big cat with some insect DNA mixed in. Why would anyone keep a creature that had killed thousands and thousands of humans alive in a reservation.Its the same thing with the Vampire hives. The vampires reproduce like ants, bees, ...The idea is pretty much stolen from the Alien movies. There is a queen vampire. She is the key to destroying them. The Priest army fails to find the queen. But they know its out there somewhere. And yet they don't go after her again. Worse. The hives, which look like small volcanoes, are left untouched. Why not throw some big bombs into the hives and destroy them and the queen. Oh, and the vampires keep human slaves, they're called familiars. Don't know what that is all about.
I'm thinking the cross tattoo on the face isn't really necessary. It looks cool in the movie. But since the cross on the face of the Priest(s) is about the only link to the Priest comics, you could drop the crosses and you wouldn't have to buy the copyrights for the comics. That was a waste of money. Especially if there is going to be more Priest movies with absolutely no connections to the ideas in the comics.
Dylan Dog: Dead of Night (2010)
What is this crap ????
This isn't Dylan Dog. I've read the comics since I was a kid. This is nothing like the comics. For all that don't already know. Dylan Dog is like a Sherlock Holmes for the supernatural. He always wears the same clothes, he plays the clarinet, lives in London ( not New Orleans ), his assistant looks like Groucho Marx not a zombie, he is a reformed alcoholic and has many many fears and phobias. One of the most notable is claustrophobia, which is ignored by the makers of this movie, as they shot a scene where Dylan is sealed into a crypt with his zombie assistant. He stays cool as ice while the zombie guy freaks out. Thank you, writers and producers, for making him the most uninteresting person in the world. For those, who know the comic and like it, please don't watch the movie. Its not Dylan Dog. It doesn't come even close.
And the movie, if we suppose the title would be John Smith: Dead of Night, is as bad as it gets. New Orleans is apparently littered with zombies, werewolves and vampires. You just have to look closer. Zombies are everywhere. They work in fast food joints, the morgue, walk the streets at night, have zombie support groups...Vampires make their money peddling their own blood as a party drug. And werewolves supply the city with meat. Makes sense. On the whole this movie is only slightly better than the Uwe Boll stuff. The plot is not worth mentioning. The acting? Don't know, really. The zombie assistant did yell a lot. And Routh or whatshisname speaks with the same tone of voice during the entire movie. Doesn't matter where he is and what he is doing. The girl's accent seemed to change for about three times during the whole movie. Even the special effects are horrible. The vampires and werewolves look about the same. The latter just have more hair. Peter Stromare is a good actor and is convincing as an alpha male of the werewolf family. Sadly his part in the movie is small. Taye Diggs is unconvincing as the head of the 'trueblood' vampire family. His portrayal of the bad guy in the movie is useless. I don't know how much of that is his fault because the script is so weak. Most of the action sequences feature Dog fighting vampires or werewolves. Its your basic shootout and fistfight routine. The zombies are there for the laughs. You might get a few at the beginning but all the clichés and Huntington antics combined with a loud high-pitched voice get annoying as the movie progresses. I would have probably left the movie before the ending if the plot would not promise me the reincarnation of Belial, the demon. I was curious to see this beast. Boy, was I wrong. It was a spectacle. They failed spectacularly. It looked like it was made out of plastic. Was there a budget issue? Did they run out of money so they thought they'd save some by using cheap but crappy special effects?
So much potential and such a screw up. The name Dylan Dog is in the title just to get a few dollars more out of the comic fans. I can't think of any other reason. This one makes Constantine and Keanu Reeves look brilliant.
Insidious (2010)
A bad, bad movie.
PLEASE, DO NOT SPEND MONEY ON THIS MOVIE. IT IS AWFUL. IT IS NOT SCARY.
If you look at the information, you can see this is a low budget movie. And it definitely shows. I was just looking at how much profit it had already made and I felt nauseous. I had to write this. All the reviews giving it high marks are so clearly FAKE. Or written by people with horrible taste when it comes to movies. The IMDb is being used as an advertising tool. Don't buy it. Don't buy a ticket for the movie. Its like throwing money out the window.
It is impossible to write a comprehensive review of this crappy movie so I won't even try. The plot is standard in the beginning but turns outrageously ridiculous at the end. You might find yourself wondering who comes up with this kind of stupidity and who gave the screenplay a thumbs up for filming it. The acting is on the level with the movie. You will notice the incredibly loud and annoying background music, I guarantee it. I also guarantee you won't like it.
I might call it watchable up until the little lady psychic from Poltergeist( same character, different actress ) is introduced. Her explanation of events turns the plot hilarious. Or outrageous. It depends how you look at it. And whether you spent money on it. And by the way, the main bad guy is a demon. Its a bad CGI character with hooves, black shiny body hair like a horse and a red face like Darth Maul. The other ghosts look like sick people with bad make up.
AGAIN. THE MOVIE IS NOT WORTH WATCHING SO DON'T SPEND MONEY ON IT. If you are curious, wait for the DVD or get it some other way.