Reviews

This movie is full of NO's.

It had NO story (unless getting a bunch of people together to get slaughtered was the story).

The actors had NO acting talent (I think sacks of potatoes have more acting potential).

Obviously NO budget (Seriously, a pellet gun?)

NO special effects (Case in point, holding a string of long balloons tied together is supposed to look like intestines).

NO scares, drama, anticipation, build-up, yada-yada.

Last but not least, NO redeeming factors.

There are movies so bad that they become entertaining. This isn't one of them, it's just bad.

The cast was composed of unknown actors (not known to me anyway).

There are movies that are so bad they become entertaining; this is NOT one of them. The dialog is bad, the fight scenes are bad, the special effects are bad, there is nothing noteworthy or redeeming at all.

A small group of survivors are on a quest to find "Shangri-La." Along the way, they lose members and acquire others. Once the team arrived at their destination, the story loses all cohesiveness. People did things here, people did things there. It was as if the director was throwing darts at notes on the wall for ideas. More people died (badly due to more subpar special effects) and the movie ends with the protagonists continuing their journey to find "Shangri-La."

The ending is opened ended which means that they may make more. I sincerely hope that they don't.

The story starts off with the usual damsel in distress gets kidnapped and gets rescued by the male military hero character. However, the male hero later gets caught by the bad guys and need rescuing. The previous damsel in distress asserts her "I'm the best person for the job" and is given a military team to go out and rescue him. (Note that she's a civilian but is somehow more capable of leading a rescue mission than trained military folks? Huh?)

Anyhow, her entire team gets killed but she is able to rescue the male hero character. They both almost get killed but her geriatric father just happens to get there at the nick of time to save them. Seriously, what's next, their dog comes to help out next?

Sorry but no. This is the kind of movie where you root for the bad guys. (Thankfully, there wasn't a dog in the movie)

Not much in the way of torturing goes on in this movie. I thought maybe it would be a prologue to current "Saw" or "Hostel" type movies. Nope, not even close. You get introduced to the good doctor at the beginning of the movie and he goes away for 35 years. Then people show up and take a horse and buggy ride together. They talk, they talked some more and later talked even more. Some of it is back story related but for the most part, useless banter.

So they eventually get to their destination and you would think this would be where people start dying in horrible ways. Nope, they do some talking, talked some more and later talked even more. Christopher Lee was asleep during most of his scenes. Seriously, he fiddled around around with a lab beaker, then twiddled this thumbs waiting for the protagonist to stop hurting him. (You may be surprised to know that during the climatic battle at the end, they do some talking, talked some more and later talked even more.)

So predictably, the protagonist prevails and everyone leaves the so-called torture chambers alive. Wow, queue the razzberry sound please.

Quick Cliff Notes summary: Terrible attempt at a "Thelma and Louise" styled western.

OK, I gave you a chance to stop at the abridged summary, here's the detailed version:

The story centers around four down on their luck women who have turned to prostitution as their livelihood. The audience is never told how the four got together nor are their back stories explored in detail.

One of the ladies shoot and kill an unruly "customer" and the group flees. Along the way they try to swindle cash from a bank, meet men (some helpful, some not), make stupid decisions, make more stupid decisions and everything works at the end with everyone happy as larks.

I realize audiences sometimes have to suspend belief when watching movies. It doesn't mean however, that audience be treated as idiots by the filmmakers. The girls constantly get into trouble but yet they always make it out safely while the people who help them wind up injured or dead. Sorry but even John Wayne didn't get out of every scrape unscathed. Another puzzling thing, where did the protagonists learn to shoot as well as they did? I'm pretty sure prior to being prostitutes, killing people was not their previous line of work.

The final showdown is especially disappointing. Who goes to a hostage exchange without a back up plan? The audience is expected to believe that the 4 protagonists with little to no gun fighting experience can bring down a group of outlaws in their own lair. Um, no.

Bad story, bad acting and bad southern accents - they got the "Bad" part correct in the title. I recommend skipping this movie if you have not seen it yet.

As far as features released by The Asylum goes, this wasn't bad. Notice that I didn't say it was good, just that it wasn't bad. Surprisingly, while the cast was composed of mostly unknown actors, their performances were decent. Not great mind you but definitely watchable. Special effects is an area that usually lets The Asylum films down but this time it was OK.

Regardless of acting quality and special effects, a film needs a good story to succeed and this is the area where Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies failed. The President of the United States leading a small group of men into a Confederate territory reported to be overrun by zombies? Who thought that one up? Once the team arrived at their destination, the story lost all cohesiveness. People did things here, people did things there. It was as if the director was throwing darts at notes on the wall for ideas. Story, story, story. You can't have a good movie without a good story and this feature severely lacked one.

In summary, Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies has decent acting and zombie action. If you don't care about story, you may enjoy it.

Star Wars IV: A New Hope Synopsis:

A young man ekes out a life on a dry, barren wasteland planet. He one day chances upon a small droid carrying important information that is wanted by the Galactic Empire. The young man is initially reluctant to get involved but after witnessing the brutality of the Galactic Empire, he accepts the task at hand to help deliver the droid to the Rebel Alliance. He picks up companions along the way and look for possible assistance in a seedy bar populated with unsavory alien-types.

During the journey, various small skirmishes are fought and one of the elder statesman in the group is killed. The death particularly affects the young man as he looked up to him in high regard.

The droid and it's information is delivered to the Rebel Alliance successfully and everyone prepares for the final battle with the Galactic Empire's doomsday weapon. In the climactic scene, the Galactic Empire's doomsday weapon is destroyed after a single venerability is found.

Star War VII: The Force Awakens

Substitute "young man" with "young woman" , "Galactic Empire" with "First Order" and "Rebel Alliance" with "Resistance" in the above synopsis and you have Star War VII: The Force Awakens. This is not a new movie but a retelling of "A New Hope."

It's been 10 years (2005) since the release of "Revenge of the Sith" and this is the best they could come up with?

Story wise, I rank this a s a FAIL. Special effects is top notch. Just go to see the special effects and forget that this is supposed to be a Star Wars sequel - it is not.

With the title of "Bad Ass", you know this is not going to be a masterpiece. The story is a parody of sorts of action films (ie: Chuck Norris, Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Van Damme, etc. vs. the bad guys alone) but this time the protagonist is a frumpy old man.

There are movies that are so bad they become entertaining; this is one of them. The dialog is bad, the fight scenes are bad, the special effects are bad, there is nothing noteworthy or redeeming at all. I might as well kick 'em while they're down and note that the entire vehicle chase scene is cut and pasted from a 1988 Schwarzenegger film.

If you turn off your left brain (the supposedly analytical side) while watching this, you'll find some chuckles here and there. A frumpy old hero? While not believable that an older person can take out all the baddies hand-to-hand, it is not inconceivable that he can win some of the fights.

If you are looking for mindless entertainment and don't mind extreme profanity and violence, you may enjoy this movie.

For the same reasons, I recommend keeping kids away it.

World War Z is a movie that has great potential but goes absolutely nowhere. The most glaring issue, this is a zombie movie without zombie action.

What do people expect to see in zombie movies? Zombies attacking and munching on people. Instead, WWZ gives the audience zombies running around at Mach speed and cut scenes at what should be interesting points.

Pitt's character is wooden and unsympathetic. Even as an anti-hero, I didn't buy into the character. It's clear that Pitt and his wife/family are very close but does the audience need to be constantly remind of this? The story makes very little sense with Pitt traveling across the globe in search of answers. What makes matters worse, very little of the data gathered has an effect on the final outcome of the film.

The South Korea airbase scene in particular adds no value to the story. Everyone is aware that they need to be extremely quiet to sneak onto a plane to leave. Pitt however, leave his phone on and receives a call from his wife at the worse possible moment and people become dead as a result. Pitt's character is supposed to be the best at what he does but yet fails to observe safety protocols? This makes no sense.

The hoards of CGI created living dead are unconvincing and in some scenes, resemble the ones in "I am Legend." Not much in way of technological improvements over a film released in 2007 if you ask me.

Camera work is terrible with shots bouncing up and down, side to side. Another film ruined with "shaky cam" filming .

In a way, this movie parallels the 2011 film "Contagion." In fact, you can replace the Pitt investigative scenes with the ones from "Contagion" and have a more cohesive story.

There is very little blood shown on screen. Given its PG-13 rating, violence of course needed to be toned down but not to the point of avoidance. Fans of the zombie genre may find this film a bit lacking but I think the producers of WWZ wanted to sanitize it to appeal to a wider audience.

This is one of those movies that starts off appearing enjoyable but becomes terribly disappointing as it progresses. The storyline is fairly simple – In the aftermath of a great war against an alien enemy, Earth has been rendered uninhabitable. To survive, mankind has escaped to another world but a few humans remain to tend the massive energy harvesting machines left behind. To make things difficult, a few surviving aliens have also remained and try to create havoc where ever they can.

It's hard not to notice the behavior of the three primary characters, strange, wooden and unfeeling. Whether it was intentional or just bad acting, it effectively gave away the plot twists and secrets of the story long before they are revealed. You know that everyone and everything is not as they appear and by the time the movies hits its proverbial stride, you will have already correctly guessed everything that will happen.

The film is 2 hours in length but loses its entertainment value near the half hour mark. The story is incredibly predictable and has laughable plot holes that make no sense at all. For instance, how do the clones share memories? They are independent of each other but yet they seemingly share memories at the lake scene at the end. (If you haven't seen the movie, I won't give away what this means.)

Pros: Special effects are top notch, action scenes are interesting. Cons: Story (or lack of), plot, zero second viewing potential

Recommendation: Watch the first half and turn it off, the rest you will have already envisioned in your head.

This is a thinking person's zombie move...(ie: you have to use your imagination)

The entire movie takes place within a radio station where the main characters spend most of the film broadcasting the events unfolding in their community. As information trickles in, the news is passed on to listeners.

This is radio drama at its best - hearkening back to a period when million gathered by their radios to enjoy various broadcasts. Sitting back with one's eyes closed is probably the most appropriate method to appreciate this feature.

Presented as a film production however, the technique does little to keep the story interesting. All talk and no action gets old really quick.

Zombie genre fans watch zombie movies for what?....ZOMBIES! More precisely, zombies attacking and munching on people.

So let's do a recap.

How many on screen zombie attacks were there? None. How many people were shown being bitten on screen? None. How many zombies were observed doing anything other than pounding on glass or meandering around? None.

The problem is, this is not a zombie movie but a movie where the cast talks about zombie activities.

I'll give them credit for coming up with a new spin on how people become infected; it is however, not enough to carry the tale.

Unlike the PG-13 horror movies these days that rely on surprise to scare audiences, previous generations of horror movies truly were shocking and contained material worthy of R rating. Fans of the genre know what elements good horror slasher films need: Gory kill scenes, creative kill scenes, suspense, a last great scene where the protagonist has to rise from the brink of death to defeat the killer and of course, gratuitous nudity.

Hatchet has all of the aforementioned elements but still didn't make the grade. Why? A complete movie needs more than just great kill scenes, it has to have a good story and decent acting, neither of which is present.

I applaud the efforts of the folks behind this movie for trying to make a horror movie for adults. With box office revenue declining, most studios prefer to release films for broader audiences rather than a particular segment. I only wish more thought was put into the script.

This is pretty much the premise of Hatchet II, a bunch of stupid people get slaughtered in amusing ways. The kills were both gory and creative, more than enough to satisfy the most hardcore gore aficionados.

What let the movie down was the lack of a good story...actually...it lacked any story. Movie summary in one sentence - Assemble a group of people and herd them down to the swamp to get killed. End of movie.

The female protagonist was too stupid to think she would not get killed. Apparently surviving a previous encounter with Victor was not enough, she needed to face him again and let him have another go at her. No sane person with half a brain cell would go back out to relive their previous horrors. Of course, her stupidity reigned supreme and she survived another encounter with the killer.

I will say that this sequel is better than the first one. Not by much but better.

How do these movies keep getting worse? Hatchet 2 was bad but this one is even worse. Don't get me wrong, the previous two movies were bad but I enjoyed watching them regardless. They were like train wrecks or car crashes, you couldn't turn away from them. I cannot say this for Hatchet III though, there was nothing redeemable about it.

Plot - None. Story - None. Character development - None.

The sole purpose of this movie was to line up people like ducks and watch them get killed. They didn't even try to build suspense, the killer just walked out into the open and started killing people en masses. There was no suspense, no scares and underwhelming kills. If you haven't seen this movie, take my advice - don't.

There's no way to ease into this review so I will come straight out and say that this movie is terrible. There is nothing vaguely resembling a cohesive story, the acting is atrocious, the special effects is laughable and there is no "horror" in this supposed horror movie. I am guessing the Director (and I use that term very loosely) is a Quentin Tarantino fan as he really tries to play up the over the top violence (and fails). He must also be a closet pervert, why else would he need to include the activities of a kidnapper/murderer/rapist/child killer character throughout the story? He is shown doing the kidnapping, killing, raping in graphic detail - thankfully though, the child killing is only discussed and not shown.

Perversions aside, there is no "bite" to the zombies. Instead of showing zombies attacking and biting and gnawing and chewing people, zombies are shown attacking and then the scenes are cut. Huh? Showing young girls being brutalized and raped is OK but zombies "doing their thing" is not? Clearly there is a problem here. What we are left with is aftermath shots of zombies pulling and eating sausages out of bodies. Great.

If you haven't seen this movie, don't. There is a far superior zombie program on television called "The Walking Dead" that I recommend for getting your zombie fix. I also strongly recommend to the Director of this horrible feature, Joe Chien to stop making zombie movies until he has studied "The Walking Dead" as well.

This could have been a great horror story, the first 3/4 of the movie was creepy as heck. Kids hearing things no one else can, trances, people in the shadows, seemingly demonic possessions, etc. With the proper ending, this movie could have easily have been a hit.

However, we learn later that all of the mysterious happenings are caused by "aliens" who have been watching certain people for decades. So this is a science fiction flick then, right? Well, maybe or maybe not.

The Apocalypse is upon the world and all life will soon be extinguished from the face of the Earth. Good nature benign and benevolent "aliens" have decided to pluck certain children off the planet and deliver them to a new place to restart the cycle of life again.

So why is this not a science fiction movie then? Well, it could be because the "aliens" in their true form resemble winged angels. It could also be because of the fact that one boy and one girl was saved. Or maybe it's because the children are deposited in what appears to be a lush garden with a single tree.

Many movies have trick endings or messages, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. To me, the ending seemed to be a page from the Book of Genesis which makes very little sense for a science fiction movie. So are the writers intimating that religion is science fiction? Please leave metaphysics out of science fiction movies, OK?

With the title "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li", you know in advance that this is not going to be an Oscar contender. However, regardless of Academy Award potential (in this case none), a movie needs a good story, good acting, decent effects, etc., nothing of which was present in this horrible feature. The story lacked cohesiveness and jumped around without direction. The actors' performances were extremely wooden; most of the time, they seemed to just shuffle from one scene to another. Cinematically, instead of having a big screen feel, the framing appeared more like the film was shot for TV. Fight scenes were badly staged and choreographed - in this day and age of special effects, actors don't need to know how to fight to look like they know how to fight.

In summary, I cannot think of anything redeeming about this movie. If you really want to see a "Street Fighter" movie, watch the 1994 "Street Fighter" movie. That one is pretty bad as well but at least you'll have a few laughs while you suffer though it.

Story, story, story. You can't have a good movie without a good story and there's a pretty decent one in this sequel. Iron Man actually takes a back seat to Tony Stark who stays out of armor for at least 3/4 of the movie. I think it was fun seeing Stark run around kicking butt as himself and not his alter ego.

However, the title of the movie is "Iron Man 3", not "Tony Stark, The Crime Fighter." As much as I enjoyed seeing the Stark storyline, I have to admit that I left the theater a bit unsatisfied. I bought a ticket to see Iron Man, not Tony Stark, The Crime Fighter or War Machine.

Iron Man is there but relegated to the battle at the end of the movie. It's a bit absurd how fragile the Iron Man (Men - plural, if you haven't seen the movie, I won't give it away) armor is. Iron Man can battle the Chitauri and their mightiest giant weapons but fall apart upon being struck by a few guys on fire.

In summary, I liked the Stark storyline but feel it took away from the true focus, Iron Man. In my opinion, the scenes with Iron Man in them were weak and unsatisfying. More is not always better (also, if you haven't seen the movie, I won't give away what this means).

Let me start off by saying I love this movie, I must have watched it at least 20 times, maybe more. The story was well written and covered life, death, self exploration and rebirth. This was an action movie that took the time to build the story and not rely solely on slam-bam action to keep the audience's attention. Anyone who tells you that they were not moved by Yinsen's death scene is probably not telling the truth. We the audience got to know two Starks, the self indulging, selfish person and a morally correct one. Some questioned his change, others wanted to bury him for it.

There is plenty of action but the story is what really raised the bar from average to above average. We see Stark slowly become Iron Man after surviving a few hilarious mishaps and fire extinguisher assaults. We see him struggle with moral conflicts and finally deciding to make a difference.

The antagonist twist was nicely done, we are lead to believe that the obvious villain is the main antagonist. Nope, a more sinister character lurked in the background which made the story much more interesting and satisfying.

Of all of the "Avengers" prequel movies (eg: Thor, Captain America and The Incredible Hulk) this is the best in my opinion. Grab a big glass of your favorite beverage, prepare some microwave popcorn, sit back and be prepare for a couple hours of great entertainment.

I loved the first Iron Man movie, I must have watched it at least 20 times, maybe more. The story was well written and covered life, death, self exploration and rebirth. It was an action movie that took the time to build the story and not rely solely on slam-bam action to keep the audience's attention. Anyone who tells you that they were not moved by Yinsen's death scene is most likely not telling the truth. The audience got to know two Starks, the self indulging, selfish person and a morally correct one.

With these points of reference in place, let's talk about Iron Man 2.

In a nutshell, Slam, bam, thank you.

What a departure from the original story. This time around, they focused on putting as much action in as possible and did as little story as possible. In fact, what little story there is insults the audience's intelligence. For example, Stark's Mark II armor is taken by Rhodey and they fight a battle to a stand still.

First of all, Rhodey does not have an arc reactor chest piece. What is he using to power the suit? Second, Stark is wearing at least a Mark IV generation suit. Rhodey with a Mark II suit would have had no chance against it. Third, how did Rhodey get to be an expert using the suit? Fourth, how was a third party organization able to reverse engineer the suit so quickly and integrate other weapons?

This crazy lack of logic is present throughout the story and really killed the movie for me. If you are looking for action, you will not be disappointed. The action comes on early and continues until the end. However, if you want a complete story such as with the original movie, you will probably be somewhat disappointed.

College kids (ie: killing fodder) locked in a spooky house where they need to stay as part of their initiation into their fraternities/sororities. Nice premise, now where could they have gone with the story? They could have been presented it as a straight ghost/haunted house flick which they didn't. They could have did it as a whole-hog over-the-top slasher gore fest which they didn't. They could have presented it as a parody which they didn't.

What they decided to go with was a TV style, watered down lame excuse for a horror movie. I mean come one, Freddy, Jason and Michael were slashing up the screens in Hollywood during the 1980's and this is the best they could do?

There is no suspense build up, the kills are quick and unsatisfying. We all know the elements of good horror/slasher movies. So let's do a recap of what Hell Night had:

Scary? - No. Gory kill scenes? - No. Creative death scenes? - No. Suspense? - No. Great last scene where the protagonist has to rise from the brink of death to defeat the killer? - No. Gratuitous nudity? No.

Sorry, this movie has none of the usually elements needs for a good horror/slasher film.

The action was slow and plodding, you could tell Linda Blair just was there for a paycheck. If you want to see a good horror flick, keep looking as this isn't the one.

This is a vampire movie I think. They flash fangs but they don't seem to be any stronger, faster or smarter than brain dead drug addicts. Additionally, the vampire troop all look like they are Alice Cooper fans, makeup and all.

The protagonist beats the vamps up at will and rest seem to fall off motorcycles and die.

The acting is terrible, they must have shot everything in one take. The film looks like it was transferred off a VHS tape. Seriously, the entire movie is two or three shades too dark and the scene edits look like they were done with a razor blade and scotch tape. I saw the movie on DirecTV in 1920x1080P resolution which magnified the terrible quality.

Story? What story? Several hundred dumb teenagers are invited to a exclusive club to become cattle for the vamps. Only 4 are saved by the protagonist. Great score hero.

1.5 stars at best.