Reviews

While I do admire several things about this movie, namely the excellent sets and creature make-up effects, I don't think that there is really enough revealed to result in a coherent story line. Yes, if you read through other comments on this site you will come across countless reviews that seem to indicate that "the only people who don't like this movie are those who are not intelligent enough to get it" and that there is "more than enough information revealed throughout the film to explain the goings on" or some such nonsense. I think we can all appreciate the idea here; our main character is an amnesiac lost in a frightening and surreal (and dangerous) subterranean world. By deliberately refusing to reveal key background information, the director keeps us on the same intellectual level as the character; i.e. we can better relate because we as an audience are also in the dark. That's the concept in a nutshell. If you don't like the sounds of it, I would suggest you rent something else. If you do decide to check it out, however, there are some very interesting ideas in the film.

One of the questions this film asks is to what extent humans can become comfortable with exploiting other humans, perhaps even to what extent the exploited come to view the exploitation as normal or deserved. If Utopia is possible for the few at the expense of the many, is utopia an ethical pursuit? What is the value of a single human life? Do we treat people as an expendable commodity? This is not a film that is devoid of substance or merit, it merely suffers from a style that most will not find comfortable and familiar.

If nothing else, it is quite a film to look at. I found that the sets invoked a cyber-punk quality, a sort of analog nightmare straight out of "Brazil". A pervasive greyness punctuated by blinding white light. The light itself rarely illuminates nearly as much as it obscures (a metaphor for ethical blindness in the futuristic society perhaps...).

If you're feeling a little adventurous and you've got the patience to endure the constant guessing game, give it a whirl.

The Daisy Chain is a pretty decent "spooky kid" thriller that kept me watching and interested throughout. It focuses on the experience of a couple (the wife is pregnant) who move to rural Ireland (or is it Wales? ) to escape the big city and the traumatic miscarriage of their first child. They eventually adopt a young girl named Daisy after her baby brother and parents die under mysterious circumstances.

It was well acted and well scripted as well. I found the atmosphere of the setting to be creepy and dismal enough to add to the general feeling of doom and gloom. I've got a soft spot for movies about dark children, and this one did not disappoint.

As other reviewers have mentioned, it's not filled with cheap scares or gore. I think that "creepy" is probably the word most often used in comments on this page, so I'll stick with it. My one complaint is that I found the ending to be less than satisfying, but I suppose that is fairly minor overall.

I was initially excited to check this film out, but I was sadly disappointed. My girlfriend couldn't even be bother to stay awake for its full duration. I'm rather baffled with all the positive reviews on here at the moment. Perhaps it's not seen wide distribution yet... the rating, however, speaks for itself.

The acting is probably the best thing the movie has going for it, but the dialog they have to work with is stilted and filled with awkward pauses. You do get the feeling though that they were making their best attempts to make a silk purse of a sow's ear, so to speak. There are too few characters to really leave any doubt in your mind about how the film will end (despite well meaning attempts to throw you off the trail) and I would think that most folks would have it figured out after about ten minutes. Coincidently, this is about where my girlfriend fell asleep, although she was still able to guess the correct conclusion on her first try the next day.

I hate to tear down the work of anyone, and it is admirable that this project made it through from script to production and distribution, but there is so much other great independent work out there now in the same vein (all of the After Dark Horror Fest releases, for example) that the bar has been raised and movies like this just won't cut it anymore.

I think (I may be wrong here) that this was a selection for the After Dark Horror Fest. I'm a fan of what the Fest manages to achieve in terms of shining the spotlight on low to medium budget "indie" horror, but I'm sure that other fans who have seen a lot of these films will agree that your mileage may vary in terms of quality. Lake Mungo is by far the best I've seen from this franchise yet...

Mungo is filmed as a mocumentary, but somehow this terms just does not do justice to the movie. It's the closest thing I've seen to simulating a real documentary feel; better than "Paranormal Activity", "The Last Broadcast", "Blair Witch" and the like. The actors do an excellent job in creating believable characters. The film makers shot and edited so skillfully that I think there will be a lot of folks out there who will see this movie and actually come away confused as to its veracity. It's THAT well done.

No mater how good a film may look, however, its ultimate worth is based on whether or not it delivers to goods in terms of creativity and its ability to hold your attention (and suspend your disbelief...). Mungo manages both and delivered honest to goodness chills throughout. I haven't seen a movie this scary in years. There are plot twists galore and an ending that left me scrambling for the light switch.

There will undoubtedly be comparisons made with "Paranormal Activity". I feel that there's a lot more bang for your buck with this film. The whole "found footage of paranormal phenomena" is becoming well traveled road these days. It's use in Lake Mungo has more impact as it is used as supporting material to support a larger story, rather than being the entire story in and of itself.

This film is scheduled for a re-make with a release date of 2011. I have a feeling that it will do so well in the interim that a re-make will be unnecessary as everyone will have seen it already. See it!

Not exactly sure what I was expecting with this one. I figured, hey, Thora Birch is in this, it can't be ALL bad. A bunch of American kids traveling around in a train getting terrorized in some fashion... sounds watchable. Unfortunately, I was not satisfied.

If my comment title hasn't tipped you off yet, you're in for an hour and a half of equal parts torture porn and survival horror. There's nothing new here and no worth while twists to raise this movie above (or even up to the level of) many similar genre pictures. It seems to meas if all the horror directors have tired of setting their pictures in the rural south, invariably populated with crazed backwoods cannibals and have instead focused on semi-fictional demonic visions of Eastern Europe populated by depraved butchers for hire. The acting is flat and the characters are so unlikeable (not to mention the lack of definition or development) you just can't muster any emotional ties. You won't even find yourself rooting for the bad guy here... you just won't care.

There is one facet of the movie that does seem to shine though. Love it or hate it, the gore in this film is so over the top and just down right rotten and visceral that it will produce a response. The camera does not flinch away... ever. I guess we're all just too complacent as horror fans these days. Gore like this used to be able to carry a film on the merits of the blood spilled alone, as the super bloody extreme cinema was relatively rare, often found only in hard core Asian productions. Now, every movie you watch seems to be teeming with so much of it that we as fans are beginning to demand more than just a slasher guts fest.

There are so many cool horror movies out there that invest their time and effort in delivering more in terms of originality. Unless you're curious, I would seek out something with more depth.

Hard Candy was not the easiest film to watch, but for all the right reasons. If you've read the other comments, you know that the subject matter deals with the ever so squirm-worthy pedophilia and Internet luring... but Hard Candy turns the whole idea on its head.

Ellen Page is cast as the precocious (surprise, surprise) female lead and plays her character beautifully; oscillating between an insecure teen and a vengeful, manipulative, take charge persona. The dialog is well written and never seems to drag.

Patrick Wilson turns in a believable performance with depth and character. Neither character is what they seem at first and both actors do a fantastic job of morphing from one set of character traits to another.

If you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend it. It has the feeling of a stage drama at times, as there is really only one set and two characters (aside from Sandra Oh's cameo), but it adds to the almost claustrophobic atmosphere. The plot manages to keep you guessing until the very end and there are enough well crafted loose ends to provoke some interesting conjectures after watching.

This is a welcomed treat for horror movie fans. A movie that is well acted (especially by the juvenile cast), suspenseful and tastefully gory.

It's material that's been covered before, but I really felt that there was a level of suspense generated that most horror movies just do not seem to be able to deliver these days. The location is excellent; you'll swear that you can see your own breath in the air.

Is there anything more spooky than children on a killing spree? The child actors are just so down right creepy that I guarantee you'll be cringing.

Dead End is a horror movie with a fair bit of heart. The best part of this movie has to be the spot-on performance by Ray Wise. I was a huge fan of Wise in Twin Peaks (where he conjured up the insane yet lovable Leland Palmer) and he's just as good in this movie as a man who is trying desperately to keep himself and his family sane. Always just a hair's breadth away from a complete freak-out, he stubbornly persists in his embrace of reality and his rejection of the paranormal. Wise is a great actor; his performance saved "Jeepers Creepers II" (elevating it above the original IMHO).

That being said, I found other aspects of the movie did not work out as well. The highway and woods (essentially the only set pieces in the entire film) did have an undeniably claustrophobic quality, but the story was somewhat weak and the ending felt tacked on, despite the twist. I don't think there's much use in trying to "decode" anything about the conclusion of this film at all. You'll see what I mean when you get there… If you don't think about it too hard, this is a pretty great little movie. If nothing else, enjoy it as an alternative to the much more formulaic fair usually found in the horror aisle at the video store.

The genre of the creature feature hasn't had a good shot in the arm for some time. This is a really great movie that combine elements of monster mayhem (one of the most original I've ever seen), zombie action and good old fashioned morality play (including transgression, redemption and sacrifice). Those of you out for gore will not be disappointed. The very nature of the creature in this film makes for some very squirm inducing scenes.

I feel the acting is somewhat above par. I was genuinely interested in these characters and thought that there was some real development here. It was also nice to see a strong, take-no-prisoners female lead; reversing the classic damsel in distress formula far too common in movies of this type.

It's fast paced, very well produced and completely worth your time and money. Nice to see an "independent" film deliver the goods!

Admittedly, those who are fans of the original are probably wondering why there would ever be a need for a sequel to Donnie Darko. S. Darko does provide a more or less satisfying follow-up and although I don't believe that all who are in the Darko cult will be pleased, I for one enjoyed this little outing.

Chris Fisher, who has worked done more work on television than in movies, handles the material reverently and makes a fair attempt to extend upon some of the Philosophy of Time Travel mythos from the original movie. One notices a fair amount of similarity in the shot compositions and effects (lots of slow motion, several "force field" scenes, some "Abyss"-esque chest worms) and I would have to say that the storyline itself is nearly as (pleasantly) incomprehensible as the first film. There are no deeper answers or insights here, but I was content to go along for the ride anyway.

The acting was less than stellar, although I really enjoyed Ed Westwick as "Randy" and I'm sure we'll be seeing more from him soon. His performance was very reminiscent of Dana Ashbrook's portrayal of "Bobby Briggs" in Twin Peaks. In fact, I think there was something borrowed from the Lynch bag of tricks in terms of sheer weirdness and atmosphere. There were definite elements of the same soap-opera like tendencies in S. Darko. The characters all tend toward exaggerated caricatures: The devout but shady church lady (Elizabeth Berkley), the minister that you just can't help but get a creepy vibe from, the party girl with a secret, the troubles war veteran and town scapegoat …. If they come off as two dimensional, I think it boils down to the intentions of the writer and director. This is an allegory after all; a morality play where characters represent various aspects of the humanity in an overt way.

The movie will not captivate the audience in the same way that Donnie Darko did, but that doesn't mean that we should treat the original as some sort of sacred cow that is too perfect to explore through the eyes of a different director.

While I'm not sure that I'd watch Dying Breed again, I have to admit that I enjoyed it through the first time.

There are some great landscape shots in this movie and, overall, I felt the atmosphere was creepy, lending itself well to the dark tone of the picture. There was some suspense and a bit of gore as well. However, there was nothing really new or interesting in the plot. Similar movies have covered the same material before (Wrong Turn, perhaps to a lesser extent even The Chainsaw Massacre movies...) and although there's a link to an actual historical figure, it's a pretty weak link and there's no new twists to make this unique.

The characters are all pretty unlovable, so there's not much to relate to in that department.

The production values are high, so I have to recommend this over some of the other After Dark Horror Fest films I've seen. I feel it's a solid five; flawed but very watchable.

The comments on this page seem to be of the love it or hate it variety. I feel that this movie has more to offer than films like Wrong Turn or Rest Stop. I will agree that this is ground that has been well covered before (insane rednecks torture and murder young people in the woods), but this seemed to hold my attention better than most of the genre flicks. I'm a fan of gore, which is something this movie delivers in spades. The camera does not flinch from the action for a moment and only the most jaded fans would write it off as sub-standard. The acting is fairly good, but you will find that the lack of character development leaves you without much to identify with. There are a few elements that could be described as plot holes, (i.e. just what role does the sheriff have in the murders, what is the terrible thing that happened in the woods to initially keep campers away) but you should be able to fill in the gaps... they're not terribly important points anyway. I thought that overall there was a high enough level of intensity and violence to justify a rental. It will be interesting to see what's next from this director.

Having seen the original, I had some idea of what to expect. However, this movie tried to explain the plot to death and it was just too much to handle. The beauty of the original is just how much is left unexplored in detail. All the little things that don't quite fit; that has the power to unnerve us. This was too sanitized and too supercharged to get the job done. The pacing was far to fast and it lacked the intrigue of the Asian version.

However, it does manage to stand alone as a fairly well executed ghost story in its own right. The effects were excellent and there were some genuinely scary moments. Perhaps North American audiences are more attuned to zombie enemies, something corporal... ghosts may be less immediate and visceral.

I found this movie to be very creepy and quite frightening in places. The pacing is maddeningly slow at times, but it unfolds in its own purposeful way. The Asians have a knack for using contrast in film. The fright scenes here come from nowhere and vanish before we are even sure what we've experienced. It is truly a gifted film maker who can create such an instantly frightening circumstance. As we saw in Ringu and other genre pictures (The Eye) for instance, there is a real obsession with fear through movement. There is something so unnatural about the way we see the entities creep around on screen; the power of image is difficult to overstate.

The acting is great, although the dialog is sparse (as are the set pieces). This is a movie concerned primarily with atmosphere. The dark beauty of some of the scenes (the tower jump, the air plane crash)juxtaposed against their horrible consequences is very artistic.

What might be truly most frightening about this piece, however, is the notion that perhaps the dead are NOT happy where they are. If there was a way back for them, how would we react? It's a great piece of original horror. See it!

Ultimately I feel that Simpsons fans WILL be satisfied with this movie. The bottom line is, this movie is funny. The gags and one liners are pretty much what one would expect from the writers and the animation is quite good. If you like the show you will probably like the movie.

That being said, I don't think there is anything really remarkable or special about this piece. I have heard the criticism, "It's just like one long episode," repeated over and over again. I don't think that's really the case here. In a lot of ways, I don't think there's really much of the same "feeling" that the episodes have. For a show that is driven by so many diverse characters, I would have expected more interaction and complexity. The plot is a standard morality tale focusing most of its energy and screen time on the Simpsons themselves. Although the movie is funny, it lacks the contribution of many of the characters that have made the show so enjoyable. The plot is far more outlandish than what most of the episodes offer, and I felt that this was somewhat off-putting. The post modern, self referential tone has begun to run thin. I gave this movie a 6, as I feel that it WAS indeed funny, but far to disorganized to warrant a higher score. See it, if only to lament how good the show used to be.

I am usually a big fan of movies like this one, however I felt that this film failed to deliver on several levels. Firstly, and it might just be my copy, the sound (especially the dialog) was awful. I was sure I could hear a generator running in several places; probably to keep the lights/other equipment going. The characters were horrible. I can't even complain about clichés and stereotypes as these particular characters were far too one dimensional for even those embarrassing labels. It is fun to listen to the "actors" flub their lines and awkwardly phrase even the most dry dialog. Worst of all however, was the complete lack of nudity/gore. There were some tantalizing glimpses that held some promise, but it was disappointing in the end. The one exception is a murder by pitchfork, but it was short and ultimately underwhelming. Best left alone even for fans of the genre. There are so many more worthy pieces out there that deliver the goods. All in all, I found myself bored and reaching for the fast forward button.

This has got to be one of the most buzz worthy movies I have seen in a while. I had not seen any press about it, but the DVD release generated a TONNE of word of mouth advertising. "Have YOU seen it? Have you SEEN it? Have you seen IT?"

I for one am glad that I did. Firstly, we have to realize that this film is about one big inside joke. It's like magicians who do tricks for each other. The real joy here is watching the various comics put different spins on the subject matter. It's also about how repressed we are as a society. It's interesting, isn't it? I can't even post a swear word on this board discussing the most foul mouthed movie in history. Like, what the *beep* is that about?

This movie is about removing any so-called decent limits and seeing what comes out of one's mouth when there is no attempt to hold anything sacred. It's an excercise in existentialism. As one comedian so brilliantly put it, "This joke holds a mirror up to itself,". Too bad so many of the folks on this board missed the point.

Well, I have to admit I was a little disappointed in this movie. The story is certainly original, but there is little in the way of visuals or built up tension to hold the interest. The best shots in the movie are over after the opening titles.

The story centers around two young men who pack up for a weekend getaway filled with surfing and partying. After following two girls down a dirt road to a party, the youths find themselves in a ditch and requiring some help to get unstuck. A peek into a farm house window makes them witnesses to a murder and puts them directly in harm's way as they are pursued by a strange bunch of the town's "locals".

I was expecting something different after reading the back of the box. I guess I was looking forward to some sort of a degenerate red-neck type romp filled with cannibal killers or at least a few deformed freaks. It turns out that this is actually a ghost story with more than one (mildly) surprising twist. The acting is not first rate, the dialog is unnatural in places and the lighting ruins the night setting illusion. There's a whole lot of long shadows considering there's no street lights in the middle of the country and the sky seems devoid of a moon.

The relationship between the two principle characters is just not believable; none of the dialog really sells it to the audience. The ending is not bad though, and does manage to help the film recover from some of these earlier flaws.

If you're a fan of the genre, you might see something here you'll like. This would be a good movie choice for someone who isn't looking for anything too scary.

Wow. I picked this movie up last night based on the interesting sounding premise and the positive blurbs on the case. I was not disappointed. This is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a LONG time.

Made on a shoestring budget of $75k, this shot-on-film (not digital video, as was originally planned) movie is well written, decently acted, beautifully shot and edited and turns out to be a real frightful feast for horror fans looking for something different.

The premise revolves around a town on the verge of population exodus. Even the sheriff is getting ready to pack up and leave town. The sudden appearance of a teenage boy covered in blood, approximately one year after a brutal murder/disappearance changes everything. The plot unravels at a good pace, but still allows the viewer to follow the action without having to spend much time focusing on confusing questions. The supernatural elements of the story are dark and disturbing, rather than clichéd and inane. The writer/director also unravels the tale without pausing to have a character explain all the event to the viewer in a spoon-feeding fashion, like so many slasher films marketed to dim-witted teen audiences.

In terms of visual effects, you're in for a real treat. The movie makes use of torrents of blood and some great, non-CGI old fashioned latex set pieces that really have a strong impact. This is not what I would call a slasher movie, but gore hounds will not go away feeling cheated by this film.

Without giving anything away, I will mention that the ending is a little on the bizarre side, but it makes for great conversation after the movie. I watched the commentary to see if perhaps there was an explanation, but the director felt that it was best for people to make their own judgments.

In conclusion, this is the sort of movie that save the horror genre. It's a shot in the arm to the industry and there is a lot that major studios and big name producers/directors could learn from this little wonder. If you haven't seen it yet, go out and get a copy. The is a MUST SEE for all horror fans.

I feel that the other comments made about this movie do not exactly do it justice. I just rented and watched a copy of it last night, and I feel a little more generous than some of the other posters. Firstly, one has to address the fact that this movie is highly derivative of "Signs". Basicaly, the premise is the same. Crop circles mysteriously appear in a farmer's field and trouble ensues.

The acting is about what you would expect. Baldwin is far too over the top to really appreciate, but Billy Zane does a great job, as do most of the actors that portray the college kids trying to fix up the old farm house.

The CGI aliens are not done very well and look really fake. The build up of tension throughout the movie, however, is well done. There are some scenes where I couldn't help but jump and, in general, I think that this movie actually did a better job of interpreting the possible uses of crop circles better than signs. In this movie, the circles are used as a type of portal system for the aliens to get from place to place. In terms of a further comparison with signs, the ending is a lot more bleak.

I felt that signs included a cheesy supernatural element that, thankfully, was mostly absent from this film. Don't rent it expecting to see something on the same scale of Signs, but if you liked it and the ideas it presented, you should get some enjoyment out of this as well.

I have to say, I definitely left the movie theatre with a sense of wonderment as to what I had just witnessed. I found myself torn between a genuine like for this film and a sense of being ripped off. I suppose you would have to see his movie to fully understand what I'm talking about, but I'll try to convey my point as best I can.

Firstly, the movie has funny moments. In fact, it has some really funny moments. The scenes of actual game play are by far the best and funniest scenes in the movie. However, a lot of the dialog is delivered by through such painfully bad acting, you begin to question what exactly the director was trying to achieve. It actually borders on the surreal. It's a lot like watching one of those really strange "Kids in the Hall" sketches that makes no sense but is funny because it's so strange.

Rob Schneider does a great job as the guy who first pulls the team together and talks back to the bullies. David Spade plays a fun character too and fans of his sarcastic quips will not be disappointed. Jon Hedner, however, plays a Napolean Dynamite-esquire character that comes off very poorly. There must have been a big pay check involved here, as this movie will do nothing for his career. Jon Lovitz plays a very bizarre billionaire with the same style and delivery he always used on SNL.

All in all, it's a silly movie with no real tension, but with some genuine laughs. The acting, however, is so downright strange, I found it distracting.

There are so many things wrong with this movie, I'm not really sure where to start. There is little animation, the plot is a not so subtle rip off (the book is a very cheap replica of the Necronomicaon used in the Evil Dead movies), the acting is pure garbage and the ending is beyond stupid.

What the hell is the point of this movie? Sure, there's a good bit of nudity, but it just comes across as boring and tired. The girls are pretty, but their assets are wasted in this piece of trash. The effects are also pretty laughable.

I love B movies, don't get me wrong. But there's usually some sort of redeeming quality. This thing didn't even make me laugh.

Don't waste your time.

I'll tell you the truth, before I saw this movie, my favorite werewolf movie was Ginger Snaps, and The Howling III before that. However, this movie really takes top seat.

Positive #1: This thing has a great plot! The story was interesting and although I had some of it figured out, parts of it had me guessing until the end.

Positive #2: The acting was great! Maybe I just like the accents, but I thought the acting was well above par in terms of this genre. Perhaps the soldiers were a little too stereotypical, but this is hardly something to complain about.

Positive #3: The werewolves in the movie looked really good. Bravo to this production team for keeping CGI to a minimum.

This is a must see movie if you are a horror fan (especially a werewolf fan) at all. There's plenty of gore too for the blood hounds in the audience. I think the mass appeal of this movie will ensure it is enduringly popular on DVD. Save yourself the initial $5 and just buy the thing. I can see myself watching this on a regular basis.

This is a decent film that does suffer from some fairly serious problems. As other posters have mentioned time and time again, the ending is pretty pointless and seems like it was tagged on just to pad the movie out a little bit.

The biggest problem, however, is the complete lack of plot development. There seems to be an interesting story buried in here somewhere, but it never quite sees the light of day. Why, for instance, is the killer compelled by his "brother" to lure individuals to the factory and kill them? It's obvious that heroine acts as a mother figure, but why and to what end? This movie will leave you with a lot of unanswered questions. Here's the breakdown: Gore: Yup, lots of it here. This might be a seeing point in and of itself if you like makeup effects.

Nudity: A little bit. There is a particularly disturbing rape scene involving a character whose presence is never really explained. Who is he and what the hell was he doing there? Plot: Full of holes and pretty much stalls out after the first 20 or so minutes. Is there something supernatural happening here? Who knows.

Scary bits: There's a pretty good atmosphere, but it really dosen't deliver in the horror department. It won't make you jump, but it might make you a little sick.

Acting: Better than anything you'll find in a North American equivalent.

Check this out if you can rent it or download it. Certainly not worth owning unless you've already checked it out and are sure about adding it to your collection. In the nearly 2 decades since it was made, there have been plenty of other Japanese horror movies that score high above this film. I only gave it a seven out of ten, rather than a six, because the gore level was so high. This does, however, score well above other films made during the same period.

Bottom line: Real potential, but lacking a solid plot or direction.

I won't go into the plot details as they have already been fairly well covered by the other posters.

By far the best part of this film is the perpetuation of the myth that LSD causes chromosome damage (a study based on flawed data was widely quoted in the media circa 1970-80, in fact, you still hear it from time to time). It held my attention to the end and the acting was actually pretty good.

It's supposed to be a cult classic, so I checked it out. I might even watch it again. There isn't a whole lot of suspense, but the premise is good and the score is really original.

Check it out if you get the chance.