Reviews

Who the heck are the imbeciles that gave this movie more than one star? I rented this movie because of the decent reviews. However, it was sooooo bad that I couldn't even get through the first half.

To start the acting, premise, and effects are all unbelievable. At no time do you forget that you're watching a movie. It's supposed to be found footage genre, but it's way hard to believe even that because the so called found footage is too convenient. Every time something big happens someone just happens to have a camera handy. The two best parts were when a woman was walking down the street of the 4th of July celebration with welts all over her body and pleading for help and to go to the hospital and everyone is just ignoring her going about their festivities. Really? I'm supposed to believe this? Come on, at least the filmmakers could have made it look like they made an effort. Then there's a 911 call where a woman tells the dispatcher that her neighbor is bleeding. Guess what? While we're hearing the audio of this call there just happens to be found footage of the neighbor bleeding. Either we're supposed to believe that someone decided to film this woman bleeding, instead of helping her or calling for help, or that the woman calling 911 just happened to be filming her neighbor while she was making this frantic call. Yeah, I go to my neighbor and she's bleeding, so I'll call 911 - oh wait, let me get my cell phone out and film her instead. Yeah, right. Even the special effects were cheap and unbelievable. Everyone's welts looked like the cheap latex appliance you can get at CVS every Halloween.

Oh, and let's not forget the propaganda. The whackos in Hollywood hate the fact that pollution is actually on the decline in this country and that we can be both clean and prosperous at the same time. So, they set up this phony debate where a woman discourages the "gloom and doom" attitude only for her to be wrong as everyone gets sick and dies later in the movie. Of course, this is supposed to make most of the empty headed idiots watching believe that because it happened in a movie it must be true and anyone who disparages ridiculous and panicked measures who predict gloom and doom must be wrong in real life because they were wrong in a movie.

Last of all, let's not forget the acting. It was horrible! The lead female needs to take an acting class to help her with over acting! Maybe if they got someone a little bit older, more believable, or at least a decent actress, then this movie could have been saved - although I doubt it.

Do yourself a favor and pirate this thing if you insist of wasting two hours of your life and watching this anyway. Do not spend money on this train wreck of a movie.

Absolutely nothing happens in this movie. They show a lot of fluff in the beginning in an effort to develop the characters but it fails miserably. The rest of the movie consists of driving in a car and standing in front of people lawns. When they finally get to 1666 nothing happens other than doors shutting and people disappearing. No special effects, no suspense - nothing. Poor acting, poor story, no effects, no suspense, and boring. Gee, I could have made a better movie with my iPhone and my black cat.

Don't waste your time or your money on this one. The trailer looks promising. In fact, your better off watching the trailer for free because that's better than the movie.

The movie started off with your pretty usual exorcism fare, which has gotten pretty old these days. Then, about three quarters of the way in, the movie takes a twist and tanks big time. Come on, can anyone write anymore?

The move also drags on, and on. This movie could easily have run for half it's length and no worse off because of it. The reason for the possession is ridiculous, the exorcism (what little you see of it) is also ridiculous, and the ending was non-climatic.

Do yourself a favor and don't waste your time or money on this flick unless you have nothing else to do and can rent it for $1.20 on Redbox. Otherwise, you'll be disappointed.

If Sarah Palin is such a joke, then why are so many people so afraid that they have to flood this page with negative reviews? What are you afraid of? I guess people that don't think for themselves will do anything to cling to their beliefs, especially when they know those beliefs are severely flawed. When people like Sarah Palin come along and expose those flaws, the brainwashed masses will resort to anything so they can continue living in a fantasy world. At this point those against Sarah Palin may be saying that they do think for themselves. However, I'll pose to you what I pose to every blank minded ideologue that I meet on the street. You're not thinking for yourself, you're letting media created public opinion think for you. If not, how can you explain the vitriol you feel and publicly display for Sarah Palin? What did this woman do to create your hatred for her? I can guarantee that the answers you present to this question are based on the fictional bias created by the media (like she wants to abolish a woman's right to choose - she never said that, or she said she can see Russia from her house - she never said that either). It stands to reason that if you are basing your opinion on falsehoods then your option is therefore false and based on someone else setting a bias in your mind (thinking for you). If this wasn't the case then you wouldn't be here. Instead you would be at the Bill Maher page where you can blog with like minded sheeple and let the people that appreciate this type of documentary discuss it based on its merits rather than your selective ignorance.

I just came back from opening night. I can't believe that I wasted my Friday night on this trash. The commercials didn't make it look like the typical shaky cam third person movie. Everything you saw in the commercials was everything good in the movie, but at least the commercials showed them all at once. Rather than having you sit through boring dribble between each. Basically it was your typical shaky cam, and poorly acted, movie with a few cliché and overused parlor tricks. It amazed me how a studio can rip people off like this and then scratch their heads and complain about people pirating their movies. Maybe if they didn't rip us off, we wouldn't feel the need to rip them off.

Lately all we've gotten from movie studios are recycled plots that just keep getting more boring and more draggy with each new rendition. I just wasted two hours watching a thoroughly un-entertaining and un-fulfilling movie. The first act of the movie tries to develop the characters and fails miserably. The second act is no better when an antagonist is thrown into he mix and our two heroes predictably give him the upper edge, against all reason time and time again. When this was first done (about 300 movies ago) it was interesting and uncomfortable to watch. However, this theme is so played out that it seems like the lazy mans was to make a movie. Finally, the third act, in which our heroes get the upper hand and keep giving the antagonist second, third, fourth, fifth chances to destroy them, which he sort of does before hey finally use common sense. I swear this guy has survived more impossible situations than Michael Myers in Halloween. Do yourself a favor and skip this one or you may need a retreat to recover.

Truthfully, this movie didn't deserve only one star, it was well made and well acted. In fact, if they didn't promote it as based on a true story then I would have likely given it at least seven stars. However, they did call it true, which is just not the case - this story is simply more Hollywood Hype. As someone who was, and still is, involved in the healthcare industry at the time I can point out the following facts:

1- The safety needle as shown in the film is a retraction model. In other words most punctures in a healthcare setting happen when the healthcare provider attempts to re-cap the needle after use, or by handling the syringe until you could break off the needle into an approved safety container. However, in the movie the nurse pricks herself as a result of trying to administer an injection to an unruly patient. In such a case even the safety needle would not have prevented the nurse in the movie from puncturing herself.

2 - It's also worth pointing out that an equal number of healthcare accidents resulting in infection from broken skin occur in the laboratory due to the in-hand breakage of a glass test tubes, which subsequently cut the hands of the laboratorians and infects them. The safety needle does nothing to protect these healthcare accidents either. In fact, there is a company (Greiner) that sells only plastic test tubes but glass test tubes are still the majority of test tubes used in healthcare today. So where's Hollywood's outrage about this?

3 - I was around at the time this movie took place and can unequivocally tell you that since 1984 every hospital was searching for a better, safer needle. The liability aspects of AIDS alone drove this movement. In fact there were a number of safety needles available at the time that were in use and were invented by a number of different people,So, basically this movie was about some slick sleazy law firm that forced a hospital buying group to buy someones particular safety needle design over someone else's design; thus giving that particular inventor a corner on the market.

4 - Why were safety needles not in use by the group already? You can thank Gov't healthcare reform for that. When the Clintons tried to reform healthcare and failed, they did succeed at forcing the industry to reform itself. From this grew hospital buying groups, which hospitals would join in order to have greater purchasing power by making group purchases as opposed to a single hospital making the purchase. These bulk purchases would have high-quantity discounts, thus reducing the cost of the item and reducing the cost of healthcare as the Gov't was forcing them to do. The problem is that high quantity purchases resulted in a large stock of inventory that had to be depleted before you could buy anything new (like safety needles). However, you don't see Hollywood making mention in this movie about how their favorite Democratic President was responsible for delaying the use of safety needles in hospitals; or how the new social healthcare law pushed by our current President will create even more situations like the one in this movie.

5 - Lastly, the stereotypes of this movie are sickening. First they showed a Hospital Purchasing Agent bureaucrat instructing the attorney not to show the safety needle to his nurses because they would want it. A few problems here, first nurses aren't the only people that get infected from these accidents (in fact of all healthcare workers they are in the minority). Second the nurses would have already known about safety needles, as I stated above, there were an abundance of them from a slew of different manufacturers. I work with Hospital Purchasing Agents and they are real A-holes, but they would never say what this guy said in the movie.

6 - When they show the buying group conference (the one that costs $25,000 to attend) they make it look like an insider meeting attended by the rich blue-bloods. I've attended these trade shows and they are nothing of the type. Mostly they take place in a large open conference center with a crowd of booths filled with working people trying to make a living. The crowd of booths would also have multiple manufacturers selling a diverse line of products, including multiple types of safety needles from multiple manufacturers. The fact being that there was no shortage of safety needles at these shows and they were offered from a diverse set of different manufacturers.

Like I said, if this movie wasn't advertised as "true' I probably would have liked it. However, I couldn't in good conscience allow them to perpetrate this lie without speaking up. If you doubt me, think to yourself, when was the last time a lawyer (especially an ambulance chaser) really did something that was not for their own personal gain?

OK, this movie isn't going to win any Oscars and the production could have been thought out to make it more believable. Some of my problems with it are: 1) Why would a bunch of kids go out for the day to frolic in the woods? Skiing or tobogganing I can believe but "hey lets go out in the woods to throw snowballs and look at a small waterfall?" That just didn't fly. 2) They get lost in the woods at night when it's supposed to be 40 degrees below and no one seems cold, no vapor from their mouths when they talk either (come on guys this shouldn't have been too hard to cover). 3) The stalker is one single person. Really? This makes no sense at all judging from all the ground he could cover. 4) The stalker knows the phone number of the aunt's house 5) The aunt's cabin is a luxury five bedroom home with other homes not too far away. I don't care what time of year it is there would always be someone within walking distance of such a residence. Despite all the shortcomings the movie did what it was supposed to do. It gave an air of suspense, a few thrills, and had me genuinely caring for the safety of these kids.From what I could tell this movie was most likely put together by young film makers just starting out, or even students, and on a shoestring budget (especially as far as movies go). That said it's damn near a masterpiece.

At first I thought this movie was a joke and watched it as a lark, but after seeing it I have to say that it's probably one of the most brilliant movies I've ever seen. In fact, I don't think I ever rated a movie a full 10 stars on this site before. So, what makes this movie so good? Well it isn't a masterpiece, the story isn't perfect, it isn't the comedy of the century, nor the drama of it. What it is - is the perfect mix of dark, light, and everything in between. It has just enough comedy to make you laugh, just enough realism to hit you where it hurts, and just enough sentiment to make you feel for these characters. Like all super hero movies it gives you that sense of good overcoming bad and then slaps that silly sense right out of you.

OMG you would think the PA people, after pulling off the first movie, which was brilliant; and the second movie, which was actually a very good remake; could have made the third movie amazing. After all they had all the right material, all they had to do was to explain the holes from the first two movies and this movie could have been the best of the three. Instead they decided to do the same old thing (I think another reviewer said they remade the Wicker man - yet again), which I think is a very accurate description of this third installment.

The scares were the same and the story was ridiculous with an ending that was a total let down. In fact I went to the movie because they advertised that the final fifteen minutes would blow you away. Well, during the final fifteen minutes I found myself falling asleep and then when I saw the ending credit start to roll I said to myself "where are the final fifteen minutes? When was this movie going to get scary?

This movie was a total ripoff so don't waste your time or money by going to see it. In fact you'd be better off recording the trailers on TV and pasting them all together, which would make a better movie than this one and a totally different movie since not one of the trailers was in the movie. What amazes me is that the picture studios keep ripping people off with trash like this movie and then they complain about pirating. Well, I'm sorry I paid to see this movie; if you don't want to record and paste together the trailers then pirate the damn thing because it isn't even worth a buck twenty on Redbox.

P.S. Please kill off this franchise because the third movie was the nail in it's coffin.

Lets see this piece of shi---, err art, takes aim at Christianity and Government (wow that's original). To be honest it wasn't a bad story and the action was pretty good. As far as everything else is concerned John Goodman was the only thing worth watching. The makers of the movie should have concentrated on entertainment instead of trying to make a social and political commentary. They are trying to make the US look like a Red State, when in fact I'm sure they would be the first to support Mr. Obama who has taken away more freedoms than any president before him. I guess the point to the movie makers is don't throw stones if you live in a glass house and concentrate on entertaining your audience rather than trying to sway popular opinion with propaganda (after all that is what Red states really do). Oh, by the way, the ending was really weak and quite disappointing.

As other's have said, the opening tsunami scene is the only good part of the entire movie. The rest was a drag along of three separate situations on track to collide, and when they do collide there is no explosion, not even a whisper, just a passing glance. Top this off with a horribly anticlimactic ending. This was just a poorly executed movie - plain and simple. So, why then does it get all these resoundingly positive reviews (which made me rent and see it in the first place)? Because the people giving this movie good reviews are either Clint Eastwood fanboys, or just NDE people that are so thrilled to get a movie about the subject of which they are so passionate that even a badly made movie like this one makes them a happy camper. If you don't fall into the mold of either of the reviewers listed above then opt for another movie. Was this movie terrible? No. However, it wasn't good either - you won't be in pain by watching this but simply feel like you wasted two hours of your life.

Finally, a movie about cops that's true to life. You may think this movie is fiction, but it's not. The movies that you see with the caring, honest, hero cops are fiction. I can tell you from first hand experience that if you want to know what nearly every cop is really like (after at least three years out of the academy) then look no further than this movie.

Whether you choose to believe that this is true to life or not, it will certainly entertain you. The acting was top notch, the story strong and gritty, and it had plenty of action. For those of you that are squeamish there is a some gore and some blood, so be forewarned. Otherwise you have got to see this movie.

Obviously I didn't watch the same movie that so many reviewers are raving about. This movie is nothing more than a bore fest that goes nowhere. Some egghead want to be's think that because they don't understand the movie that it must be brilliant and wrongly classify it as a "thinking man's movie." If so, then explain it to me. A thinking man's movie doesn't necessarily have to tie all the strings together, but the strings have to be there in the first place. Psycho was a thinking man's movie; so was Memento and Donnie Darko. However, this movie was nothing but a total waste of time, with it's only redeeming quality being good actors and good acting; which still isn't enough to save this movie that was DOA before it was even made.

This was a good flick and kept me both interested and entertained. However, a little research to make it more realistic would have been nice. First of all, no-one person can indiscriminately kill people all day long - it's never been done and never will be done. If you look at all random shootings they take place in one facility. This is because once people know they have no chance of garnering reason, compassion, or mercy they will rush the assailant. It's the nature of the living world - back an animal in a corner and it will attack. All hostage takers know this, which is why they only kill with reason; else they are rushed and pinned to the ground by the very victims they are trying to control. This would be especially true of someone wearing body armor and Kevlar, as they have little agility and no peripheral vision; so as few as two people would have taken the assailant down like a turtle on its back. Also, believe it or not, the police know civilians have scanners and will never announce their location over a police frequency. Furthermore, police scanners are useless as they only pick up on dispatch calls - the officer to officer communications happen on encrypted frequencies or via cell phone. Like I said, a little research would have made this movie perfect.

I love Penn & Teller, but sometimes regardless of their efforts to appear non-biased their bias shows through. Regarding the death penalty, first they say that punishment isn't considered for crimes of passion (infidelity for instance). However, when my ex-wife did this to me it was the fear of punishment that guided my behavior - so people do consider the consequences, even when they're "flipping out." Regarding sexual criminals and murderers, of course the death penalty is a deterrent - once their dead they stop killing and molesting people – end of story. They also have some egghead liberal historian stating that the concept of lethal injection is a Nazi concept. What he fails to mention is that the concept of abortion is also a Nazi concept and started with Hitler's Eugenics movement (in fact Planned Parenthood started as an American chapter of the Nazi program) However, the very people against the death penalty seem to be 100% in favor of abortion - gee, that seems pretty hypocritical to me. Lastly, they show a "Bullshit" (no pun intended) statistic that States without the death penalty have a lower rate of murder than those that have it. While on the surface this statistic is true you need to know a little something about statistics to understand it. There is no control in this equation - meaning that the obvious explanation can't be proved. In other words, maybe the states with the significantly higher murder rate imposed the death penalty because of those higher murder rates and the higher rates are not a result of the death penalty, but the death penalty is a result of the higher murder rates. Of course, none of this is valid because in reality there is no State with a true death penalty. Every State has fifteen year provisions for appeal and many never see the gallows (so to speak). Only when a state will impose swift justice and execute 100% of those sentenced to death will we know if the murder rate is affected. One final point, innocent people do die from the death penalty. However, more innocent people die as a result of not having the death penalty (as I said, once you kill a murder he/she stops murdering). It's a trade off, people are going to die either way, we just have to use the way that inflicts the least amount of harm on the least amount of innocent people.