Reviews

Kirk Cameron takes a Yuletide dump on the screen is the most charitable thing I can say about this dreck. It's dull, preachy, ridiculously inaccurate with regard to history, inconsistent with its message, incompetent in technical matters, and an all-around unpleasant cinematic mess. One can easily grasp the emptiness of this film by watching only the credits, which mainly serves to pad out the film by including an idiotic blooper real, outtakes (one is left to wonder how it was decided which individual nuggets of cinematic dung should be included in the film as opposed to those that were left on the floor), and various other inanities. Worst, the film completely misses its own point.

Cameron has blamed "atheists" and "haters" for the bottom-of-the-barrel reviews this pile has garnered, but he gives those groups far too much credit. It would be difficult to imagine an atheist producing on purpose what this crap fest did by, one assumes, accident.

No need to go into too many details. It's too long for what it wants to do. It's slow. It's dull. It's ludicrous. The characters are ridiculous (despite the fact that a horrible smell coming out of a disgusting hole in the wall is mentioned repeatedly, at no point do the two residents of the apartment even bother to mention it to the landlord, an actor who seems to be doing a bad John Malkovich impression). It's clumsy (a character begins a relationship with woman she meets, who is promptly forgotten and never heard from again. The characters you expect to live do, and the ones you imagine will die do, in fact, die. It contains precious few scares of any sort, psychological or physical. It is entirely - entirely - predictable, without a single original thought or idea thrown in. The adversary is mostly unseen, never properly described, lacks motivation, and is way too easily defeated.

I'm the sort who rarely allows himself to turn off even a bad horror film, but I wish I hadn't even started this one. Seriously, it's not any good.

The filmmakers have confused artsy with blandness. There are a couple of horror-worthy scenes, but that is all, and the fact that you have to wade through the muck until 85% of the movie is over makes it unworthy of the effort. I love movies that build slowly, but the payoff has to be worth it. In this case, it's not.

If you are interested in fake attempts at atmosphere, you will enjoy the scene wherein we take a tour of empty, bland rooms in a basic apartment. Nothing happens, and it's all tinted in red! Ooh. Frightening. One or two mildly scary scenes can't make up for all the padding. This film is already on the short side, but it can be trimmed of much of its run time with no damage. It'll do in a pinch, but there are lots of better movies to fill your time.

Starts out promising, and then gets progressively more silly. Filled with stupid, unforgivable goofs (there is nothing poisonous about rust, and a nurse shouldn't be surprised that a tumor is "attached to something"). Every time M. Night Shyamalan releases a new film, I root for it. I actually want him to be successful, but this movie, like too many others he's done, stinks.

This movie is both good and original. But, to paraphrase a old saying, the problem is that what is good is not original, and what is original is not good (and parts of it are downright dumb). If it weren't for the considerable charm and talents of the leads, there would be almost nothing to recommend this film.

This film is DULL. There are no scares. None. And the ending is exceedingly weak. I am suspicious that many of the reviews on here are fake. Watch at your own risk (of dozing off).

Pleasantly surprised by this one. I'm a sucker for a decent possession movie. Sadly, there just aren't that many. This is one, however, and it contains one of the best jump-scares I've ever seen, as well as a nicely-paced plot of ever-increasing dread. Lead and supporting performances are good.

Well before the movie is half over - and before the "supernatural force" shows up, I found myself wishing that this blend of teenage morons (one in particular; viewers will immediately know which twit I'm referring to) would go down in flames. Laughable performances abound, and these characters are so irksome (engaging in petty and inane spats as their plane malfunctions and they are facing death, for instance) that the only reason that I continued watching was, I hoped, to see these dolts get killed one-by-one by whatever creature was stalking them. No spoilers, though. If you're at all interested - and I can't see why you would be - it will take a firm constitution to continue watching as this unbelievably execrable film actually gets worse as it goes along, containing plot twists near the end as preposterously asinine as any I've ever seen (with a repeated reference to the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre thrown in, because why not).

Unforgivably bad from top to bottom, with the main culprit being a silly and utterly contrived, bad-soap-opera plot.

Silliness abounds in this sleepy "thriller."

The film acknowledges the recent increase in cases of intruders living inside people's homes with the homeowners' knowledge. But, this is not new. Google "Daniel Laplante" and find out about the granddaddy of such tails. Laplante's story was also told on Investigation Discovery's "Your Worst Nightmare" show, in the first episode of the second season, entitled "Bump in the Night." It's far more interesting - and more scary - than this film.

Stupefyingly dull and ridiculous. Loathsome performances abound. I have nothing positive to say about this film.

Awful, unoriginal script. Alarmingly bad performances. Slow and completely uninvolving. Watch something else.

All you really need to know about this film is, at one point, an "official" hospital document has the word "unknown" misspelled in large letters ("uknown"). That's the level of care that went into making this flop.

I did like the sequel slightly more than the original. The major problem with ACTD 2 is that 70% of the film is simply dull, which is the kiss of death for a horror film. The ending improves on the previous hour and ten minutes or so, which made watching it just barely worth it. And why can't characters in scary movies EVER do what normal people would do and switch on a light?

Just a cheap, very cheap, ripoff of The Exorcist, a movie a character actually mentions by name. It even matches that horror classic by having two priests, one elderly, one much younger, perform the exorcism. I love Bruce Davison (the older priest), but here he's really scratching the bottom of the barrel. Avoid.

When Ghosts of Darkness started and the low-budget aspects became apparent, I lost all my hope. However, this film wears its low-budget status like a badge of honor and makes the very most of it. Wink-wink performances (though good), occasional well-placed humor, and some genuine scares and you've got a winner.

First of all, antidepressants don't come in a big bottle labeled "antidepressants." That was an early clue for me that this movie would not be good. A young couple goes off for a weekend in the woods in order to heal from a trauma. That takes up half the film, with just as much excitement as you might expect from that. Then, the movie descends into outright misogyny, first showing brutal violence against the female lead (from two different men) and then, after a very silly twist, depicting the character as homicidal. Terrible script, execrable performances, particularly from the doctor, who, thankfully, only has a small part. Somebody should inform this physician that once you've diagnosed a person as beyond the help of medical professionals and a definite danger to themselves or others, you do not release them from care so they can go camping. Spare yourself.

An enigmatic tale of two "brothers" who travel cross country sharing dark secrets. Alex Pettyfer is very good as the older of the couple, while James Freedson-Jackson gives a brilliant performance as the kid. Don't expect car chases, jump thrills, or outright terror as the story goes along, this film relies on the horrors we hide in our minds. There is much to dread in The Strange Ones, but its slow pace means that it won't appeal to everyone.

If you're an aficionado of this genre, Season 3 is for you. The gore is great and a good little mystery (although, you might kind of figure it out before it's over). A veritable smorgasbord of murder.

The season started off great and got progressively more ridiculous (apparently, Dawn brought an excess of bullets for her gun and shared them liberally with everyone). I'm just not buying that the "guilty party" could have accomplished all of the mayhem shown (this person is top-notch in the final episode in knowing exactly where their victims are, despite the fact that the riders had an enormous head start on the snowmobile). The season's appropriately gory, but the script has some holes that had to be made by a chainsaw.

Compared to other films of this genre, this is better than most, and one scene that depicts a character swallowing the entire head of another, snake-like, is truly inspired horror. If you're into possession-type films, go ahead and check this out. There's not much that's new here, omitting the scene previously mentioned, but it's done well.

A slow-burn with exquisitely building tension. Tom Hardy gives a fantastic performance as Bill, a simple, unassuming bartender who is neither as slow or harmless as he seems. The film never shows its hand as Gandolfini, also superb, and the other characters menacingly revolve around each other. This is great filmmaking.

One of the most disturbing films you will ever see. An indictment of unquestioning tradition and belief, particularly of the religious variety.

Mostly dull until it goes off the rails when Brody's character hooks up with the creature and ends up with a preposterous conclusion (talk about coitus interruptus) and a silly, predictable epilogue. Don't bother.