Reviews

It really breaks my mind that the investigators in this true crime case took more than 3 years to solve what took me a paltry 15 minutes to see the real angle. Believe me, it is all too easy to deduce and too obvious. I am even a bit angry at the primary victim, Dave Kroupa, for not figuring it out himself. And this is not the first true crime documentary where investigators can be seen doing a lazy and unimaginative job. The events took place in 2012 and not in 1912. Electronic surveillance technology was easily available back then and it's shocking that none of the cops thought of using it. It's incredible that it took a set of new detectives and 3 years of head banging by the Omaha P. D. to conclude that the investigation "needed an IT guy", especially when the entire volume of evidence in the case was digital in nature. It is absolutely nuts and revolting.

I found the documentary well-organized and well-paced, as are most Netflix true crime documentaries in general. One new aspect in this documentary is the use of creepy background score, which, along with darkish color tones, helped maintain a macabre environment throughout.

The twist in the case is not as far-fetched as the investigators made it appear. I'm sure many viewers would have felt the same as I. So, be ready to be disappointed in that respect. I also felt that the documentary fast-forwarded things a bit too quickly between arresting the perp and the court delivering the verdict.

I like this production and rank it as GOOD and WATCHABLE. I enjoyed it but am not too impressed by it. I don't know what Rotten Tomatoes' 100% ratings are about.

Hard Eight is the debut film of Paul Thomas Anderson, who went on to create masterpieces such as "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia", and "There Will Be Blood". All his trademarks, such as deep and complex character evolution and tracking camera shots, are present in this movie.

This is a classic 80s/90s slow-burn noir thriller that follows a hard-boiled gambler named Sydney, played by Philip Baker Hall, as he attempts to redeem himself from past mistakes. As we follow Sydney around and try to figure out his mysterious background and strange decisions, the film explores how human beings over a period of time become slave to their traits and habits and cleverly bargain for redemption from previous mistakes at the expense of more mistakes.

The story has only four main characters that are played well by the respective actors. Film relies on strong acting performances and pithy dialogue rather than flashy style or action. While the script is fickle at times, it never derails the plot. Production design is excellent, and the fascinating and lively world of casinos, hotels, and night life has been captured well with the help of great photography and soft jazz background score.

While Hard Eight may not have moments you may want to rewatch, it definitely deserves being viewed at least once. This is classic cinema telling the story of flawed human characters, made with no hi-tech props and CGI whatsoever. They don't make films like this anymore.

Highly recommended.

There have now been twenty-seven titles (including this one) in the Bond franchise, and none of them has brought anything new (other than some gadgetry) to the screen -- no groundbreaking technology, filming style, absolutely nothing. It is mind-numbing that throughout the life of this franchise, essentially the same dish with different garnishments has been served with great impunity, as if to slap and mock the moviegoers. Fortunately for the franchise, the moviegoing crowd has obliged each time and turned up to see the same boring saga all over again. If the phenomenon of herd mentality ever needed a desperate validation, here's to look.

Beautiful women, impossible gadgetry, irrelevant romantic adventures, fast-spoken chuckle-inducing punch lines, mysterious villains who live on secret barren islands (that no surveillance satellite can find), 007's unobstructed international demolition spree, one or two set pieces that quickly become the only MSP of the film -- all of these oft-repeated elements have once again been used in this one, for Bond fans' unquenchable fetishes. Nonsense can be fun, but only once, and you only live twice. Even action set pieces aren't as good as in, say MI franchise, which does a much better job at keeping them thrilling and intense. Only two actors were worth their presence, Fiennes and Malik, but they have hardly been allotted any screen time. This is not just a bad movie, but also a supremely boring one. That motorcycle stunt you saw in the trailer on YouTube is the only thing worth watching. So, head over to YouTube and get done with it already instead of wasting your time watching the entire film.

It is time the audience told the franchise producers to take a hike and not return unless they have a serious and, more importantly, more sensible script in hand.

007, you have grown too old and become too boring and unrealistic. You are fired.

It's quite amazing that this movie released only very recently -- just 6 years ago. The style of filming, production design, characters, dialog -- nearly everything is subtly reminiscent of George A. Romero's 80s horror films, the only difference being that Romero's works were original while this one is not -- not one bit. All the regular tropes are there -- band of survivors fleeing an infection, groupism, one pain-in-the-ass guy who wants to do things only his way, characters endangering the whole group by prioritizing their emotional needs above the safety of others, search for supplies leading to run-ins with the infected, and so on. Have you seen all these sub-themes before? I bet. So have I. So, be assured that there's nothing new here.

I appreciate that the director had no aspirations to make a film that could compete with the likes of World War Z and 28 Days Later. Those projects were a class and many million dollars apart. He knew his talent and financial limitations and perhaps did the best he could with the resources he could afford. With more original and better writing, this movie could have raised its entertainment factor a notch but unfortunately, the writing is insipid at best, even if plot moves at a fair pace.

I didn't dislike this movie too much. It is what it is -- a low-budget production in the apocalyptic thriller genre that's just out there. You can AVOID it.

An out-of-work and out-of-shape Russell Crowe with a head the size of a watermelon and a belly the size of two watermelons stars in this film as a man whose rapid regression from going out-of-job to becoming out-of-wife to going totally out-of-mind erupts in him an angst filled with out-of-bounds rage and violence...

...because, as the script explains, "that was all he was left with."

A WTF to that.

What follows is an out-of-sense predictable cat-and-mouse drama that could've ended in 10 minutes had just one of the several side characters in the story called the cops in time. But then we wouldn't have this film and I wouldn't be reviewing it.

To keep the banal script workable, the director has artfully covered all corners. Cops are available for either getting mauled and killed by the villain or delivering inconsequential lines at the end. The rest of the time throughout the events of the plot, they are on a mysterious vacation.

The theme liberally oscillates between road rage, broken family and forced moral punishment on victims, but explores none.

There aren't too many actors involved. Of those who are, none are worth remembering. By both his physical size and screen time, Russell Crowe's shadow looms ominously large over this project. And that was NOT a good thing.

Say NO to this "unhinged" attempt at wasting precious 90-minutes of your life.

This movie could easily have catapulted itself into brighter pages of the cinematic history book had its makers trimmed some of the goofiness and taken matters just a little more seriously. A little more indulgence in finessing the story is all that was needed -- taking loose ends to some conclusion, making premise more sensible and realistic, spend more time in designing environment, etc. This is a common problem with many great comedies, such as, Dumb and Dumber, that they deliver bucketsful of sweet fun and laughs but, in the end, leave serious viewers with a wish that matters did not rely as much on fantasies and whims.

Nevertheless, the movie guarantees a good time for the entire family. Jack Black is great as an out-of-job maniacal rocker and runs with the plot on his shoulders like a pro. This is HIS movie. He is the alpha and omega of this film and does a very very fine job indeed. Kids too are pretty good. Photography and production are all optimal. After the initial premise is laid down, plot travels in all predictable directions without serving any surprises. Credit goes to the director for not letting that hamper the fun elements in the film.

This film is not an achievement by any standard. In fact, there's hardly anything any department can boast of. Things are lightheaded and fun all the time. You will be smiling and rocking throughout. The only person who can truly be proud of his work here is Jack Black. He rocks.

VERDICT -- 6.5/10 -- GOOD (MUST WATCH AT LEAST ONCE)

If CIA was filled with clowns, this movie would be a perfect tribute to it. Two agents, both seething with vengeance of differing kinds, face off in yet another B-grade Hollywood espionage tale involving nuclear bombs.

Ill-trained antagonists keep making mistakes and allow our hero to beat the crap out of them single-handedly. As ever, while CIA's agents run amok in foreign countries, smashing cars and blowing things up, local administration and police force nonchalantly stand aside, having transferred total power to CIA for some time. Set pieces are poorly written and unconvincing, even though production designing is quite decent.

Lead Dylan O'Brien has decent presence as an action hero. He may eventually be able to build a decent career of the kind if he lands the right projects. Michael Keaton is polished as ever but his talents are wasted here. Rest of the actors are unremarkable. I hope Keaton extracted a full day's pay from the makers of this film for his mediocre screen time. They deserve it.

This movie is nothing like Damon's Bourne franchise or the original Die Hard. Writing in those projects was far superior to what we have here.

A low-budget cash-in attempt on the successful "Purge" franchise. Violence and gore never get old, does it? But without style and sleaze, they are boring. And this movie has none. Acting is as bad as it can get. Why a fine actress like Tomei accepted this film, I don't know. Screenplay is unimaginative and hollow throughout. Humor pops up unceremoniously in the most unexpected moments and is irritating. Shooting and stabbing are somewhat satisfying. Thankfully, the editor realized he had crap on his hands and dutifully cut most scenes to size to make the predictable plot move along quickly. This movie evokes black+white racial tensions in its narrative where blacks are portrayed as victims-even murderers and gangsters-and whites as nasty predators, like Nazis. Some people are not gonna like it, others are gonna love it. I don't care. I just wanted to see a good movie, which I didn't. I was seriously considering switching to some other content on Netflix, but last act of the movie turned out to be somewhat tighter in pace and content than the rest and therefore, I decided to stick right till the end. While, this film is not the worst I've seen, there is nothing to see here really. You would be better off watching something or anything else.

This nang dhadang malang (ideologically bankrupt) film is full of all the mistakes that make Hindi movies such an awful and criminal waste of time -- ludicrously choreographed action scenes composed of a million cuts, inability to maintain steady pace of the narrative, overacting, poorly timed song insertions, and finally, but most importantly, clueless writing with more filler than motive scenes. Indian film screenplays are notoriously poor in quality and progression. Most writers have no clue how to weave subplots together to confirm and propagate the motif of the story. Even a 5-year old can decide to write a revenge tale. That's easy! What's difficult and important is the path the story traverses and its depiction, namely, the narration, screenplay, photography, and direction. Modern Indian cinema just can't seem to shake off its morbid obsession of endlessly showing male actors' abs, shirtless shots, Zoolander poses, bikini shots, and awkward kissing scenes that leave a strange taste in mouth. These are cheap and desperate tricks that are utilized to conceal one's lack of competence.

Honestly, the last great film that came out of India was Lagaan, which was way back in 2001, and I haven't seen even a single another that could even be considered as its peer. The ONLY area of filmmaking that has improved in India is cinematography. Everything else remains as horrible as it ever was. And whatever chances there may earlier have been of Indian writers/directors honing their skills by practice, have now been completely quashed with Netflix senselessly splurging cash in tis desperation to build a fat local content library, thereby incentivizing delivery of shoddy products. (I know this film is not a Netflix production.)

I can only beware you not to waste your time watching this trash. Go watch Friends once again, and have a good time. But if you are the kind that enjoys the trashy masala Indian films, what are you doing reading reviews anyways?

Who is Pennywise, or rather what is Pennywise? Is he an exotic animal/predator? A wraith? An old ghost from the netherworld who can control who sees him and who doesn't? Why is the police/FBI sleeping despite a large number of kids disappearing? This premise is utter nonsense. Jeeper Creepers franchise had a similar one and honestly did a better job of making it consumptible than this duology has even though the visual/aural elements of "It" are far superior to the former. I haven't read King's book in which perhaps everything makes sense, but this review is of the movie, not the book, so let's not go there.

Whoever Pennywise may be, I'm convinced that he most certainly is the creative director of this movie, and a very selfish one at that, because it's only in the scenes involving "it" that this movie comes alive. The rest of the footage is just an appalling and boring mass of blubber containing never-ending, illogical character introductions and conflict set-ups. This movie is like Bill Skarsgård's performances separated by long filler material. It was perhaps lost on the director that good makeup and state-of-the-art visual effects can't carry the burden of narrative for 169 minutes. McAvoy stands tall among the cast but his hands haven't the tools he can work his magic with. Skarsgård is awesome once again. I blame squarely the editor Jason Ballantine for this movie's failings, since it was his duty to ensure that the narrative be smooth, interesting, and agile, none of which happened.

I constantly asked myself, "When will the director be done with setting up characters and make them proceed toward an enthralling and unpredictable resolution of the conflict," and I got my answer as my mother woke me up after my second slumber during the first 90 minutes, NEVER. I gave up after that, reached for my TV's remote control and shifted to another title on Amazon Prime. I give 4 points, one each for production design, makeup, visual effects, and ½ each for acting and sound.

Netflix's Indonesian horror film engine is running full-bore; and high on its grotesque witches, vibrantly colored worlds, and juvenile writing, is chugging out a lot of black smoke that is choking the viewers to death. Sabrina is fourth horror release to come out of Indonesia in recent times, after "The 3rd Eye," "Kuntilanak," and "May The Devil Take You".

All the above movies have many commonalities: All of them have decent actors. All of them feature vibrant colors--the kinds you see in kindergarten playrooms; and the kinds that are unfit for scary movies--even Stephen King's "It" with a mischievous clown used a toned-down palette. All of them are infested with tar-vomiting, wall-climbing demons. Finally, all of them have no story to tell.

Even within Indonesian horror universe, this movie is clearly the worst of the lot... so far.

So, say goodbye to Sabrina even before you say hello.

*Chucky and Annabelle snigger.*

Everyone dies. You will. I will. And so will all those that we have come to know and love. To die, one doesn't need to be of certain age or even infirm. The only precondition that death demands is that the subject be alive and present at an appropriate place and time. 'Tis also true that, while every dead person's world perishes with him, that of others continues to evolve and flourish. Like it or not, but after you and I are gone, life will continue to wither and manifest in one form and another at an opportune place and time. And that, folks, is the recurrent theme in the six masterfully told Western short stories that constitute this film. Each story, however, will stir a differing emotion and strum a differing nerve in you.

Without going gaga over each element of the production, let me just quickly sum things up by saying that this title, right here, is top-tier level film-making, with excellent writing; stunning photography that easily belittles any previous work accomplished by Coens, including "No Country For Old Men"; engrossing characters that you'll want to acquaint; superb dialog that you'll want to go on for a little while longer; and twists in the tales that will flatten your emotions and leave you quietly stirred. Mind you, there are no ready-to-serve chills and thrills here; so, don't expect racy pulses and pounding hearts. All stories softly and beautifully grind their way to a sobering ends that have the potential to quietly add another awakening to your life.

Sadly, short works of literature are not appreciated as much as full-length ones, even when shorter works are tougher to write (since there is less time to build characters and generate looming themes). I don't know why that is, but that is so. I'm saying this to encourage you to ignore any negative critic reviews and go on to watch the movie.

And even if you're not a short-story lover, I still highly recommend you watch this. There's much to be loved here and reminisced. This is a work of art that deserves a memory cell in your brain.

VERDICT: 9/10 (CANDIDATE FOR ALL-TIME BEST)

Topline is that if you are a Vin Diesel fan, don't bother reading this review; just go and watch the movie. If not, read why you shouldn't waste your time on this.

This is a slipshod action/adventure science fiction movie that does neither science nor fiction right. Get this straight through you before you sit down to watch it: This movie was made for one and one reason only, which is to massage the larger-than-life survivalist persona of Richard B. Riddick (the comic character) and the bossy persona of Vin Diesel (the actor). Everything else is in deference. Fan worshippers of Riddick and Diesel will doubtlessly be enthused--even fascinated--as other things probably won't matter to them, while the rest will be disappointed.

Plot: A spaceship carrying the prisoner Riddick crash-lands on an unknown planet where survivors face-off with herds of alien creatures who hunt only at night. Guess what, a solar eclipse is just around the corner.

Needless to say, Riddick does the lion's work of fighting the aliens and dispatches them to their deaths with corny disdain and one-liners while others end up being meal. Invincibility is always forced upon the lead role whenever it becomes larger than the whole movie.

Visual effects aren't much with first half significantly better than the second. Alien design is nothing to moon over either. For most part, the feeling that I was staring at a cardboard set and not an exoplanet hung heavy on my mind. Poor job by camera department.

Most characters are boring and have nothing useful to contribute to the story. Dialog is average with few one-liner comebacks allocated to Riddick.

Movie's plot is nothing fresh; entire Alien franchise was built upon it. Problem is it has too many holes. Rules are set in the beginning for planet's environment and alien creatures but are subsequently flouted with impunity. Writing is banal and barren.

Worst part of the movie is its action sequences which suffer from shaky camera and too many cut scenes, making it impossible to make sense of anything on screen until the flurry of movements stops. This is a deceptive tactic that many filmmakers use to conceal their lack of skills and imagination. When you don't know how to choreograph a scene, bury the action with fast moving visuals. Easy.

VERDICT: 4/10 (DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME!)

(Watched on Netflix in HD and 5.1 surround on 01.09.2019)

A rather poorly written film with neither a proper story nor a ponderable theme. Film is peppered with a number of filler scenes designed solely to jump-scare viewers. 15-20 min of film's length could be shortened if these meaningless scenes are removed. Decision-making of characters is led, not by any thought process, but director's/writer's immature ambition to maximize opportunities to startle viewers. Cinematography and background score, however, made a good impression on me. The film owes much to these two departments in creating its suspenseful environment which is quite decent. I also can't fathom film's fascination with restrooms. All the critical events in the story take place in a students' restroom. Crimes are committed in the restroom. Students bully each other in the restroom. Someone commits suicide in the same restroom. Someone wanting to hide goes into that same restroom. Unimaginative and childish. Finally, film's end makes no sense at all and is as meaningless as the rest of it. Fitting.

AVOID.

(Watched on Netflix in HD/5.1 surround sound)

I can't believe this movie came out just 3 years ago; it is so like B-grade crime/conspiracy dramas of 80s/90s. You can tell from the first frame that this is a production of half-hearted attempts, be it acting, writing, or direction. Jokes, characters, story, and scenes are all clichéd. Decisions and reactions from the characters, however, do produce a chuckle every now and then which helps keep you from dozing off.

People often like to read too much into visual art, especially the abstract type. In order to say something smart and rare, people even end up seeing things that the original artist never intended, as it quietly assures them of access to a rare wavelength. Of course, artists too often deliberately create absurd art and leave it open to interpretation, allowing viewers to let their imaginations run crazy riots.

The work I am reviewing has been created by two highly talented individuals -- Radiohead's Thom Yorke, and film director, Paul Thomas Anderson. The work is a music video of a 3-piece compilation from Thom Yorke's solo album, Anima, directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Both are remarkable artists in their own fields, and it is obvious that everyone would expect a superlative artwork every time they move a finger. Unfortunately, I didn't find that to be the case here. I don't see anything special. It's easy to tell that visuals have been filmed by a pro and are thus nice to look at, but they are neither mind-bending nor visceral, as has been claimed by drooling critics, almost all of whom fall into the category of people discussed in the first paragraph. Even the composition by Yorke is forgettable. All the sonic landscaping that this guy does with his band, Radiohead, is altogether missing here.

The entire visual imagery in the video is basically an attempt to depict, by the way of dance moves, the dreary existence most urban dwellers endure, marred by cutthroat competition for materials around them and cloying moralities that turn into regrets when it's too late in life. At least that's what I understood. It's a shame that both gentlemen picked such a beaten-up theme and put out a mediocre product.

Actually, flogging a piece of art is not fair, because art is neither good or bad, nor logical or methodical. Art is what each person perceives it to be. However, this is my attempt to explain the basis for my disliking.

I am a huge fan of both Yorke/Radiohead and PTA, but I refuse to be compelled to like this just because popular names are associated with it. It is just a one-time watch thing. One-time watch, only to see what the bloody brouhaha is all about. It is neither boring nor radically innovative, but just watchable...

...and forgettable.

At the end of this movie, there are going to be only two kinds of audience: one, which will feel cheated because it watched in incredulity as one of the characters in the film shamelessly reveals the mystery flat out within the first 10 minutes, as if the director, sick with fear that the audience would feel betrayed, couldn't help himself; the second kind which would not notice the above and go on to watch the entire flick trying to assemble and reassemble the puzzle pieces, only to let out a groan in self-disgust for not having paid enough attention in the beginning.

Whether you like this movie or not will depend on which of the above two categories you fall in. I watched this movie with my nephew. As the suspense was revealed, we both looked at each other and uttered almost together, "What the hell...!?" Movie itself is not so bad and has some decent performances and atmosphere, but it will all be meaningless if you are the first kind of audience.

If you want to make a show like True Detective, you will have to do much much better than just imitating the opening credits. Frankly, I don't think that True Detective (Season 1) can ever be surpassed in writing and theme by another police procedural. At least, not anytime soon.

Evenly paced story-telling and decent acts, especially by the lead, are sorrily neutralized by an aimless and disarticulated narrative. Why is every character in the story involved in a crime? A burnt-out cop with a dead wife and difficult child is all too clichéd. Move on, for sanity's sake! The series was supposed to be a strict police procedural, but police seems to have no care for its own procedures and often makes laughable decisions. Each episode explores a character, builds it up to a climax of sorts, only to dispatch it to the oblivion for the rest of the series. Don't know what to make of that.

At the beginning of Season 2, the lead is shown as deeply stressed over a tragic incident he had encountered toward the end of Season 1, but once again, director falls back on run-of-the-mill ideas to show his psychological trauma.

And that's the biggest negative of this drama: there are NO original ideas. This is not too bad a series, just that boredom is inevitable. Writing is vapid and ingenuous. I invested 15 hours of my life in this series but couldn't find even a single line worth remembering or one character worth liking.

And yes, there be plot holes as well, which is although a relatively pardonable crime in my opinion, but not in a crime mystery.

Season 1 is better than Season 2, but I wouldn't know for sure because I stopped watching Season 2 after Episode 5. And I am not even looking forward to Season 3. I am done with this series and the boring character of DI Yoann Peeters.

This is a cramped and unconvincing story about an obsessive showgirl on a porn cam site and her online account which gets hacked by a mysterious impersonator and her struggle to uncover the hacker and wrestle the account access back.

Scope of the plot is suffocatingly confined to the heroine and her strange obsession with her account. Events and people from the outside world are drawn but they never become part of any decision-making. Poorly drawn inconsequential characters like Tinker and Barney are thrown into the mix but they only end up leaving loose ends. Unfortunately, climax is the worst part of the plot where our heroine adopts ridiculous methods to confront the hacker. This movie is intended primarily for social media-obsessed Gen-Z. Thus, tones of deep purple and bright pink have been smartly used throughout to unconsciously charm the teenagers.

"Technology Thriller" is a relatively new sub-genre and will continue to evolve. So far, no one has been able to milk it as maturely and artistically as Charlie Brooker (creator of Black Mirror). This movie has nothing special to offer and is certainly not rewatchable. Even the first viewing was possible only because of an element of suspense. Turn this Cam off.

Reciprocally, one can liken this Netflix Original to Stephen King's "It" which featured a face-painted clown that did demonic things like eating children. This movie, however, does a headstand of "It", and features chocolate-syrup-spewing demons that do clownish things like screeching and whimpering for no reason and chasing other characters around without knowing what to do with them once they are caught. But who's complaining? Hey, it is at least worth a few laughs.

This movie is just a shoddy patchwork of meaningless supposed-to-be-scary scenes in which characters, loosely tied by what can't be termed a plot, are attacked by demonic entities or attack each other. The entire focus has been on frightening the audience with demonic imagery and none on storytelling. Screenplay is poorly written; things and events don't always make sense. One can also see that the conceptual elements used in the scenes are mostly unoriginal and have been inspired by some other well-known Western flicks.

But movie isn't out and out garbage. Actors are all pros and have done well even with a poorly written script. The two lead actresses impress a lot. Locations are well-chosen and prepared. Photography is quite deft too. What's painfully absent is a thematic core that could have weaved all these elements together into something artistic.

Indonesian film industry has only recently been freed from the political clutches of its now-removed dictator Suharto. Netflix and other foreign studios are now pumping big money into Indonesia and other South Asian film industries. While initially, these funds will be gobbled up by cash-strapped filmmakers willing to produce content quickly even if of below-average quality, one hopes for more polished works in future as their technique and ideation improve.

The title of this Netflix mini-series, Don't Watch This, is at high risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if one merely looks at how sloppily the horror shorts in this collection have been assembled, without a single theme to bind them. This series is undoubtedly off to a bad start with Season 1, but could still fulfill a larger purpose of becoming a solid platform for short horror films from aspiring filmmakers around the world. Within Season 1, barring Episode 2 and 3, the others have at least a semblance of a plot and are watchable. Watchable, yes... but no one's saying they are worth-watching, because there's nothing here that you haven't seen before.

Such has been Wesley Snipes' career despite his obvious talent that he has had to take up many shoddy projects just to keep his coffee warm. Nevertheless, it's always good to see Wesley Snipes kick and punch and shoot the bad guys. When it comes to action flicks, he's a reliable hero and a natural. But if that's why you wanna watch this movie, don't. Chances are solid that you won't even last the full length of this movie in your seat.

This is a low-budget, straight-to-video affair that does barely enough to be considered a movie. 'Could've been good' can be said about lots of movies but let's not go there with this one because nearly everything would need to be redone from the scratch to make something good out of the plot. Acting is meh while everything else is just plain trash. CGI used in simulating action scenes is low-class and pathetic. Tim Dutton impresses with his persona; I wouldn't mind seeing him as a villain in other serious projects. Pretty Italian actress, Silvia Colloca, is mostly irritating trying to pass off her flat chest as a well-endowed bosom with the help of a push-up bra. Eeek! William Hope is one of those actors who can't perform badly even if he wanted to.

VERDICT: Avoid, unless you have nothing to do in your life like I do.

SIMILAR & BETTER movies: Matt Damon's BOURNE series, Spy Game, Ronin, Casino Royale

Low-budget horror movies generally have a decent number of scares in offer but also having a Plan B in the form of sex fillers and hot women to keep the audience hooked in case the main premise fails to hold. Sadly, this C-grade horror flick disappoints on both counts. It picks up a much beaten 'abandoned mental hospital' plot and messes it up in all possible ways. Fubar. With irritatingly loud and inexperienced new actors, a poorly written script, goofy scenes that manage to produce laughs instead of chills, average but uninspiring photography, many continuity faults between sequences, and not the least of all, a deafening soundtrack that swallows actors' lines with aplomb, this movie has nothing going for it. Even though end credits say there was a director on board, he/she obviously slept through the project. Given a largely unknown cast & crew, I guess a slipshod effort was to be expected, but I complain because with just a little extra work, viewers could've received decent 90 minutes of entertainment. I caught this movie on Netflix and it's a relief that I did not have to spend my money on seeing it in a theater.

VERDICT: This movie is a C-grade effort that intends to rob you of many precious moments of your life. Don't let it. Avoid.

ALTERNATE VIEW: Session 9 (the best I've seen on abandoned mental hospital plot) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261983/