Reviews

A decent enough idea totally messed up.

If you're hoping for some action or horror you will be disappointed.

Well, I've to admit the landscapes are nice, but obviously that's not enough.

A bunch of highly insubordinate, moronic soldiers, a completely incompetent leader and one useless scout are having a bad time because of their own stupidity - thanks to a real stinker of a script.

It's pretty much just about cretins wandering around and blabbing nonsense, and when they shut up - they rarely do - the directing isn't helping either.

And women as legionaries? C'mon! K, it's not a documentary about ancient Roman warfare, but seriously?

Don't waste your time.

While it's not the worst film there is, it's still below average.

The excecution is quite flawed and feels rather cheap, from the direction to the weapon FX. But a couple of gory melee effects were not bad.

The Story is simple and didn't make too much sense. The script is poor, some of the actors did alright with what was given, some did not.

I've watched worse, but there is certainly no need to spend time on this one.

The low rating is completely off, in my opinion. Some trash productions get praise by fake reviews and sometimes also by real ones, but something like The Courier gets totally smashed? Yeah, suuure...

In terms of action, and hence entertaining, it delivers. The film uses a limited setting and a limited timeframe for its story, not many nonsense distractions, it's rather straight to the point. That's what I personally like in action thrillers.

Kurylenko did a good job, Oldman falls short, Shah is OK, Moseley pretty bad. Aim the hand-to-hand fighting parts for realism or for certain Hong Hong ingenuity? Nope. Do villains make stupid mistakes and sometimes also the heroine? Happens, quite typical for the genre, so who cares, it's fiction and not the reinvention of action cinema.

Of course, the story is simple, characters not complex and dialogues rather basic, but who watches a film like this for that? What do some people expect here, Shakespeare?

You want something simple that won't win Oscars, just to sit back and relax, then you could do a lot worse.

Normally I would give it a very solid 6, but now a 7 it is.

PS: One here compared it to Salt in terms of how it's done right... What on earth? Salt is way more unrealistic in every way, had a much, much higher budget and is still just the inferior flick, but that's my opinion. Anna was recommended instead by another one, which wasn't bad, but also not as entertaining and for sure a lot less believable, just like Salt. Those 2 films were more 'complex', pretentious and stupid, with more money put in and those idiotic spy-'twists' of which I'm sick of. Another one said the soundtrack was bad... Huh? Well, I found it to be atmospheric and fitting. I better don't want to know what that person considers a good OST then.

You won't be overwhelmingly surprised by what's happening, there's no spectacular plot, but that's normal for the genre anyway. The atmosphere is well created in my opinion, mainly thanks to the soundtrack that fits well, pictoresque terrain and quite good actors (tho some characters were a bit annoying). The directing was alright, yet some editing seemed weird, maybe to save some dosh on special effects regarding the monster having dinner. Pretty solid for a film that most probably had a rather small budget.

I thought some entertainment could've been found here, but no! An absurd script beyond stupid, poor directing, unlikable characters you don't care for, utterly cheap special effects and backwoods locations make this a complete waste of time. William Shatner was kinda funny playing the over the top soldier-dad, and it was nice to see Jeri Ryan aka Seven of Nine again. Although I like Star Trek and appreciated to see 2 of it's characters in a totally different production, there isn't anything else Devil's Revenge has to offer.

Ok, the big spider creature looked nasty, hence it did it's part as the antagonist, but the characters and the people who played them... annoying beyond comprehension and completely unbearable (well, Bruce Davison was doing alright, not that it mattered much).

Also the pace was way too slow, except for the finale nothing was going, and even there the "action/horror" sucked.

Do yourself a favor: Watch "Arachnophobia" instead, if you're in the mood for something entertaining with spiders and actually good actors, just don't bother with this mess.

Cheap flick with unlikable characters, mediocre acting at best and in general nothing to offer that's not already been done a thousand times better before. Those high ratings for run-of-the-mill garbage are messed up.

It's a cheap movie nobody should spent time on.

Theoretically, there's somewhere a potentially interesting story, but that's absolutely not enough to endure everything else, like a lousy screenplay, characters you don't care for, and acting that's, while not totally bad by some, quite poor.

Oh, and to the person who that said that Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans would love this: What the heck??? I liked Buffy the series, freaky action with humor and actually good acting. Buffy the Movie was pretty bad as I vaguely recall, yet it rocked compared to this one. There's simply no whatsoever similarity detectable, apart from tiniest fractures regarding one certain and only minor supernatural aspect, and no, it's not vampires...

A "horror" film about cats, so naturally there can't be much horror in it.

It's quite silly, and you already pretty much know what's going to happen, with many eye-rolling moments included, and some really questionable acting. Although Cushing and Pleasance did a fine job, as always.

BUT it has cats in it, and if you like them you might enjoy this film for what it is: A rather oldfashioned horror flick lacking horror and suspense, but one with and about cute animals.

A generous 5 from me.

The summary sounds good, suggesting a good time with a silly but fun movie.

Yeah, well, um...

The "story" is pretty stupid and includes a couple of total what the heck-moments, without any thrills or comedy, except for the occasional unintentional moronic dialogues or bonkers plot additions. In terms of dramaturgy it can only be called a mess.

Blood is there, not really gore though, the action scenes feel rather cheap, and the werewolfs look a bit weird. Not sure what they spend the estimated $6,400,000 on.

The acting is OK by some of the cast, not so much by others, most likely due to the script I imagine. Some things can't be pulled off with what's been given.

Somehow, although I stand by the points I made, there was something that elevates Howlers in its total slightly above its sums, maybe because of the absurd plot.

Yet, probably only worth a watch for die hard fans of werewolf-"horror" or "gunslinger" stuff.

Just as its predecessors, John Wick 3 is highly competent in the action and style department. Personally, I found 1 the best, then 2 followed by 3.

I'd say here is more action, especially martial arts-wise, and less story than before.

The fight scenes with Dacascos and also his 2 main disciples - who played the 2 martial arts villains in the Raid 1 & 2 - were a real nice touch. Tho these guys had better fight scenes before. But then again this is a Hollywood action movie and not mainly a beat 'em up-flick.

If you liked 1 and 2, then there is no reason not to watch 3.

The overall acting was fine, especially Bridges and Robbins did a good job.

The movie itself is too long, has little thrills to offer and the story is completely unrealistic.

Hard to say anything more without including spoilers.

But seriously, there is no way things would plan out the way they did. Also, in that regard responsibility is a key word throughout the movie.

Watch it, if you have too much time and like the actors, but don't if you value logic in a thriller or simply a good movie.

3 only stars for Bridges' and Robbins' performances

As someone who really likes vampire movies, from old classics to new, even cheap but entertaining ones, I watched The Addiction again after 20 years. While I couldn't remember much besides it being somewhat weird and a few scenes with a great Christopher Walken, I wanted to see how it was going to hold up now.

God, what a drag most of the time. While scanning other reviews I read the word presumptuous at least twice. That's the perfect word to describe this flick.

Non-stop pseudo-intellectual blah blah, no matter which philosophic approach the student and then reborn vampire decides to follow. In that regard it seemed more like a parody of how some young "brainiacs" from universities turn out.

Some love The addiction, some hate it. Obviously, I strongly sympathize with the latter.

While the acting is good the script is not, and the director Ferrara is mediocre at best. I can only repeat what this movie is: It is presumptuous!

Rated it a 4 just because of the actors, especially Christopher Walken who did a fine job. Still, there is no real reason to watch it, unless you love to listen to nonsensical tirades.

IMDb is getting flooded with fake reviews. Nowadays you can't just read a positive review without checking the profile whether or not it may be legit, and everything beyond 7 stars is usually fake, no matter which film. If this continuous nobody should bother visiting anymore.

Here is a good example that all those saying it's a great film are in some way or another associated with the film crew or simply took a bit money. Click on their rotten profiles and see for yourself.

To the the film itself: Practically zero redeeming qualities. I just added an extra star for the locations. Bad acting, amateurish directing and editing, lame combat scenes without much of an understanding on what to do, they even momentarily cease fire to have a chat while enemy combatants are closing in. Seriously? The PTSD addition could have been interesting, instead you end up thinking "WTF!?!".

So the message might have been honorable, the execution certainly was not. Watch "13 Hours" instead if you want to see pros depicting pros.

The film is not bat, but not particularly good either.

The story is very simple, yet, that's totally alright for a revenge "western". 2 dimensional characters, but well acted and likable good guys. But quite a cliché-ridden script. Fits the genre, tho. The locations are nice, too.

So why not a higher rating?

It's clearly a B- or C-movie. But that's not the point and would've been irrelevant if it weren't for one thing: The action, that's what matters, such films live off it, and in that department it's lacking here, gunfights and martial arts scenes alike.

The fight scenes with their choreography are nothing spectacular, only average at best which is a bummer since Sunny Pang is in the film who did a good job as the villain in Headshot fighting Iko Uwais. Some funny and interesting guns are shown and handled, too bad not more use was made of them. Less irrelevant dialogue and more cannon fooder to dispose of would have been greatly appreciated. The trailer suggests way more action than what's really there.

The usual paid 1-review-only-"fans" can be ignored like the "patriots" trying to boost their countries film industry. Ratings higher than 6 are nonsense and have nothing to do with reality. For the entertainment value I personally got out of it, it's a 5 from me. Nothing terrible, but nothing to watch again, ever.

All the lame, cheap, awful "movies" feature tons of fake reviews these days, contributed by users with one review only according to their profiles. The same is the case here. Said fakers praise the crap out of this piece of garbage with the most ridiculous attributes they can think of. Nowadays you really have to check peoples profiles on IMDb after reading very positive reviews, what a bummer!

I only watched around 30 minutes, didn't laugh once during that time, although I already had the impression this movie was a waste of time within the first couple of minutes. I should have followed my gut feeling sooner and I would have spared me much more of this "Abnormal Atrocity" which should be the correct title of this stinker. Its score went from over 7 down to currently 4.7, and it's still way to high.

A crime, revenge thriller about pseudo political power play, some conspiracies, and of course: Werewolfs and vampires in the United States of Europe! Well, one could think this might sound good in a silly but fun way. Sadly, such a possible illusion vanishes into thin air as soon as the first scenes are over and you know you have a real stinker at hand. This so called film doesn't know what it wants to be and ultimately ends up as a complete disaster. The story in an incoherent mess, the dialogues resemble juvenile babbling at best, the so called action scenes are to 100 percent lame and terribly edited, plus each and every actor is unable to perform above elementary school play level. Lohan's career appears to be have flushed down the toilet for good now. Not a big loss, though.

The probably only positive thing to say is the locations have a certain flair. But that's really all there is. Not enough to have kept me awake, so I saw the first half and the "ending". At least it was a good nap.

Budget:$12,000,000 (estimated) as IMDb states? Only if a scheme was involved to rob tax payers money via accessing government film funds à la Uwe Boll.

Could have been much more, like most zombie films.

Instead we get a highly incompetent and subordinate squad, bad action directing, and dull characters. Almost 2 hours runtime, what the heck? Even Navy Seals vs. Zombies is ingenious compared to this.

An entertaining action film, starting after the first 30 min. Before that there's not much going on, just some nice island shots and rather uninteresting scenes that are supposed to serve as some sort of introduction for the "heros" later motives, I suppose.

But then the real "story" (very basic) kicks in and along with it the action. Quite a couple of brutal knife killings and shootouts from there.

Some compare it to brilliant The Raid films as I read, but that's nonsense. While the knife action might be similar in brutality, the fight scenes are not not as many and they surely are not as well choreographed, definitely no Iko Uwais skills here. The takeouts are executed quickly and with lots of blood, tho.

Pretty entertaining, if you like a high bodycount.

This is just an average film at best. Also rather slow paced without thrills or real twists. And parts without logic.

But what stood out was the work of Zack Weiner, writer and one of the actors, but absolutely not in a positive way: The man clearly has a Jewish name and also the looks, yet he choose to write and play one of the characters that can only be seen as the embodiment of prejudices against Jewish people. This annoying character is rather smart, talkative but insecure and at the same time too self-confident, trying to influence/dominate his friends to his liking. Furthermore he is a pathetically greedy (for women and sex), spineless coward with no charisma at all who even tries to weasel his way out with money at some point. Seriously? I'm not Jewish, but I hope he gets some backfire for that crap.

This cheap flick is nothing but a waste of time.

The actual story is interesting and could have been turned into a good film or series if the people involved were pros.

But as it is, we end up with boring scenes of useless dialogues, bad directing and lots of abysmal acting. They even included some nude scenes, a futile attempt to 'save' that flick.

Like Most Found Footage, this one is boring soI can't fathom the 6.2 rating.

Half the movie or so it's just heading to a camp, then the crew starts getting decimated, just not in an exciting way.

The Actors are doing an OK job, the snowy landscape is alright, too. Yet, that's no justification to watch it, it's boring! :/

In my opinion this is one hilarious movie. Its silly humor hit right my funny bone.

While there is not really much blood and gore (some is there ofc) the suspense is there, but what really shines are the likable protagonists, and the involved dialogue. Especially from the one-man 'crew', I just say: "You need some food?" xD

I knew it was a horror comedy, but I didn't expect much so I was very pleasantly surprised.

Silly? Yes. But also funny? YES! Well, that is, if you're into that sort of stuff. I'd say give it a go and see for yourself. ;)

This cheap flick is turned out to be so predictable it's almost unpredictable again... It's hard to believe they couldn't manage to come up with at least something to add a little flavor.

Also, those vampires were ridiculous, and what's even worse, totally incompetent.

The 2. star only because the shown wood was kinda alright. That should say enough about the overall quality. Who voted this a 10 got to be somehow affiliated with this flop.

Tumbbad is a nice horror movie that oozes style and atmosphere. It's not a shocker or slasher, it's more mature, like a fine whisky or wine which should be savored. And I did. :)

Also, it shows a nicely dark portrayal of the human desire for wealth, namely greed, wrapped into a supernatural story to my very liking.

The talented actors and the great directing, not to mention the good use of locations, make this a gem. Plus, the music was excellent (from the guy who made some of the outstanding Hitman game soundtracks).

Watching Tumbbad was a real treat.