Don't Kill It Reviews

  • Nov 30, 2018

    Although a touch overly campy at parts, Don't Kill It is a fun horror/comedy in the same vein of the Evil Dead.

    Although a touch overly campy at parts, Don't Kill It is a fun horror/comedy in the same vein of the Evil Dead.

  • Nov 30, 2018

    People of a certain age will renember raiding their oldest siblings VHS stack for cheap gore fest/slasher movies. Inevitably, the acting was piss poor, the plot detail laughable and the production quality awful. At no point could you take it seriously, never mind (up yours, Mary Whitehouse) be affected by it. Society was never going to be undermined by pantomime horror. Watching this took me right back to those heady days of Driller Killer and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like this, you couldn't decide if they were trying to be funny or just accidentally laughable. Nostslgia buzz aside - for which it gets it's star from me -this is pretty terrible stuff. One detail sums it up. The initial 'investigation' - and i use that term looselt -cites three separate triple homicides. A cursory count reveals two, followed by four then the triple. No amount of dry ice fog can disguise that maths. Dry ice fog! The most astonishing thing of all is that Netflix lists this under critically acclaimed movies.

    People of a certain age will renember raiding their oldest siblings VHS stack for cheap gore fest/slasher movies. Inevitably, the acting was piss poor, the plot detail laughable and the production quality awful. At no point could you take it seriously, never mind (up yours, Mary Whitehouse) be affected by it. Society was never going to be undermined by pantomime horror. Watching this took me right back to those heady days of Driller Killer and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Like this, you couldn't decide if they were trying to be funny or just accidentally laughable. Nostslgia buzz aside - for which it gets it's star from me -this is pretty terrible stuff. One detail sums it up. The initial 'investigation' - and i use that term looselt -cites three separate triple homicides. A cursory count reveals two, followed by four then the triple. No amount of dry ice fog can disguise that maths. Dry ice fog! The most astonishing thing of all is that Netflix lists this under critically acclaimed movies.

  • Nov 02, 2018

    Action pact and entertaining. Good retro demon hunting movie.

    Action pact and entertaining. Good retro demon hunting movie.

  • Oct 22, 2018

    Action packed fun horror movie with cool main star. Pretty original concept

    Action packed fun horror movie with cool main star. Pretty original concept

  • Oct 12, 2018

    Whadda load of old shite

    Whadda load of old shite

  • Sep 03, 2018

    This should more rightly be titled "Don't Watch It" - dreadful in every way possible. I do not understand why this currently has an 89% rating. Scroll past this on netflix, don't be tempted, it's 90 minutes you won't get back.

    This should more rightly be titled "Don't Watch It" - dreadful in every way possible. I do not understand why this currently has an 89% rating. Scroll past this on netflix, don't be tempted, it's 90 minutes you won't get back.

  • Jul 04, 2018

    Love Dolph especially when he plays the fun good guy. Love this movie so much that I hope there is a sequel. The movie was so much fun.

    Love Dolph especially when he plays the fun good guy. Love this movie so much that I hope there is a sequel. The movie was so much fun.

  • Jesse O Super Reviewer
    May 18, 2018

    I'm starting to write this review, probably, like 20 minutes prior to watching tonight's movie, so I doubt I'm gonna get it done in time. Let's see how much I can write before I'm done. It ended up being a bit of a non-issue, since it's now 7:50 am and I started writing the review around 9:15 pm. The point I'm trying to make is that last night's movie (47 Meters Down) wasn't finished, so I don't have to write two reviews in quick succession, thankfully, those are my least favorite reviews to do. That's neither here nor there, let's move on. If there was one job that I'd probably be good at, if I was a character in a horror movie, it'd be demon hunter. But, to me, there's a catch that comes along with that. I'd be a successful demon hunter leading up to the film's events, my reputation would be widely known. You'd see news clippings of my adventures, or whatever. I'd then meet up with a group of stupid teens who need my help and, after some initial resistance, I would agree to help them. But, and this is where the catch comes in, I'd probably end up dying halfway through the film. I'm the expert and I'm the one that's gonna catch the demon, right? Well, nope, wrong. Now these dumb teens are gonna have to figure out what to do on their lonesome. I have a lot of confidence in myself, don't I? I suppose that's, obviously, not important. What is important is this little movie and what I thought of it. I really don't know what I'm gonna say about this movie, since it's a straightforward affair with very little depth and complexity. I guess that's why I started with that little aside of me being a very successful demon hunter until the horror movie actually starts. Anyway, first things first, I think Dolph Lundgren is pretty great in this role. He definitely looks and acts the part of lifelong demon hunter. The thing about Lundgren is, however, that he's clearly having a blast in this movie and that lent itself to him giving a surprisingly inspired performance. Of course, I'm not saying that his performance is Oscar-caliber, I mean, come on. I'm just saying that he gets to show that he's more than adept at comedy. I believe the idea about Lundgren's perception as an actor, if there is one, is that because he's spent most of his career appearing in shitty action movies, most of which headed straight to video, that he must be a terrible actor. And that's not necessarily fair, in my opinion, to say. A guy gets typecast into a certain type of role because he looks a certain way, and there's not many people that look like Dolph Lundgren. Let's just say that Noah Baumbach isn't knocking on Lundgren's door to star in his next movie. And I don't mean that as an indictment on Baumbach's casting choice, but I'm just trying to make a point. Being typecast in a certain type of role or genre doesn't make you a bad actor. Steven Seagal, now that guy sucks. For the most part, I thought Seagal was tremendous in Machete. The point is that Lundgren is pretty great in this movie and his charm and wit help carry the movie past its weaker moments. This is clearly meant to be a camp, B-movie with accompanying thrills and it certainly delivered on the blood and gore end of things. Story is simple enough, this demon jumps into the body of the person that killed its previous host. Hence the title, you can't kill the thing, because it will just take possession of you. There's still a lot of killing, as I've already mentioned, so a lot of these people don't just listen, but I like the idea that you can't actually kill this demon, you can only hope to contain it and store it someplace where no one can access it. There's also a bit of a 'twist' in that Agent Pierce, the FBI lady, comes from some angelic lineage, no, literally. So Jebediah (Lundgren), tells her that this demon wants to possess her body so it can be even more powerful than it is now. So not only can you not kill it, now Agent Pierce has to avoid protecting herself, or at least killing the damn thing, or else it'll possess her and take over the fucking world. Or something. It's never made clear why this is a bad thing. I mean, demonic possession is never good, but why because Pierce of angelic lineage, does that make her more valuable to the demon. They never really explain this and it's a shame. Visually speaking, the movie isn't really much to look at, but I found the scripting to be perfectly solid and, again, it embraces a silly and campy style, which makes it all the easier to watch. Though, if I'm being honest, I don't think I feel comfortable calling this movie good. I just feel that the movie slows down tremendously during its second act and, while Lundgren does a good job at carrying the film, I just felt that not much really happened. The thing is that this movie is something like 80 minutes long, without credits, so for that to have been an issue is disconcerting. I feel like if they had trimmed some of the fat, this would have gotten a higher rating from me. It just had every ingredient for it to be a movie that I'd enjoy. Well, every ingredient except for better pacing and, maybe, directing. Though I can forgive the latter more than the former in all honesty. With that said, I don't really have much else to say about this. Lundgren is great and, if there's a reason for you to watch this, it's because of him. In fact, one of the funniest scenes in the entire movie is Lundgren giving this speech about why he needs to help catch this demon while these two cops are trying to remove him from the Chief's office. It;'s a really long speech and every time you think the cops have him out of the room, he powers his way in, with the cops still holding on to him. It was silly, but it was a very funny scene and it's all due to Lundgren, in my opinion. There are still some flaws, but if you're a horror nerd then I'd say that this definitely deserves a watch. This was definitely a very decent horror flick. There's a good movie here, but we were kept from it due to some glaring pacing issues.

    I'm starting to write this review, probably, like 20 minutes prior to watching tonight's movie, so I doubt I'm gonna get it done in time. Let's see how much I can write before I'm done. It ended up being a bit of a non-issue, since it's now 7:50 am and I started writing the review around 9:15 pm. The point I'm trying to make is that last night's movie (47 Meters Down) wasn't finished, so I don't have to write two reviews in quick succession, thankfully, those are my least favorite reviews to do. That's neither here nor there, let's move on. If there was one job that I'd probably be good at, if I was a character in a horror movie, it'd be demon hunter. But, to me, there's a catch that comes along with that. I'd be a successful demon hunter leading up to the film's events, my reputation would be widely known. You'd see news clippings of my adventures, or whatever. I'd then meet up with a group of stupid teens who need my help and, after some initial resistance, I would agree to help them. But, and this is where the catch comes in, I'd probably end up dying halfway through the film. I'm the expert and I'm the one that's gonna catch the demon, right? Well, nope, wrong. Now these dumb teens are gonna have to figure out what to do on their lonesome. I have a lot of confidence in myself, don't I? I suppose that's, obviously, not important. What is important is this little movie and what I thought of it. I really don't know what I'm gonna say about this movie, since it's a straightforward affair with very little depth and complexity. I guess that's why I started with that little aside of me being a very successful demon hunter until the horror movie actually starts. Anyway, first things first, I think Dolph Lundgren is pretty great in this role. He definitely looks and acts the part of lifelong demon hunter. The thing about Lundgren is, however, that he's clearly having a blast in this movie and that lent itself to him giving a surprisingly inspired performance. Of course, I'm not saying that his performance is Oscar-caliber, I mean, come on. I'm just saying that he gets to show that he's more than adept at comedy. I believe the idea about Lundgren's perception as an actor, if there is one, is that because he's spent most of his career appearing in shitty action movies, most of which headed straight to video, that he must be a terrible actor. And that's not necessarily fair, in my opinion, to say. A guy gets typecast into a certain type of role because he looks a certain way, and there's not many people that look like Dolph Lundgren. Let's just say that Noah Baumbach isn't knocking on Lundgren's door to star in his next movie. And I don't mean that as an indictment on Baumbach's casting choice, but I'm just trying to make a point. Being typecast in a certain type of role or genre doesn't make you a bad actor. Steven Seagal, now that guy sucks. For the most part, I thought Seagal was tremendous in Machete. The point is that Lundgren is pretty great in this movie and his charm and wit help carry the movie past its weaker moments. This is clearly meant to be a camp, B-movie with accompanying thrills and it certainly delivered on the blood and gore end of things. Story is simple enough, this demon jumps into the body of the person that killed its previous host. Hence the title, you can't kill the thing, because it will just take possession of you. There's still a lot of killing, as I've already mentioned, so a lot of these people don't just listen, but I like the idea that you can't actually kill this demon, you can only hope to contain it and store it someplace where no one can access it. There's also a bit of a 'twist' in that Agent Pierce, the FBI lady, comes from some angelic lineage, no, literally. So Jebediah (Lundgren), tells her that this demon wants to possess her body so it can be even more powerful than it is now. So not only can you not kill it, now Agent Pierce has to avoid protecting herself, or at least killing the damn thing, or else it'll possess her and take over the fucking world. Or something. It's never made clear why this is a bad thing. I mean, demonic possession is never good, but why because Pierce of angelic lineage, does that make her more valuable to the demon. They never really explain this and it's a shame. Visually speaking, the movie isn't really much to look at, but I found the scripting to be perfectly solid and, again, it embraces a silly and campy style, which makes it all the easier to watch. Though, if I'm being honest, I don't think I feel comfortable calling this movie good. I just feel that the movie slows down tremendously during its second act and, while Lundgren does a good job at carrying the film, I just felt that not much really happened. The thing is that this movie is something like 80 minutes long, without credits, so for that to have been an issue is disconcerting. I feel like if they had trimmed some of the fat, this would have gotten a higher rating from me. It just had every ingredient for it to be a movie that I'd enjoy. Well, every ingredient except for better pacing and, maybe, directing. Though I can forgive the latter more than the former in all honesty. With that said, I don't really have much else to say about this. Lundgren is great and, if there's a reason for you to watch this, it's because of him. In fact, one of the funniest scenes in the entire movie is Lundgren giving this speech about why he needs to help catch this demon while these two cops are trying to remove him from the Chief's office. It;'s a really long speech and every time you think the cops have him out of the room, he powers his way in, with the cops still holding on to him. It was silly, but it was a very funny scene and it's all due to Lundgren, in my opinion. There are still some flaws, but if you're a horror nerd then I'd say that this definitely deserves a watch. This was definitely a very decent horror flick. There's a good movie here, but we were kept from it due to some glaring pacing issues.

  • May 15, 2018

    This review is not about the movie. As of 5/15/18, there are two pages of audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. So, if you want to read what "Don't Kill It" is about, please go elsewhere. This review is about the majority of so-called "reviewers" giving the film less than three stars. "Poorly written and poorly directed"? "Bad acting"?" These are comments lousy reviewers write when they have nothing else to write. I guess these reviewers demand Al Pacino and Meryl Streep in the starring roles, Martin Scorsese in the director's chair, and a script by Shakespeare's ghost. "A low budget horror movie with no purpose." What exactly IS the purpose of a "low budget horror movie"?

    This review is not about the movie. As of 5/15/18, there are two pages of audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. So, if you want to read what "Don't Kill It" is about, please go elsewhere. This review is about the majority of so-called "reviewers" giving the film less than three stars. "Poorly written and poorly directed"? "Bad acting"?" These are comments lousy reviewers write when they have nothing else to write. I guess these reviewers demand Al Pacino and Meryl Streep in the starring roles, Martin Scorsese in the director's chair, and a script by Shakespeare's ghost. "A low budget horror movie with no purpose." What exactly IS the purpose of a "low budget horror movie"?

  • Mar 31, 2018

    Came across this movie on Netflix after searching for something random. I kinda expected it to be bad, and oh boy was it bad but it was pretty funny with the killings. I managed to watch it all, but it's no movie to receommened unless you're bored af or enjoy a bad horror.

    Came across this movie on Netflix after searching for something random. I kinda expected it to be bad, and oh boy was it bad but it was pretty funny with the killings. I managed to watch it all, but it's no movie to receommened unless you're bored af or enjoy a bad horror.