John Dies at the End - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

John Dies at the End Reviews

Page 1 of 48
Super Reviewer
½ December 5, 2016
The complete mess of a plot tries at every cost to be a smart-ass comedy filled with an offbeat humor that, apart from a very few inspired moments, is simply embarrassing - as we can see, for instance, from an awful aracnicide joke in the movie's ridiculous last hour.
½ November 27, 2016
Those without an imagination need not apply.
November 14, 2016
Just the kind of quirky movie that I love
November 12, 2016
So weird. I the best way possible.
Super Reviewer
½ October 8, 2016
Hands down one of the worst films I've ever seen.
½ August 29, 2016
I read the book. the book was awesome. the movie kept most of the humor from the book, but of course, barley mirrored the story.
August 11, 2016
After watching this, I questioned everything, but mostly if what I watched made any sense. The best part was I didn't care. Must see for anyone who exists.
July 18, 2016
This movie is awesome!
July 17, 2016
The flippant nature of this sub-par movie detracts from any suspense or storytelling it could have had. It's also an unfortunate reminder of what happens when special effects go wrong.
½ July 14, 2016
John Dies at the End is too weird for some, but for those that love the direction the movie is taking, you will not be disappointed.
½ July 2, 2016
I know this movie was trying to be "different" but what it gave me was an idiotic story told as a jumbled way that just made this a mess overall.
June 24, 2016
Continues to go downhill for the entirety of the runtime.
May 29, 2016
A movie for the bro dog in all of us. A sufficient amount of blood and weirdness that I found thoroughly enjoyable. Sometimes you save another dimension and sometimes you don't. But dogs are always amazing.
May 20, 2016
Unexpectedly awesome. Considering it was made by Coscarelli I should not have been surprised.
½ May 9, 2016
Lots of ambition that ends up more mess than masterpiece.
½ May 1, 2016
This was written by someone stoned out of his mind ( i hope) but with a very generic trip. Stoner sci-fi 101. It really wants to be a cult film but doesnt pull its weight. Its always close to being good but never gets there. Its out there, sure, but has no idea its out Where.
½ April 29, 2016
I really wanted to like this movie. It is that kind of movie that almost forces you to like it but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The beginning of this movie was quite exciting as it reflected the true spirit of the book and some of that felt a bit lost by the end. Nevertheless this movie stands alone among all the other modern cookie cutter movies that sink to the bowels of Netflix (if they're lucky), this film takes it's genre bending, zany antics, original storyline and impending doom of B-movie constraints and uses them all to it's advantage. I hope the sequel "This Book is Full of Spiders" is made into a film adaptation as well with Williamson and Mayes back on the bill.
April 15, 2016
A very odd horror-comedy, where John (Mayes) isn't actually the main character - Dave (Williamson) is, and together they're kind of a cross between Ghostbusters & Constantine. Some gruesome bits and some laughs, but not really a whole lot, or any real plotline. Points for inventiveness, but not quite cohesive enough - and a bit of a waste of Giamatti.
April 13, 2016
A monumental task to try to turn this book into a movie. For the first 40 minutes, you swear they had succeeded. Felt that the plot was moving along at a fantastic pace. It was constantly moving forward not too fast as to be completely lost. Some of the effects and set were downright creepy. The longer you get into the movie, however, you see the issue. Trying to cram almost 400 pages of plot into an 1 hr 39 min movie.

Yes, I've read the book. That helped me figure out what was happening. I'd be hard pressed to find someone who might understand this movie without reading the book. The crux is there, but the little nuisances (like why anyone would ever care about David, what the deal with Amy was, who this Korrok fellow really is etc.) is left out. Unfortunately, it's one of those stories were, if parts are left out, it really detracts from the entire story. The complete second half of the book is gone. If the ending feels abrupt, well, it really was.

The second half of the movie borders on pretty unenjoyable. This is the part where we rush through the plot to finish the movie in the time allotment. I can't take these 2nd half of the movie effects. The tone of the movie never settled. Is it trying to be genuinely scary? Or is it camp? It flutters the line and I wish it would have stuck to one or the other. For example, whenever there is a bug, like a leech or a roach, it looks amazing. It looks like a practical effect. Then you have CGI penises running around and big CGI eyes floating around and big fake Twister level of CGI at points. It's abrasive.

The good thing is that the movie was probably about the best you were going to get with what you had. I thought the casting for David was pretty damn good. Unassuming white guy who is a bit of a weirdo. I hated John in the movie, stupid haircut. Maybe that's the point. The movie is an okay enough story, but stick with the book. No debate.
April 1, 2016
Some critics are humourless twats: Michael O'Sullivan from the Washington Post, for example.
Page 1 of 48