Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
"Disturbia" actually isn't too bad.
The film certainly has is scary/tense moments and the atmosphere throughout is tense. Acting is decent (even Shai), all camera work is fine and the story is interesting. I thought the inside of the killers house was a bit of a let down but wasn't awful either.
Like most films the occasional cringe moment was present and the story was slightly outlandish.
Overall a decent film, worth a watch.
This film has confused me very much. I'm torn between whether it was shit, or okay.
There were certain aspects I liked. The brief pictures of significant historical events from the war I found fascinating and was a really nice touch. Special effects were on point (all production was good) and if you liked gore this film gave you lots.
However, most of the rest I would say was pretty awful. Having watched it I still don't know what genre the film aimed for (was it action? historical recreation? comedy?). There were many awful singing moments that forced me to mute my laptop as I couldn't stand it and the story as a whole was just a bit strange. Characters made spontaneous and seemingly stupid decisions. You couldn't care less if a character died (though the worst past there was neither did the other characters seemingly!).
Where I'm especially stuck is the acting. I think I'm tending towards it was good. But it could easily fall the other way. I feel it would fall the other way due to this sense of the film not knowing what genre it is itself!
This overall leads to a strange experience and one I would probably not bother sitting through (2 hours 30). If you like gore especially though it is definitely worth a watch.
"Storage 24" is pretty shocking. From awful acting to a piss poor story the whole film was just crap.
The actual production of the film was fine (other than some points I will get to) and is the reason is doesn't get half a star.
Clearly derived straight from "Predator" the monster was not too inventive though was scary I have to admit. This did result in a few scenes that were actually quite tense and frightening.
However, the obvious blunder at the start and awful looking cgi set the film out to fail within 5 minutes. Can another viewer tell me where this is set? Is it Hyde Park or is it Battersea? How such an obvious blunder , literally within the first 5 minutes passes is beyond me. Secondly, the first, opening picture of the film is an awful looking skyline of "stereotypical" London. Not an actual skyline. I mean how hard is it to literally go to London and film that shot properly (Primrose Hill would be perfect!).
This all culminates with to produce a very poor film in almost every aspect and is one to avoid,
All "Wolf Creek 2" offers viewers is the utmost of brutality and gore; though I wouldn't expect a film like this to have a very deep script.
The acting throughout is solid and the cgi/special effects pretty good I'd say.
I do not understand the ending and there seems to be no explanation for it. All I can wonder is why did he get lucky then?
Overall you are just looking at, basically, a "Saw" film. But if that's the basis I'm ranking it against it did reasonably well.
This is one of the most interesting films I have ever watched. The story is gripping, full of twists and turns with many moments shown early in the film explained later.
Since it was released in the 90s I wont comment on cgi etc as it doesn't seem fair (it is a product of its time), however I will comment on the acting; and I'm stuck. On one hand I think the acting was excellent, but on the other a bit ropey. I'm not sure which and not sure why. I think this is to be left to the viewer to decide.
"Twelve Monkeys" is 100% worth a watch and certainly wont disappoint a film lover.