KamachoMcSagget

I made a solemn vow not to see two movies this year, which were this and Beastly. My friend invited me to see this, and I would take a bullet for that guy, but none the less being shot hurts. This lived up to the hype I had built up in my mind. Let me rehash the plot: exposition, hour long battle scene, speech, final battle scene. When I saw the trailers for this, I thought "What is this, Earth Defense Force 2017: The Movie?", but I realize now that I shouldn't have thought that because that would be an insult to Earth Defense Force. The one nice thing I have to say about this movie is that the special effects were good, and I really liked the way the flying saucers break apart into smaller units. At points this movie does deliver, but frankly this movie was so generic and mind numbingly dull that I would rather there be a real alien invasion than have to sit through anything like it again.

I got this by mistake, intending to buy Deathproof. I couldn't exactly remember the names of the two Grindhouse movies but I thought this was one of them, and it is not. What I got was one of the worst films I've ever seen. I can only give you the jist of it because there's barely any plot to speak of. Everyone's after this box....... and that's about all I can make out of it. On the cover it says "Quentin Tarantino presents" but he was the executive producer. For those who do not know what a producer is, it is someone who is involved with the movie, but not directly. With that being said, I imagine the movie's intended effect is to create an anti-Tarantino movie by doing the opposite of what he advized, and that's how I imagine how his name was put on it. Why would the writer/director/producer/star do such a thing? I have no clue, but gee-wiz, did he succeed. It has the violence and profanity, but it lacks suprises and memorable dialoge. In fact, the dialoge is so grathing in this film that it's like someone rubs your brain with sand paper every time someone talks. Also, there is wayyyy too much softcore porn in this movie; probably a third of it is only breasts. If I wanted to look at porn, then I'd look at porn, and I wouldn't spend an hour and a half doing it. Also, most of the actresses in this movie are so bad that they can make Megan Fox look like Uma Thurman by comparison. Now there are a few redeaming factors in this movie. A few of the lines are pretty good and there is a cameo by David Caribbean. Is that enough to save this movie? Yes, it saves it an entire point, which isn't much. I wish I can say more but the film was so unmemorable that I really can't, and I just finished watching it. The moral of the story is to do your research, because if you don't then YOU END UP WATCHING CRAP LIKE THIS!!

Woa dood, the critics got this one all... RIGHT!! It wasn't a bad movie, but I wouldn't really say that it's a good one. I can appreciate a good campy film, Drunken Master is one of my all time favorites, but this one really didn't have any attitude; you know, something that really ties you into the movie. It felt very predictable with the pattern always being death and wise-crack, it has plenty of conflict (duh) but it doesn't have much tension. Further more, arguing that an action movie is perfect because it has satisfying action is sort of seeing the genre in black and white. I saw a Steven Seagal movie the other day which I would call "satisfying", but does that put it on the same level as Die Hard? Not really. Lastly, it lacked creativity. Sure everyone had their own gimmicks (which they all show off within the first couple minutes), but I don't think they're being used to the fullest extent. Bottom line: aside from the all-star cast this movie does very little to set itself appart from other movies, and unless you're like me and HAVE to see it for that one reason, I'd sudgest skipping it. Just about everyone who starred in this movie has done better: Stallone was in Rambo 2, Li was in Fearless, Crews was in an Old Spice commercial, you get the idea. I've heard that a sequel is all ready in the works, and, needless to say, Stallone is no amature. I'm sure he can make up for this missed opportunity in the next one.

This movie... doesn't exist. It is probably the least creative movie I've ever seen. It's really mentally grathing and slow, and it may not be the worst movie I've ever seen, but it's pretty close. I know it's not about shock and more about gross out scares, but you can't really be grossed out too much if you're not immersed in the movie (maybe the infamouse "eyegasm", but nothing else), and this movie does nothing interesting to help itself. What little story there is the most cliched I've ever heard. I'd like to dig more deeply into it, but there is nothing there to dig into. All you have to know is that people get tortured while the audience wonders what's so great about it. This may not be a part **** I like, but a truely good movie could **** you in regardless of the genre. Not to get off track or anything, but a good example is, Pulp Fiction. It is listed under "crime", "drama", "suspence", and "comedy" all at once, but you don't think "hey, I'm watching a crime/drama/suspence/comedy", you just think "hey, I'm watching a movie". Hostel is so cliched that it seems like a genre template and nothing else. I read the user reviews of people who liked it in case I missed something, but the argument of "saterizing the audiences lust for pain" could be said for any movie in the genre. Bottom line: you can't have a gross-out movie without the "movie" part. I was grossed out when i stepped in dog poop, but that doesn't make it the apitamy of cinema.