vegicat

Yeah it's slow and not a lot happens. But Paul Dano did a good character study. The dialogue (from the child) is spot on. It's a sad movie.

It's hard to get around that. This is the second show this year that downplays the abuse of boys by female teachers, like it's cool or something. it could have been a good show if it didn't glorify that.

And, a strange movie it is. But, really well done. If you liked Eraserhead you will like this movie. The plot is fairly simple -- "Old friend" wasn't really that much of a friend. No, this movie is all about the mood. The melancholy. I would watch it again in a minute just to see the absolutely perfect Mid-Century Modern house and furnishings. Whoever did the set totally nailed it. Top-to-bottom, accurate Mid-Century Modern.

Is it slow? Yes. Does everything make sense? No. But I don't think that was the point of this movie. If you need a tight little average story with an A-Z typical plot, this is not the film for you. If you like a film that conveys ambiance and disturbing, vague suggestions of a back-story, then you'll probably like it.

I really enjoy dork character studies, but this film just left me confused. Lots of scenery, dark, moody lighting, and close-ups, But it all seemed very vague. As if there were no "there" there. There are threads that apparently lead nowhere as if just jumbling together random generic examples of family dysfunction in bite-sized scenes. Mother has a secret stash of money. Son wets the bed once. Daughter buys drugs and has a party. Mother (for some reason everyone thinks is "down-to-Earth") bumps and grinds at a disco. Father brings coffee into the bedroom in the mornings. A door opens all by itself. And, nothing really seems to happen as a complete story --it's just bits and pieces that don't really add up to anything. There's not even an ending, unless you count the other inexplicably digging up the dead horse and then the family having tea. The acting was decent, but without much real story there wasn't much to go on, given that there wasn't much character development beyond the usual cliches.

I think most of the good reviews (10/10? Really?) were from people who felt they should like the film because it was artsy. I tend to like many artsy movies, but this was not one of them.

WTF did I just watch? No plot at all. Not scary in the slightest. Terrible acting. Two women get "lost in the woods" for no reason at all. Then there was a hilarious "monster" doing Edward Scissorhands on some random victim's guts. The "monsters" back in the 1960s B-movies were more realistic. This just looked like a cheap suit and some slime. It literally made me laugh, and not in a good way. Did I mention that along with no plot, no story, no character development, there was also no ending at all? The movie just abruptly ends like they ran out of money. Avoid at all cost.

This movie should get an award for the worst acting ever. I couldn't get past the first five minutes, it's THAT bad.

There is nothing redeemable about this "movie". The plot made no sense and was pointless. Terrible acting. Unsympathetic characters. Annoying, handheld camera. Zero positives. Spoilers below.

If you want to see an unbelievable movie about some woman returning home for her mother's funeral and finding her parents had kidnapped a boy and had been holding him in a cellar for years, good luck. No explanation for how there was a fully grown man chained up in a basement for years without the neighbors, family, or the daughter knowing. Oh, the movie makes clear the man was originally kidnapped by the mom so the dad could have a boy to molest.

So, instead of rescuing the man, calling the authorities, etc., the daughter beats the man and doesn't bring him food. Then she decides to keep him there for herself to exploit. A truly sickening movie from top to bottom. The kicker was at the end when they rolled stats about how many children are abducted and go missing every year as if this garbage was a true story instead of salacious cr@p. Everyone involved with this sick excuse for a movie should be ashamed.

I mean, they had nothing in the script to work with, but I felt like I was watching a jr. High or High school stage production. The script certainly didn't help. The dialogue was so cliche... crude jocks and uber-perky teen girls with fake, sugary voices that make you want to slap their faces off. Giggle, giggle, snicker! I do not know anyone I went to school with who acted like ANY of these "characters". None of them are likeable.

Have I mentioned there is no plot, the characters are one-dimensional, and the audio soundtrack is like fingers on chalk? The violence is not even on par with first-year film students. It is hard to believe a young teen didn't write, produce it, film it, and then cast all their talent-less friends in it.

I mean, this film is one of the worst I have ever seen. I probably refuse to finish a movie only about one time out of 150 movies, and this was one of them. There was nothing redeemable about it and I didn't feel like punishing myself. The only way this movie could have the rating it does hare is if the filmmakers asked all their high-school friends, family, and cast and crew to give it a "10". I hate it when people do that.

Edit: Yeah, I went back and looked at all the positive reviews and they were all by people whose first and only review was this movie. On the other hand, the bad reviews were from people who've reviewed hundreds to thousands of movies. Fake scores and reviews should be deleted.

No story. No plot. How many words do I have to post to say this movie is a piece of crap? Massive wank-off.

No story, no plot. Did I mention there is no story? Also, nothing that happens in the movie is believable. Unless a dude single-handedly fighting an entire zombie army on his lonesome with essentially his bare hands, while making stupid decisions and not being logical is something you'd consider to be a story.

Somehow dude doesn't ever get bitten, despite the fact that these acrobatic zombies can jump, climb ladders, and magically get on top of things. -- like speeding cars. Except when they can't. They are very quick on their feet, as they can almost out-run a truck, and while they feel the need to try to rip said dude apart, they don't want to eat him. Whut?

The daughter fared better. She was able to out-run the zombie horde a couple of times, even without food or water. And though she had no real wilderness experience, she managed to find her way clear to the top of a mountain where she lit a fire for a smoke signal. Because, even though they weren't expecting the zombie apocalypse and she'd just left the camper presumably to use the toilet, she happened to have matches on her while she was sleeping. Presumably in the coat she lost along the way. Can you say plot holes?

Here's another plot hole -- when dude tries to call his daughter on her cell phone, it rings in the camper. So he has two working cell phones, and obviously is getting a signal or the daughter's phone wouldn't have rung... but at no point does he try to use one to call his wife or 911, or anyone at all for help. Instead, he fiddles pointlessly with a HAM radio.

The film doesn't bother explaining where the zombies came from, what happened to the wife, or how they're going to get down the mountain to safety (is it even safe back in civilization?) without a vehicle, food, water, or a story line.

Save yourself the aggravation and watch something else.

Either that, or I just don't filter every single movie or event through a bitter anti-@metoo lens. Crikey. The movie is about a child alleging abuse from another child. And, no, it wasn't a "he-said/she said" as it involved children and one of the alleged victims was also a boy. So, no, the movie is not about "believing women who make unfounded claims against men at all costs" like someone bizarrely claimed.

Another review mentions "children's precocious sex", while another tosses around "playing doctor". The allegation in the movie wasn't just sexual. The child also alleged being choked. How can that be innocent "playing doctor"? Also, how can the age difference of 9 and 4 in any way be "innocent"?

I saw some complaints about how the children aren't shown, the alleged abuse is not shown, etc. That is the whole point! The movie is not in any way whatsoever focused on the children. Everything about it is the parents and what they will do to protect their children. And protect themselves legally and socially. How down in the dirt they are willing to go. It really is about the adult's very un-adult behaviour trying to resolve an issue they're all invested in, in more ways than one.

So, no clue what movie the other reviewers watched because it didn't seem anything like what they described. It is a very good movie. Not graphic, no sex (even the supposed sex scenes didn't have nudity, really). It reminded me a lot of another awesome Australian film called The Slap (not the American re-make, watch the original Australian version first),

It's a great movie if you like watching adults behaving badly, as they often do in real life.

Action fans are not going to like this. It's all about the disappointment you'd have if everyone else was dead. But you don't change your relationship habits. The story is surreal, but it's an allegory.If somebody keeps telling you what you want to hear,you'll probably think it's the truth.

Not even any attempt at a plot. Boring. Terrible, jerky camera angles. Bizarre sound track. Did I mention that there;s no plot? It looks exactly like some weak, self-indulgent first-time producer was taking the piss. I recommend avoiding this movie unless you enjoy being alternately bored to death or annoyed.

No story. Just babbling. I like dark movies. I don't like crap.

Must be video game fans. It's mostly non-stop violence, and there are only two women in the whole cast -- both, non-pivotal weak characters. There's really no plot. At least Breaking Bad had a plot!

The camera person must have been hitting the crack pipe. No idea why they tried so hard to make weird camera angles work. Um, sorry, they don't work.

It started out with an interesting premise -- being able to spend your time in solitude with the person you love. It quickly fell apart. First of all, it was annoying AF to keep having all the flashblacks/scenes beating you over the head with just how cutesy and perfect this couple are for each other. The movie was probably stuffed with 50% filler of just the two of them laughing, laughing, laughing. Nobody laughs that much. Oh, and rolling around on the bed, again, laughing, playing rock/paper/scissors, and games. Which was weird, because this couple had zero sexual chemistry. Glad we were saved from any awkward sex scenes, since they acted more like brother/sister.

I could overlook a lot of that, but the story just went nowhere interesting. If they'd cut out half the cutesy crap and added in some scenes showing them breaking into their neighbor's house for supplies, or how they got food etc., for months, that would have at least added some interest.

It didn't help that there were huge plot holes that nobody even tried to address. Why were they so incurious? Didn't even bother turning on the TV, computer, or radio for news? But, didn't have newspaper delivery one day and that was all the proof they needed that all human life had disappeared?

It didn't even work as a comedy. I don't find it hilarious to watch tedious scenes showing how cute a couple is together and how much they laugh. Nothing funny happened. Nothing scary happened. It should have been a short film, because it ended up being a movie full of filler.

How can they claim there's an episode 7 when it's just a recap of the six episodes before, with nothing new added? I liked the show until it got to that incomprehensible "7th" episode. It actually made me angry. I reduced my score gy four stars just for pulling that ****.

Possibly some of the worst acting/dialogue I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing. And, characters you don't care about, with the bonus of a weak, cliche, pointless plot. About halfway through the movie I was so bored and annoyed that I put it on background while I worked, so at least I could make productive use of my time. Just listening to the audio without seeing the actual movie, I was struck over and over by how the voices just didn't sound believable. Completely fake dialogue. No way you could believe they were real people talking to each other. Absolutely ridiculous. And, wow, bad accents, to boot.

The only reason I can see why anyone would have given this movie a positive rating is that they don't know what real acting is, or they have a massive hard-on for Liam Hemsworth. Sorry, eye candy doesn't excuse a worthless, garbage movie.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Acting and filming was okay. But there was absolutely NO PLOT! Nothing made sense at all. Random stuff. Dude cheats on girlfriend. Girlfriend not happy. Some underage teen leaves a phone in a bar. Cockroaches! Hate cockroaches? There's cockroaches for no reason!

People follow in a car. People send text messages. No reason why. Oh, and magic! And a tunnel!

Avoid this movie like the useless plague that it is.

My guess is that the people who rated this low didn't bother to even watch the whole movie. They probably only watched 5 minutes. The acting is great, the filming was on point, and the plot was interesting. Glad I didn't see the rating until after I watched it.

Not a bad movie. Just kind of weird, and it doesn't really go anywhere. It's like another "take" on Norman Bates, but if you've seen the Bates Motel series, his personality was explored 1000% more. It seems to be a teen-aged rom-com remake of the original Psycho but without the tension or violence. Since it adds nothing new, I'm not sure I understand why it was made to begin with. The actor playing Norman had an interesting take on his mannerisms, playing him almost like he has Asperger Syndrome, and looked oddly similar to a young Anthony Perkins. The actress was rather bland. If you're a fan of anything Bates-related you might like it, but it doesn't hold up to Hitchcock's masterpiece or the Bates Motel series.

No idea why some reviewer was bitching about "a pile of trash filmed entirely in a crappy Brit apartment. Boo. Cmon Britain!! Really??" They don't even know that it's a Swedish movie written and directed by Antonio Steve Tublén who is a Swedish director, screenwriter and composer? Produced in Denmark and Sweden, NOT BRITAIN? If you have to slag on Brits for a Swedish film, you shouldn't be writing reviews.

That said, they obviously couldn't handle a zombie movie that wasn't a clone of The Walking dead with tons of zombies being decapitated in gory ways every five seconds.

This isn't some cheap-assed, basic, zombie slasher apocalypse action movie. If all you're looking for is gore, or a movie that follows the same-old same old, this is not the movie for you. This isn't a movie for people who personally dream of someday magically riding imaginary "apocalypse" horses when they never even saw a real horse before, imagining they're some bad-ass who would be fighting the "bad guys" instead of actually hiding in their basement, impaling the undead, wearing Mad Max clothes, and who want their movies to end in a juvenile, adolescent, non-realistic blaze of glory.

This is a movie for people a little bit more down to Earth who know that in REAL life, most people would be no match for zombies. It's a movie for people who don't have a heart attack if someone actually is depicted as having a real relationship for more than two seconds in a horror movie instead of just having gratuitous snippets of sex for teen eye candy in-between gloriously slaughtering a gazillion zombies with a convenient set of airplane propellers or somesuch. Like I said, this is a movies for grown-ups, with a nice bit of humor added.

If you didn't like this movie (or didn't watch it because in the first 3 seconds there was no tough warrior-dude whacking zombies) please do everyone a favor and do not watch Better Off Zed, or Right At Your Door, and then rate them poorly too. You're not adult enough to appreciate them.

That's pretty much it. 11:14? Dude rocks. Ellen Barkin? Yep.

Don't get me wrong -- Lin Shaye can act, and she does a great job being creepy in this movie. Problem is, the other male and female actors can't act at all. It's like she's in a real movie, and they are doing a student film as their first acting job. They seriously cannot act. Wooden, like they barely just memorized their lines.

It doesn't help that the relationship between those two is just about as fake, stereotypical, and unbelievable as you can get. I mean, they barely meet one day, and the next night they're sleeping together in his landlord's house? And, they have zero chemistry, so that makes it even more annoying and eye-rolling.

The movie starts off on the wrong foot to begin with. Who would somehow forge a bond with the owner of a BNB within 24 hours, and based on the owner not liking their boyfriend, break up with them? And, then start a penpal friendship up even though you barely knew the person for a day?

Seriously, the movie should have been a one-woman show, because Lin shines, but the story/acting regarding the other characters is terrible.