derektetlow-459-856509 Reviews

Drag Me to Hell (2009)

Would've Been Better if Not for Alison Lohman

[5/10 · 1 January 2024]

Not necessarily a bad story, but nothing really original here. It's a very typical "You've Wronged Me, So I'll Put a Curse on You" movie.

There are some genuinely scary elements to this film. The scares were timed pretty well and actually made me jump more than a few times. The demonic presence (as well as the demon itself) gave a good level of ominous and creepy tension throughout the movie.

My biggest problem was the main lead actor in Drag Me to Hell. Simply put, Alison Lohman cannot act worth a damn! She was genuinely awful in this movie. It would've been one thing if she was just in a supporting actor role, but putting her in the lead was a gigantic mistake.

I can't remember the preceding scene in the movie that was making her character so distraught, but Lohman was eating ice cream while trying to act so upset and seemed to be putting more emphasis on enjoying her comfort food than being sad. I thought to myself, "Huh???" Her tears also came off as incredibly fake. Good actors will make you feel as if you went through the experience with them and have emotional depth in the character they're portraying. Bad actors will make you cringe because they are so awful at trying to act.

The other nail in her acting coffin was when her character claimed to be such an animal lover, but then kills her cat with almost no hesitation and carries on like it was really no big deal after the fact. Again, I thought to myself, "Huh???? This is supposed to be your prized pet who you emotionally connect with and you don't give it a second thought on killing them?? WTF!!"

It wasn't long into the movie that I realized that one of the only reasons they chose Alison Lohman to be the lead was because she's just eye candy for male viewers. I will also say that it wasn't like the rest of the actors gave all-star performances either. They were passable and okay at best.

And the plot was really ridiculous in this movie. The characters made some unbelievably dumb decisions that no normal person would. It's one thing to make wrong decisions because you had to make them in a split second while under stress. It's entirely another to make stupid decisions when you have plenty of time to think about your next course of action.

This movie could've been so much better, but fell really flat because of poor casting decisions and an incoherent plot. If you want a good horror movie, I would look elsewhere.

Sound of Freedom (2023)

A Very Sickening, Sad, Important, and Moving Film

[9/10 · 30 December 2023]

Much like Schindler's List, I am very glad that I saw this excellent movie, but I probably will not watch it again because it is just too gut-wrenching and sickening in its subject matter. Although not graphic at all visually, the foreboding and extremely tense theme of the tragedy of child sex trafficking is present from beginning to end.

All the actors deliver great and very believable performances. Jim Caviezel was at his usual best with his superb portrayal of Tim Ballard.

I was also blown away by the actor who played Vampiro; he comes off as very weird and not likable when we are first introduced to him, but it doesn't take long for that impression to completely change. We see a man who has a big heart, yet is desperate to gain (at least a modicum of) redemption for his past sins. The director of this film did an excellent job in developing Vampiro's character in a very short period of screen time.

This is absolutely not a pick me up kind of experience or, I'm sorry to say, a feel good movie. Even the most macho person will find it difficult not to cry during this film (I did). Although that is not to say that seeing this movie is not important, because it is! My eyes are now wide-open as to the darkness that lurks in the hearts of men who are consumers of the very sick and disgusting child sex trafficking industry.

May God continue to bless brave and determined men like Tim Ballard!

Killshot (2008)

Started out strong, then went downhill...

[4/10 · 3 March 2023]

Nothing really wrong with the story, it's pretty standard fare and nothing particularly new, but the plot went from plausibility to absolute absurdity about 30 minutes in. It's really a shame because the movie had a very seasoned and competent cast, but their talent is totally wasted here.

I couldn't understand for the life of me why Rosario Dawson was even in this movie. She had absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the story or the plot. In a matter of a few scenes, she goes from being so pathetically attracted to her psychotic and violent boyfriend to being almost disgusted and somewhat afraid of him. Then (again in a matter of a few scenes) she is incredibly intimidated and scared by Mickey Rourke's character, then turns around and willingly sleeps with him. Ridiculous, inconsistent, and gratuitous doesn't even begin to describe her character.

There were a whole host of problems with Mickey Rourke's character. I simply couldn't buy him playing a Native Canadian and he was made out to be this very intelligent, yet cold and calculating killer, but he made some of the the stupidest decisions that were completely antithetical to his character in the movie. Why in the world would you stay involved with a psychotic, train wreck of a human being like Richie (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) even after the jackass tried to rob you at gunpoint?? Yeah!! This is somebody that would be really good to go into business with! This aspect of Rourke's character in the movie made absolutely no sense. He's hiding from his mob boss that wants to kill him, yeah gets involved in this moronic extortion scheme? Huh?? Also, he had multiple opportunities to kill Diane Lane, but for some strange reason, he didn't. Again, he's supposed to be this extremely talented, smart, and non-impulsive assassin? He certainly didn't act like it.

Don't be fooled by the all star cast in this movie. They aren't enough to save the confused and horribly inconsistent plot. Giving it a four out of 10 rating is generous...

The 'Burbs (1989)

I don't get why people like this movie so much!

[4/10 · 9 January 2023]

Unless I'm really missing something, this movie was really boring, unfunny (I laughed maybe twice), and it was just...bizarre. I'm not sure what genre this movie is supposed to fall into. They say it's a black comedy, but it struck me as neither black nor a comedy.

The acting was okay and surprisingly, I didn't think Corey Feldman was all that bad (so many of his other movies are really over the top performances, like in The Lost Boys). Tom Hanks was adequate, I suppose, but what this movie really suffered from was a ridiculous and implausible plot, a very weak script, and a complete comedic misfire. I know he was still launching his career, but I'm very surprised that Hanks signed on to this mess of a movie.

Some people have called this a cult classic, but I'm sorry, I just don't understand that label at all.

Wrongfully Accused (1998)

Tries Too Hard to be Funny

[4/10 · 19 November 2022]

Wrongfully Accused started out funny, but then about 30 minutes in, it was just a boring and confusing exercise and was trying too hard to be as successful and as hilarious as the Naked Gun and Airplane! Movies or the great film Top Secret!

As the great and legendary horror director John Carpenter once said, "Comedies are so hard to make". He said that because timing is really important with comedy and the jokes/gags have to be spaced properly as well as make some degree of sense. Wrongfully Accused falls woefully short of those standards. The jokes in this movie were either unfunny, badly timed, or served only to confuse the audience.

I really wanted to like Wrongfully Accused because I think Leslie Nielsen was one of the most talented spoof/comedic actors that we have ever seen, but this movie is really a dud in this genre of films.

Eraser (1996)

Not bad, but not really good either...

[6/10 · 22 July 2022]

I had seen this movie years ago and had forgotten about it, but decided to give it another look.

First off, there is nothing particularly innovative or original here in the plot, storyline, or characters. It's pretty standard Hollywood-style espionage thriller fare that could be very formulaic at times and implausible, but then again, so is most of the junk that Tinsel Town churns out these days.

Arnold plays his usual clichéd role as the Knight in Shining Armor and he puts on an adequate performance. Nothing particularly noteworthy here. He was just Arnold being Arnold.

I really enjoyed Robert Pastorelli as Johnny C. Who provided some much needed comic relief and delivered it at the right times, but wasn't at all cheesy or over the top. Dare I say, he saved what could've been a bad movie and turned it into a somewhat respectable cinematic experience.

Vanessa Williams took the film in the opposite direction, however, and really dragged it down with her cardboard expressions and her over-acting. Even if she's stunning, she's a very poor actor and seems to be in this movie merely to provide male viewers with eye candy in order to distract them from any plot holes that pop up from time to time. There's a reason why most models (on average) don't make very good actors. Vanessa Williams is just another example of that.

This is a good popcorn movie, but nothing special.

The Foreigner (I) (2017)

Jackie Chan at his best!

[8/10 · 6 February 2022]

This film is somewhat of a departure for Jackie Chan in terms of his previous work, but he absolutely nails this role! Chan is a very sympathetic figure, is extremely believable, and the rest of the supporting cast is excellent. Normally I am not a Pierce Brosnan fan, but he does very good work in this political thriller.

Chan plays a grieving father on the very determined hunt for the IRA terrorists who are responsible for a bombing that killed his only daughter in London. On his crusade, he finds himself intertwined in the complex political world of the Northern Ireland Peace Accords and British politics.

The suspense in this film is presented very well and the viewer is never afforded the luxury of knowing the major players loyalties. Nothing is what it seems.

This is a very entertaining and gripping movie that will keep you glued to the screen for the entire one hour and 53 minutes. Highly recommend this film!

Without Remorse (II) (2021)

Without a Plausible Plot

[4/10 · 2 January 2022]

I was really looking forward to this watching this film because it was heavily promoted and hyped, but by the time the ending credits rolled, I wanted the last hour and 49 minutes back of my life.

Without Remorse's biggest problem was the poor casting, the ridiculous and implausible plot, and the weak and inconsistent acting.

The poor casting and weak performances lies primarily with Jodie Turner-Smith. Her role was very unconvincing because it's obvious she can't act and was simply miscast (that fault lies with the casting director). Placing her in a role as a Navy SEAL was like casting Rosie O'Donnell as an elite, sexy female assassin. Granted, I haven't seen Turner-Smith in anything else, but in this movie she seemed completely out of place, awkward, and horribly wooden. Starting with the first scene she was in, I found myself dreading her next appearance because she was just so bad. It doesn't say much for a movie when a supporting actor is dragging it all down the way she did in this film. Honestly, she wrecked almost all enjoyment I may have gotten from Without Remorse.

Michael B. Jordan's performance, on balance, was adequate. He had flashes of real competence and believability as John Kelly, but he had moments that lacked the appropriate emotion that was called for in a particular scene and he would cross the line of overacting too frequently for my liking. I would like to see him in another film, but in Without Remorse, I wasn't all that impressed.

Which brings us to the plot, which was, plainly stated, stupid and implausible. I know Navy SEALs are portrayed as total bad asses in Hollywood films, but Without Remorse's depiction of John Kelly almost seemed better suited to be in a Marvel superhero movie than a Tom Clancy adaptation. Being really tough is one thing, but being completely indestructible is another. There were also just too many holes in this plot to give it any real level of believability or appeal for the characters.

Had high hopes for Without Remorse, but was ultimately a big let down.

Count Me In (2021)

One Drumming Great Missing!!

[6/10 · 6 September 2021]

Interesting documentary and they cover many of the greats, but I am hard-pressed to take this documentary seriously when they leave out Neil Peart of Rush. It would be like doing a documentary about guitar greats and leaving out Eddie Van Halen or Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Neil Peart was both stylistically and technically a genius, not to mention he was an amazing lyricist! He took drumming and percussion to a whole new level.

This is by no means meant to take anything away from Keith Moon , John Bonham, Charlie Watts, or Ginger Baker. All were amazing and had exceptional musical talent. But I find it hard to believe that it was accidental in leaving Peart out of a documentary about the greatest drummers of all time. Anyone who plays the drums knows who Neil Peart is.

For this sin of omission, I only give this documentary a 6 out of 10.

Assault on Wall Street (2013)

Great Acting, But Message is Deeply Flawed

[4/10 · 29 December 2020]

First off, the actors put in some good performances in this film (I didn't even recognize Edward Furlong at first!) and it appears to be a well-written script because the dialogue was intelligent yet wasn't gratuitous or overly long. Dominic Purcell surprised me with his acting ability and depth of his character. Was it worthy of an Oscar nod? No. But still solid and unexpected.

The problem I have with this movie was its central message and theme which was so obvious, in-your-face, and deeply flawed; Capitalism and everything about it is evil to the core. The rich get rich, the poor get poorer, and the little guy always gets screwed in the end.

The economic and social ignorance of Assault on Wall Street is absolutely infuriating. Anyone who has any knowledge of how our economy works understands that many times the financial crises that occur throughout our history are not because of capitalism; they are a consequence of government intervention in our economy. And people get rich in the capitalistic system, not by screwing the poor, but by selling goods and services to the public which is willing to purchase them.

Contrary to what the public may have read on the internet, the financial meltdown of 2008 (which this film was based on) was a classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The US government (in all its infinite wisdom) passed a law in 1977 called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which forced lending institutions to loan to parties that they wouldn't have (under normal conditions) because those parties were extremely high credit risks (the CRA wasn't the ONLY element of the 2008 crisis, but was definitely a contributing factor). Financial institutions are not in the business to lose money, so to comply with the CRA they engaged in risky investments by spreading the risk around in Mortgage Backed Securities (among other things). The unintended consequences were widespread foreclosures and financial ruin for much of our economy. There were definitely bad actors who were taking advantage of the situation that lead up to the 2008 crisis, but many of those people who tried to cash-in got destroyed as well.

Jim Baxford (Dominic Purcell) is in the middle of the perfect storm in this film and it would be expected for any normal human being to crack under the immense pressure, at least in some self-destructive manner. But Baxford very quickly goes into victimhood status and exacts pure revenge on his perceived enemies. I'm sorry, but this very mentality is one of the things that is ripping our society to shreds nowadays.

This is just the story of one man and his response to his life completely coming apart. But what this film completely ignores is the main character taking any kind responsibility for his poor judgements that lead to his meltdown. It also sends the audience the message that if something bad ever happens to you in life, blame someone else for your poor decisions and you can exact bloody revenge with absolute impunity.

Were some of the events that affected Baxford completely out of his control and not his fault? Absolutely! But Uwe Boll really insults our intelligence by trying to pass off this movie as anything other than the bile that it mutates into.

This film starts out as a good drama, but devolves into a bad horror movie that is morally bankrupt and extremely implausible.

For the acting, I give it 8/10. For the message, I give it 2/10. Split the difference and you get 4/10.

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

Second Jack Reacher Film Fails to Deliver

[4/10 · 1 December 2017]

I loved the first Jack Reacher movie!! I thought it was well paced, intriguing, had intelligent dialogue, characters that had some emotional depth, great action, and the story was well executed and very interesting.

Never Go Back tried to repeat the success of Jack Reacher, but failed for several reasons:

1) In the first Jack Reacher film, Tom Cruise absolutely hit the exact tone that was needed to make the movie work. His character was intense when he needed to be, but was able to downshift into a desire to still see the case through yet not get too emotionally involved. But in Never Go Back, he cranked his character's sensitivity to such a low level that he almost appeared like he was completely dead inside. This pushed many of the scenes into coming of as incredibly unrealistic and fake. Cruise's character would have done much better increasing his character's emotion level up a little from the first film rather than down. Cruise went the wrong way in Never Go Back.

2) Cobie Smulders is nice to look at, but she really can't act. The delivery of her dialogue seemed (most of the time) so over the top, labored, and forced. There were scenes where it seemed like she was just reading from a cue card. She was also miscast in Never Go Back. What was needed in this character was someone who was attractive and sexy, yet exhibited toughness at the same time. Smulders fit the mold for the former (almost too much), but not the latter. Again, a lot of her failure in this area was in her acting ability (or lack thereof). Someone like a Sandra Bullock, Gina Carano (her acting ability may be questionable, but she still an improvement over Smulders), or Demi Moore (10 years younger) would have been better casting choices for the part of Turner. I just couldn't buy Smulders being the head of a military police unit in the film – it seemed very implausible and unbelievable and, therefore, it kinda wrecked a lot of the movie for me.

3) Some of the dialogue in this film was just downright corny and stupid. There were some scenes where it was so blatantly obvious that they were trying to capitalize on some of the great lines from the first Jack Reacher film. Although the dialogue was different in Never Go Back, the manner and circumstances where the aforementioned lines were delivered was so clearly recycled. As a result, it gave the movie too much predictability and made it somewhat boring. A good action-thriller gives you plot twists and doesn't telegraph where it's going, but in too many instances in Never Go Back, you knew exactly what was going to happen purely from the dialogue. In her defense, it wasn't all Smulders' lack of acting ability or her fault where her character failed –the sheer stupidity of some of the lines she had to utter did contribute as well.

4) Never Go Back had some scenes that struck me as very implausible – like the characters being able to move from point A to point B in a matter of seconds (when in reality it would take several minutes) and human beings taking such a level of physical abuse that afterwards their faces would look like uncooked hamburger or their bones would be completely shattered, yet they had the stereotypical Hollywood small trickle of blood from the side of their nose or mouth. Oh please!!

I would give the first Jack Reacher film an 8 or 9, but Never Go Back fell miserably flat and was only a 4. It just failed badly to live up to the expectations I had going in, almost to the point of not really looking forward to the next Jack Reacher film…if there is one.

The Midnight Meat Train (2008)

Disgusting Slasher Flick Masquerading As Horror

[2/10 · 20 November 2017]

I actually looked this movie up on the IMDb site and it got an average of 6.1 user rating (I almost never watch anything below a 6.0), so I thought I would give it a shot. Uh, where to start with this disgusting heap of trash??

First off, the film title is just dumb; The Midnight Meat Train? Really?? This is up there with such unbelievably moronic movie titles like Dude, Where's My Car? and Snakes on a Plane. Even something like Slaughterhouse Train would have been a better title.

Secondly, this film was so gruesome and bloody, I found myself turning away at several points. I have seen plenty of slasher flicks before, but this movie literally made me physically ill to watch some of the scenes because of the fact that they were so gratuitous and because of the voluminous level of blood spilt throughout. I read another reviewers post on horror vs. slasher films and I agree 100% when they said, and I am paraphrasing here, "Horror is supposed to scare and frighten you, not gross you out". This movie is NOT a horror film – it's a SLASHER film!!

Thirdly, I was hoping that Bradley Cooper being in it would've given the movie a little boost, but even he couldn't save this weak story along with a bad supporting cast (Leslie Bibb was so corny and cardboardish as Cooper's girlfriend). You can have the most talented cast, but that means nothing when the script is poor and the story is just too inconsistent to hold together.

Fourth, this film is just littered with totally pointless scenes like Cooper banging Bibb doggie style in a random place and Vinnie Jones cutting of warts from his chest and placing them in a jar of blue liquid (this weird scene was never explained or returned to later on), just to name a few. So many scenes like the aforementioned ones add nothing to the movie and must have just been added to increase its length…or the director said, "Let's add a sex scene here to mix things up a little"…or something.

Fifth, the CGI used in some of the scenes was so fake looking that I was almost laughing at how bad it was. I mean, a pool of blood isn't magenta colored and reflect as perfectly as a mirror. I understood the effect they were attempting to achieve in that particular scene, but come on!! And the eyeballs flying out of the guy's head at the beginning of the movie was CGI a third grader could've created on his computer.

Finally, the whole film is just so implausible from beginning to end. Are we really supposed to believe that hundreds (if not thousands) of people are going missing on this particular train and no one is any the wiser? Except for Leslie Bibb's character? And instead of going to the police, she goes to the killers' apartment with her one friend in tow? And then Bibb goes for help to the one cop (in a huge city) who is in cahoots with the killer(s)? OH, PLEASE!! How dumb do they think we are??

If you like lots of blood and a story that makes very little sense, then this film is for you!! If not, then don't waste the 100 minutes it will take to watch this garbage

The Big Short (2015)

Entertaining, but tells only part of the truth

[5/10 · 10 July 2016]

The Big Short is a very entertaining and enjoyable film to watch. The acting is top notch, it's got some great humor, it's fair share of dramatic sequences, and the characters describing complex financial instruments was both funny and a very creative way to get the point across. For sheer entertainment value I would give it a 9.

However, I'm afraid this film is blatantly guilty of the crime of omission. The obvious tone that was set throughout the picture was that the only reason for the financial meltdown of 2007 was due solely to greed, corporate malfeasance, and outright corruption when it came to the housing market. No doubt all those were indeed factors in the financial crisis, but there were a whole host of other contributors that the film conveniently leaves out.

One of the first things I noticed that was left out of this film was the fact that the US government played a very large role in the 2007 financial meltdown - this was never mentioned anywhere in the movie. There were a few mild references to the SEC (our supposed government financial watchdog) in the film, but you really had to be paying attention to catch it and they were very insignificant. If you didn't know any better, if you'd never done any objective reading on the 2007 financial crisis, and you took this movie purely at face value, you would've thought the huge 2007 mess was all caused by greedy right- wing corporations out to make a buck any way they could. This angle is only partially true.

There were some bad actors in the corporate and financial arena when it came to the housing market, yes, but The Big Short makes it seem like every financial corporation and financial corporate employee was out to screw your average American who just wanted to own a home - it's just simply not true!

Not to give a massive financial history lesson here, but the government contributed in the following ways to the 2007 crash: 1) cheap money, 2) very low interest rates for too long, 3) the Community Reinvestment Act (forced banks to lower their lending standards, especially to minorities and poor Americans), 4) promoting quasi-government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (they loaded up on sub-prime mortgages), 5) very bad fiscal policy, and 6) loosening of the lending standards for mortgages. Each one of these aforementioned factors is complicated and not easy to explain, yet The Big Short never mentions ANY of these ANYWHERE in the film.

Another thing that was bothersome is that this film attempts to portray the borrowers of these sub-prime loans as just poor suckers who got taken advantage of at the hands of everyone from the banks all the way down to the greedy real estate agents. There is one scene where an exotic dancer admits she owns five houses and a condo all financed with sub-prime mortgages. I'm sorry, but to make it look like these people had guns held to their heads to take out these loans and that they weren't taking advantage of the real estate boom themselves is disingenuous at best.

If you want to watch a good movie for two hours of entertainment, then I think you will enjoy The Big Short. But if you're looking for a docu-drama style film that explores all angles of what happened back in 2007, then this movie falls miserably short.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Interesting, Yet Brutal Period Piece

[5/10 · 6 April 2014]

After many years of avoiding this film for the reason of knowing that Christ died for the sins of man, but not wanting to see him suffer up close, I decided to finally watch The Passion on Netflix.

While I understand where the people who both loved it (10) and hated it (1) are coming from, I decided to split the difference and give it a 5 for the following reasons:

Pros: 1) that the film was in Latin and Aramaic made for an authentic linguistic experience of Roman occupied Palestine. Unlike other American films where foreigners choose to speak to each other, not in their native tongue, but in English, this film did it right. 2) The set made for an accurate portrayal of what Jerusalem was like almost 2000 years ago. 3) The acting was superb and I didn't feel like any one actor didn't fit the part or give a good performance. Granted when the acting is done in a language that few people speak or understand anymore, it's hard to tell if an acting job is over the top or bad, but I still thought it was very good. 4) The special effects were very realistic and never did I feel like that aspect looked faked or poorly done. 5) Satan was given a very well placed role in the film and he showed up just at the right times and with the correct frequency. 6) The cinematography was excellent and really enjoyed some of the amazing landscapes, especially the opening scene of Christ in the forest with his disciples - it really set the mood that something awful was looming on the horizon.

Cons: 1) The torture and crucifixion scenes were brutal and, in my opinion, excessive. I understand the need to show the violence that Jesus experienced at the hands of the Romans so viewers could appreciate that he died for the sins of man in an excruciating manner, but it felt it was unnecessary to show every whip, slash, and slice of His flesh. 10 minutes of his torture and execution would have been sufficient enough to convey Jesus' pain and suffering to the audience, but unfortunately it's the majority of content of this film. If you don't care to see graphic violence, then this film is not for you. 2) As I just stated, the brutal violence seemed to really overshadow whatever other message Mel Gibson was trying to convey. There was so much gore, it was hard to see this film as nothing but a cinematic experience of the torture of Christ. Yes, I understood about 20 minutes into the film that Christ went through unspeakable pain and suffering for our sins, but there was a point where I said, "Enough already!! I get it!!". 3) The Jews in this film were shown in a pretty unflattering light. I came away thinking that they were nothing more than sadistic sociopaths whose only mission was to eliminate Christ no matter what the cost. And given Mel Gibson's anti-semitic comments when he was arrested for a DUI in LA, it's not surprising he portrayed the Jewish leaders the way he did in The Passion. 4) The Romans seemed to be a little too joyful when they were torturing Christ. There were a few brief moments of sympathy by some Roman soldiers, but I have a hard time believing that all of them could be that brutal, sadistic, and cold for the entire movie. I very much doubt they would be that one-dimensional for the whole movie. 5) The flashbacks of Christ talking to his disciples were a nice insight into Christ's mind and who he was, but there were far too few of these scenes in the film. Like I said before, this seemed to be a torture film with a few tidbits of Christ's life thrown in here and there. If the torture scene to flashback scene ratio would have been reversed, it would have been much more effective and celebrated his life rather than exploiting and showing an extremely graphic experience of his death.

So, this is why I gave The Passion a 5. I thought it was an okay film, but it could have been much better. I didn't hate it, but I didn't like it either.

As I said before, if you cannot stomach extremely graphic and sadistic violence, then this film is something you should avoid. Also, I don't think you should go into this film thinking that you will get an answer to how Jesus lived, but you will definitely get an answer as to the manner of how he died.

From Within (2008)

Better Than Expected

[7/10 · 3 November 2012]

I was expecting a mediocre film when I starting watching this movie because of the lack of actors I recognized plus watching it on cable (IFC), but I was pleasantly surprised on how creepy and well done it was.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't nearly as good as The Ring, but still made me more than a little freaked out at several points.

You do need to pay close attention to the film to understand it - especially the end. The plot was decent and the story flowed pretty well.

I would recommend this horror flick to scary movie fans. I would say there was a noticeable lack of gore, but not in a bad way. If you are wanting a slasher flick, this is not the movie for you.

Legion (2010)

Legion of Confusion

[2/10 · 25 August 2012]

Legion was an interesting idea for a film and I was really looking forward to seeing it, but the film was poorly executed and had a really bad flow. It could have been so much better given the talent in the film, but that wasn't even close to saving this sorry excuse for a movie.

I saw this film in a sparsely packed theater and I soon found out why there were so few people in attendance - the movie had scenes that just jumped out of nowhere and made little sense in the overall plot, there was little (if any) character or story development, and the concept of the film was (simply put) stupid.

I read an earlier review and agree that the last half of the film seemed very rushed and whoever wrote the screenplay seemed to really lose their way on how it flowed and how it ended.

Special effects were okay, but mostly fell short.

Don't waste your time with this film - it really was disappointing!