scarlettsdad

Like lots of people, I have a morbid fascination with murder documentaries. Desperate for ANYTHING interesting to watch on Amazon Prime, I saw this and said cool. The series has the usual lineup of serial killers and really doesn't offer much extra, although there were some pictures I hadn't seen before and I'll give extra credit for that...although many of them were marked "re-enactment." They looked authentic, but huh?

But I'm afraid I have to agree with most of the reviewers on here, that the main problem is the quiet monotonous delivery of the narrator. Honestly, I fell asleep THREE TIMES in my recliner during the Ed Gein episode and it took forever to finally watch the whole thing. The music was so low I really couldn't hear it, so perhaps it might have helped. As it was, it just served as a relaxing lullaby to go with the calm bedtime stories.

You know, there are times when foreign films might actually be better than the form in which we Americans see them. Take for instance, "La Cage aux Folles." Seen with the original French actor's performances and subtitles it's hysterical. Seen with English dubbing it's truly awful, unfunny and loses all its charm. I have to wonder if "Rabid Grannies" from Belgium might have fallen to a similar fate.

Because honestly, the SFX for the era it was made in aren't all that terrible. It's still a dumb movie and not to be taken as a serious piece of art, but maybe in French the performances were slightly better. Maybe it the script wasn't so meandering and the direction so unimaginative. Who knows? Maybe in French-speaking countries this was as awe inspiring as a Jerry Lewis film festival. But I can only go by the version available on Shudder-which is a mixed bag of nuts no matter what you pick. And that version was really terrible, seemed to take forever to get to anything remotely interesting and once it did was an absolute struggle to make it all the way to the end to properly judge it. I only give it an extra point for reasonable 80s European horror effects.

Although I am curious to see the original, subtitled version.

When I watched this movie, it had a 5.1 rating on here. I agree with several other reviewers that the high ratings came from friends, family and crew, because it's awful. Not the worst I've ever seen, but an absolute chore to make it all the way through so I could fairly rate it and contribute to bringing it down to a more realistic score.

Firstly, I should have run when the description started off with, "Social media stars...," because that warns us of a cast of unlikable, spoiled twenty-somethings. I can think of only two positive things to say about this film. 1) It's not very long. 2) The music, while not great, does rise to occasion more often than not.

The bad? Well there's a lot of bad, but let me narrow it down. The worst offender is the really terrible acting. Even Eric Roberts-who seems to be doing anything for a buck lately, which is a shame-is offensively awful. The pacing is ridiculous, there are plot holes galore, and as in all shows about paranormal researchers, once they actually FIND something, they don't know what to do about it. Instead, the movie makes a sharp U-turn into arguing and drama. Badly acted drama. And what makes a person who has just broken free from the spawn of Hell to run to the front door the house in the middle of nowhere, yell for help, then basically shrug and go back inside? And then top it off with a stale thud at the end.

This is a dumb movie. Maybe with better acting it could've pulled out an actual 5, but how anyone can honestly rate this higher, well, I guess to each their own.

Oh my. This snoozer not only puts you to sleep, it also serves you cookies and a glass of warm milk. It was rated 5.1 at the time I saw it, which had given me hope that this would at least be acceptable, but alas, Amazon Prime provided another steaming pile of 💩.

The acting is exceptionally poor, although having such a terrible script didn't help. I give it 1 star for simply existing, and one more for reasonable photography. But this was so impossibly BORING that I literally nodded off a few times, forcing myself to rewind back to where I'd left off. Seriously, this stinker has very little going for it, with the exception of some gore if you're into it.

Rare rare rare for me to do a review without finishing the movie. But "Room 6" has beaten me. I am 33 minutes in and I can't go any further. I've read the other reviews and I don't think I'm missing anything, since I pretty much figured out what was going on within the first few minutes. I like Christine Taylor but she is annoying and awful in this, although she really hasn't much to work with. Jerry O'Connell is...Jerry O'Connell. The acting all around is amateurish, the cinematography looks like it was filmed in the '70s and so far I hate every character. At the beginning of the film, Taylor's boyfriend-who's been an unsympathetic jerk after she's just screamed awake from a nightmare-chooses to get down on one knee to propose to her in his underclothes while she's late for work and rushing to get out the door, then is a whiny child when she suggests they talk about it later as a car horn blares outside. I'm like, "Seriously?? What kind of idiot DOES that?" I'm a guy and even I know that's a boneheaded way to ask someone to marry you. So within the first 5 minutes I'm already in a bad mood.

When I first put "Room 6" on my Amazon Prime watchlist it was rated 5.1. A few days later it's down to 4.2. Obviously a lot of people have seen it recently. I give it a 1 although it might have stretched another one or even two (but definitely no further) stars, but I just didn't have it in me to finish it.

At the time I saw "Dry Bones" on Amazon Prime, it had. 5.1 rating on here with only two written reviews and another 10 who just clicked on a star and they ranged from 1 to 10. So, not very helpful. Therefore I decided to.see for myself and try to edge it toward one side or the other.

And I'm afraid I'm leaning toward the low side.

This was an absolute struggle to get through but I was determined to give it a fair shot. But my gosh, the acting was dire. Co-director Michael O'Hear was also the lead actor, and when the director is the weakest link acting-wise, it doesn't bode well for anyone else. This was supposed to be kind of a comedy/horror-a genre I love-but there was neither any comedy nor horror. The only chuckle I got was the running gag about the sister, but that's it. There were no scares, although there was one gross out scene involving.erupting nipples. Keeping in mind "Dry Bones" was working with a budget of only around $15,000, so it did the best it could with what it had. But I've seen $15,000 movies look like $50,000 along with better acting so it CAN be done...but not in this case. I can excuse a film looking cheap with a low budget, but I can't excuse pure boredom. Absolute mind numbing boredom. Especially with this genre.

I gave it a 3 instead of a 2 just for the sister running gag.

...I'm afraid it's still crap.

However-and I'll be honest, I'm more surprised than anyone about this-I still managed to watch it all the way through with at least a small amount of interest. VERY small, but I was able to chuckle at the stupidity and cheapness more often than roll my eyes at it, and I think that deserves something.

Kudos on the artwork and the title! Really, both work great to suck you in. You know right off it's going to be bad, but go into it with the hope that it KNOWS it's bad and it will dwell peacefully with that idea, winking at the audience as if to say, "We know that having a character repeat 'crap on a cracker' throughout the movie is super funny because it perfectly describes the film! Hahahaha!" But the problem is-and this sinks many a low budget horror film-that the cast has to be informed that it's supposed to have humor and that wink, but instead let's them attempt to recite the words on the script as written, not as intended. But there wasn't anything funny about the script other than that one catchphrase. And speaking of the cast...

I'm not quite sure why there was an Abbott and Costello detective team in this. Was it just to give Traci Lords a role? Because under a good director, Lords is capable of doing a respectable legitimate acting job. In "Sharkansas," however, she embodies a pseudo-tough talking kind of New Yorky sounding thing that makes no sense. Where did THAT come from? Do all small town detectives in Arkansas talk and act like that? I dunno, I'm not from there so maybe she was perfect, and if so, I apologize, Miss Lords. And poor John Callahan, who plays the prison guard with a heart of gold. Callahan died in 2020 at only 60yo of a stroke, and was not a bad actor but never got more success beyond soaps. But he actually looks like his soul is dying while waiting for that check to clear. And I thought it was interesting that for a film made in 2015 that there were no African American actors in it that I could see. Maybe they couldn't find any willing to let go of their dignity.

It's a shark movie with nothing more than fins sticking up, a T&A movie with porn actresses but doesn't actually show any T&A, and a horror movie with no horror. Nothing-absolutely nothing-is realistic or reasonable. It's a dumb, dumb, dumb movie...but you knew it would be going into it. It is what it is. It's crap on a cracker. So expect no more.

Have you ever watched a movie that was so stupid that you felt stupider after watching it? This is such a movie.

I rather enjoy zombie comedies, so I was hopeful that "Dug Up" might be a nice indie that had flown under the radar. But the reviews that warn you to ignore the10s should be respected. Because "Zombiand," it is not.

Being low budget, I can excuse the really bad makeup and special effects. I can excuse a certain amount of sloppy storytelling and character development. I can even excuse laughable plot holes and lazy, dumb wrap ups. But what I can't excuse is filming a movie in Vermont while pretending to be the most insulting stereotypical Southern rednecks known to man.

The cast of "Dug Up" apparently rifled through all the old "Dukes of Hazzard" wardrobe, while perfecting their unknown Southern regional accents by everyone just kind of agreeing that all Southerners talk that way while punctuating the script with plenty of uses of the term "thingamajiggy" thrown in while slapping their hips and hyucking. Like all us Southerners do. Reading the other reviews, apparently I wasn't the only one appalled and insulted.

You know, had they NOT chosen to make anyone south of Mason-Dixon the butt of their joke and just played it straight, it probably would have been a much better film. It wouldn't have been near as stupid and the jokes may have landed better. I don't know...how do Vermonters talk? But honestly the ONLY reason I didn't shut this crap show off after 10 minutes was because I wanted to give it a chance, and to fairly review it.

This is an awful movie, but I knew it was going to be going into it, so no surprises there. The surprise is that it wasn't awful enough for me to turn it off in disgust. Nope, I watched the whole thing. But I sometimes enjoy bad movies that don't take themselves seriously, and this one doesn't.

The first part was a little tough to slog through, as Peter Cotton's nerd self was a little much. But once he fully blossomed into Rottentail, the actor seemed to thoroughly embrace the stupidity and jump off the deep end, making the performance so much more fun. The makeup was rather dumb, but I found the character's ridiculous lines to be funnier if I didn't look at him. William McNamara's enthusiastic performance as the bad guy was entertaining. And I was very sad when my favorite character-played by Tank (yes, TANK) Jones was killed off way too early. He threw in every ounce of charisma to make an otherwise unimportant character totally memorable. Tank, I salute you.

In the long run, however, it's still an awful, cheap, silly movie about a chemically poisoned rabbit man who kills people while snickering maniacally and cracking jokes. As one reviewer wisely reminded, it's not Citizen Kane. But I got a couple of chuckles out of it, so it's not the worst of the worst, either.

Initially I wasn't sure what to expect from "Moon Garden," as the reviews were split between Crap and Brilliant and rated at a 6. At the beginning of the movie I was absentmindedly playing a game on my phone, but once the little girl went into the coma, I put my phone down and watched til the end, completely fascinated.

While not a perfect film, it's certainly not Crap. The creativity involved is staggering. The nightmarish stop motion and animation manifested throughout the child's unconscious state is fascinating, as well as the Alice-like landscape and characters along her route back to the light. There is weird stuff galore and frightening enough imagery to merit it being considered horror, but it's more metaphysical and high minded than that. The young actress did a good job for her age, although the actors who played her parents were the weak links. Editing was weirdly choppy in spots and mixing memories of real life with the coma world seemed uneven. But the good outweighed the not great, and is worth a watch if you're willing to have an open mind.

First of all, unlike the majority of the reviewers on here, I actually watched the whole thing. Since South Korea has actually made some pretty interesting stuff in the past 10 or so years, I was was expecting something decent. Well, it was decent. But it was also tedious, confusing, dull and what's worse in an apocalyptic story-no literal BANG at the end to at least make slogging through this mess worthwhile. So, if you're expecting exciting scenes of destruction and mayhem, look elsewhere.

The acting was fine and photography fine. Everything was just...fine. But frankly this could have been done far more effectively as a regular movie than a miniseries. There's simply no excuse for this subject matter to be boring.

That was my response at the end of this movie.

"WHAT?!"

I watched this entire 1hr and 39 minutes of crap because there were only a few reviews. The majority were glowingly positive, and yet it had a rating of 2.9. This meant a lot more people needed to leave some actual reviews, as this was obviously not fairly rated "10" alongside the greatest films of all time. So I hope you appreciate that I managed to sit through the whole thing, when honestly my opinion within the first 10 minutes never changed.

Had the filmmakers chosen to attempt a retelling of the true story this movie was "based" upon, it might've been better. However, they chose instead to spend horrendous amounts of time helping us get to know the people who are going to eventually meet the title character...instead of letting us in on the Piglady herself-the one person who is actually interesting. No, of the 1hr and 39 minutes, about 1hr and 25 minutes is spent listening to boring, interminable, dumb conversations between really unlikeable and annoying people.

The acting is below awful, the script puerile and direction seems to be distracted by grandeurs of another movie. The photography is either too dark or too fuzzy and the only positive thing I can say about it to give it a 2 is that the special effects weren't bad for a movie this awful.

And if you actually make it to the end, you'll understand my reaction. Because it's just suddenly...and??? If you love true crime stories, stay far away because there are NO explanations or endings.

Believe the low rating over the "10" reviews. I'm certain there were an awful lot of people too exhausted by disgust to do more than give it a rating and move on with their lives.

Generally, I thoroughly enjoy movies with promising dumb titles like this one, and I'm a fan of the Killer Tomato series-every single stupid one of them. So I'm forgiving of low budgets, questionable acting and silly special effects in exchange for a funny script, creative storytelling and frequent poor taste.

Unfortunately, "Attack of the Killer Donuts" came up really short.

The idea itself was fine. The acting was fine. In fact, over-acting might have helped. But the biggest problem was that the script wasn't the least bit funny. Or even silly-which was the biggest sin in a movie like this. The killer donuts weren't funny-we've seen and heard the same high-pitched chipmunk voices before with tomatoes and spiders. There's no particular charisma between the actors and there seems to be a loss of direction on how they're supposed to respond to their situations...should they play it for laughs or play it straight? And poor C. Thomas Howell. I don't know whether to feel pity for him or to admire him for jumping into the fray with such abandon.

In the entire film I chuckled exactly once, and didn't laugh at all. I really wanted to, but it just wasn't funny. There was way too much talking and too little action. Even the ending took for EVER to wrap up with a predictable and boring finale.

It's really too bad. Apparently there's a sequel, but I don't think I'll worry about trying to find it.

You know, I was just ALMOST willing to grudgingly give this poorly acted, dumb thing masquerading as a thriller a 3 rating...up until the Southern speaking creepy preacher came out of nowhere speaking of fire and brimstone and evils of the flesh. Then I was like, nah. The only thing that kept it from a 1 is that I generally reserve that for "worst" status, and while this was pretty awful, it wasn't the worst.

I simply could not keep up with what was happening, then again, I didn't care about any of the characters enough to pay that close attention. I was bored from the beginning. The action sequences were too dark and fuzzy to know what was happening, but maybe that was to hide the poor special effects. The low budget was obvious, however the camera quality was good-but the jerky, poorly edited camera work ruined it. Amateur acting all around, but the female detective was particularly bad. The male lead would have been tolerable except for the yelling and constant fits of anger, which must be attributed to a truly hideous script. Even the jump scares weren't jumpy. And in a scene where the father is being obviously attacked, the mother and daughter rather calmly stand back and observe-until THEY get threatened. And the ending just seems to take forever to wrap up.

Frankly, it was a chore to make it all the way through this thing but I was determined to review it. The ones that gave it super high scores? Yeah, I find those HIGHLY suspicious.

When desperately looking for movies on ScreamBox with at least a 5.0 rating, I came upon this Australian indie with a whopping 7.1 on IMDB. Enthusiastically, I queued it up expecting something great. I was fooled.

Upon further inspection, the 7.1 came from 10 people. No one had reviewed it in writing. The only "critical" review link went to a dead page. These were not good signs. So I decided it was my duty to future potential viewers to at least give them SOMETHING to go on, and hope it would encourage others to contribute as well. Besides, I tend to like Australian indie films no matter the budget...and this one was only $10,000. And according to the incredibly long Trivia section, a lot of work went into making the most of it.

The look of the film is actually pretty good. The use of outdoor scenery and more professionally executed photography than one would expect in a low budget makes it look like a much bigger production. The story itself was okay, but there are issues too overwhelming to help lift this little film into true 7.1 rating status (in my opinion, of course).

First off, the acting is sub par. The main actor is particularly poor and hard to like. This is a short story at best, and as the Trivia admits, scenes were padded on and on and on to reach 80 minutes. And it takes 60 of those 80 to finally get interesting. But then, as the movie gets closer to the end it gets dumber until it reaches a ridiculous finale. I literally yelled at the TV, "That's IT??"

I really wanted to like this movie, I truly did. And I give it points for making that $10,000 look like $50,000 and for keeping me watching until that very dire, lousy ending.. I think they can do better next time.

The title of this film just screams,"Come on! I'm a low budget movie that's just for fun!" But unfortunately it never really lives up to its promise.

Shot in black and white, the zombie effects are as one would expect from a low budget indie. The acting is better than most movies on this level, but still only marginal at best. There were so many opportunities for humor that were blown, and it seemed to struggle with whether it wanted to be serious or not. The ghost/comic relief character simply didn't work for me and only became a distraction. I laughed one time-when an unseen character enthusiastically uses trucker lingo on the radio. This could have been a running gag, but it was there and gone. My biggest gripe is with the sound. Throughout the film I was constantly having to turn the volume up during speaking parts and turning it down during action scenes. This gets really annoying after a while, and the quality was unpleasant to boot.

However, I did manage to watch to the end. But it was mostly in the hope that it would improve like I really hoped it would. It's really a shame because there was promise, but ultimately the inability to deliver with the main culprit being a disappointing and dumb script. Better luck next time.

The ONLY reason I actually watched this movie all the way through was to fairly leave a review. And the only reason I felt the need to leave a review is because there was only one on here and it was a 1, but it had an overall rating of 6.4. So I checked the critics reviews-all four of 'em-and they weren't any help, either. So I watched it. And it was a struggle.

First off, understanding that this Kentucky-based opus was made on a $15,000 budget should be warning enough that this will not be a film to get overly excited about. But going in with an open mind, I was hopeful that I'd be pleasantly surprised. I was not.

The title character is a takeoff on Frankenstein, but in this version we're talking about a $15,00 budget. So throw out reanimating dead body parts. Instead, replace it with a young lady strapped to a chair with a helmet attached to a bunch of wires. Dr. Stein is going to reanimate her memories into the young lady so she can inhabit the young lady's body.

The acting is abhorrent. The script is infantile. The special effects not special. The scenery looks like it was used in a high school play and the story gets so muddled toward the end that at one point I actually yelled at the TV, "What the f-- is even going ON??"

On the positive side, however, the music was appropriate and above par for this production.

Overall this was pretty bad. The only way it got a 6.4 was if those involved with the film gave it high scores-but were unwilling to commit to actual words. I'm sure those involved were quite proud of their work, and as someone who appreciates those who chase their dreams, I appreciate the effort that went into this movie. Sadly, it's still a real stinker and I have to be honest for future potential viewers. Enter at your own risk.

Here's the thing: I tend to enjoy movies that are intentionally bad-especially ones that are making fun of other movies that are bad, but weren't intentionally so. "Insectula!" is such a film, and it had the makings of something I'd want to have in my collection along with the Larry Blamire movies. But unfortunately, what started out well just couldn't maintain the idea to the end.

Starting as a 1950s monster movie-Ed Wood-ish intro, the film could have done better by going black and white, although the unusual cinematography almost appears like colorization. Not sure if that's what they were going for but I found it distracting.

Still, it hums along fine and silly until the third act, where the film seems to lose it's focus as well as it's time era, as the 50s now is peppered with cursing, nipple piercings, contemporary apartments and modern military equipment. This causes the movie to really fall apart, as well as the long stretches of nothing humorous or interesting happening. It's a shame, as this could have been a much better film.

Wow. It's rare I can't find one single redeeming feature to provide more than one star, but this stinker deserves no better. I was hoping that Jack Plotnick's involvement would help, but although he's hysterical doing trans comedy, as a straight actor with absolutely nothing creative to work with, he was as useless and awful as the rest of the cast. Maybe if he played the character as Evie THAT would have saved this piece of dreck. At least then it would have been a comedy. The scientist fish out of water with the Marines scenario was I suppose meant to be amusing, but only came off as sad.

Instead, the only funny stuff was the basement-rate CGI. Honestly, they could have saved even more money by just having rubber toy monsters being moved by visible hands. I mean, we're talking "Birdemic"-type special effects here. Just dire.

And the military representation was plain insulting. INSULTING. It pissed me off, and I was never in the military. I can imagine how an actual SEAL feels about it. Apparently none of the minuscule budget was spent on research. Into ANYTHING.

This truly is a bad film. Bad script, bad "effects," bad acting, bad photography, bad direction, just bad bad bad. I was really hoping for humor. But that was bad, too. Avoid this one at all costs.

Jack Plotnick...I hope the check didn't bounce.

Frankly, the hit or miss carousel that is the Shudder playlist is more miss than hit. I've never heard of a good 85% of the movies on there, and I watch a lot of horror films. "Vicious Fun" was one such movie, so I didn't know what to expect, but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't great, but it did keep me entertained. With one exception, the acting was quite good and it rose above a somewhat mediocre script-although the serial killer support group plot was inspired.

But I'm in agreement with many reviewers here that the biggest problem was the casting of Evan Marsh in the lead. He wasn't funny, he had no particular comic timing and his character was annoying and juvenile. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor-but he was bad in this film and it dragged down what could have been a much better picture. Ari Mullen and Amber Goldfarb were quite good with the right touch of humor. But everything Marsh did and said just fell with a thud. A different actor with a better reading could have made a huge difference and lifted this movie up.

In addition, the film became a little stagnant and uneven midway. Although the police were humorous, far too much time was spent with them and away from the main story and characters. Once the serial killers re-entered the story, it picked back up again. Plus, the ending was too far-fetched, given the problems with Marsh-although character-wise it made sense.

I enjoy horror comedies, but they can be a challenge for filmmakers to reach that right mix to where the viewer can enjoy each separately and together. This one had glimmers of getting it right, and with a few changes I think it would be deserving of a higher rating overall. A nice effort.

I re-joined Netflix for the 20th time for this? Well, at least "Nyad" was okay.

I expected "Leave the World Behind" to be a thrilling, thought-provoking film, bouyed with great performances by excellent actors. I was not familiar with the book, so all I had to go by was the description.

I haven't truly disliked a movie with such potential this much in years. Yes, the actors did fine. The occasional special effects were...fine. But there was so much to hate that anything that was only fine could not overcome it. Truly unlikeable characters-Julia Roberts' in particular-made it miserable throughout. Insipid decision making, mind numbing vacuousness of obvious major occurrences, and every single time something FINALLY interesting would happen, they'd slam on the breaks for more interminable conversation. The world as you know it is ending, you pompous, spoiled idiots-and you want to sit around and argue and complain about being inconvenienced?? And I am in complete agreement with many reviewers here that this was the WORST. ENDING. EVER. I think I cursed in astonishment at my TV for a good 10minutes.

I give it a generous 5 only because of the "fine" stuff. But being so aggravated by what should have been a really good film, that's the best I can do.

"Mosquito" is a perfect example of a movie that's so bad it's good. I can't in all honesty give it any higher than a 5 because of the "so bad" issues, but the "so good" parts prop it up. Low budget, dire acting, ridiculous script. But with the exception of the flying skeeters, the low budget special effects are actually not that bad. And in spite of the low budget, you get the feeling that everyone involved gave it the old college try and threw everything they could into it. As a result, I literally applauded at a couple of scenes for their over-the-topness, and laughed my butt off through most of the film.

So yeah, as far as movie making goes, it was bad. But I enjoyed the dumb thing and was thoroughly entertained and movies are meant to entertain so in that, it succeeded. So, it's not so bad.

I grew up watching Jonathan Winters and thought he was the funniest man alive. Before there was Robin Williams, there was Jonathan. The "mockunentary" is about him losing his sense of humor, and, sadly, it's not far from the truth, as this dreadfully unfunny cheap thing shows. Filling it with every comedian in Jonathan's phone book only makes it even sadder. No one is funny-and the scene with the Arquettes is horrendously painful. If you're young and unfamiliar with Winter's comedy, it at least has a good number of his old appearances.

And although they of course couldn't predict the future, the terrible ending with Robin Williams of all people talking Jonathan out of suicide-who is threatening to hang himself with an exaggerated noose around his neck is...well...yeah.

Winters was an ad-lobbing genius and deserved better. 3 stars only because I loved the guy.

Wow. But not in a good way. I finally make it to the end of the movie and said out loud to myself, "That's it?" But I didn't exactly know what "it" was.

First of all, waving tentacles around does not a Lovecraftian story make. And the rubber masked "creature"-which looked like a cross between Creature From the Black Lagoon-Humanoids From the Deep-and Gremlins with a squid bottom -was funny. I literally laughed out loud. THIS was the terrifying buildup? The dark scenes were so dark I couldn't see what was happening and the light scenes had a weird color filter that was distracting. The acting was amateurish, nothing made much sense due to editing that was all over the place, the special effects had nothing special about them and was an absolute chore to get through the whole thing. Just a waste of time and not a single moment of actual suspense or dread. I actually enjoy lots of bad horror movies...but this one doesn't have a single redeeming quality to make it endearing. This is just bad.

I'd never heard of this movie when it was released but saw it online and although Nicholas Cage can be hit and miss, figured I'd give it a shot. When an actor is in a movie about themselves ("Being John Malkovich"), it's largely going to depend on their willingness to really throw themselves out there, and Cage doesn't disappoint. This essentially is a buddy movie with Cage and Paco Pascal, whose character the government thinks is a major drug dealer and kidnapper.

There's drama, explosions, car chases, shooting...but the scene at the wall while the guys are blitzed on acid is pure comedy gold and my favorite movie moment in a while. PURE. GOLD.

I would actually rate it higher, but things start getting a little muddy in the third act and it becomes less interesting and harder to follow. The ending is unsatisfying and thrown together, and the other characters don't add much. Tiffany Haddish is flat out wasted. I frankly could have watched an entire movie just with Cage and Pascal only.