Taboo (2002) User Reviews

Concept had potential but something just failed...

[Lisa-92 · 4/10 · 26 August 2003]

Just finished this movie... saw it on the video shelf and being a Nick Stahl fan I just had to rent it. In all honesty, it probably should have stayed on the shelf. The concept was an interesting one and there were several fairly smart twists and turns but somehow I guessed almost all of them before they came along. And the movie just went a little too far in the end in my opinion... if you have to suffer through a viewing of it you'll see what I mean!

On a positive note, Nick Stahl's acting was great (especially considering what he had to work with). Eddie Kaye Thomas was also good but he always plays the same type of character... too much Paul Finch from "American Pie" coming through for my liking.

And finally, the worst part of this movie has to be January Jones' emotionless performance... I guess a pretty face really is all that matters in Hollywood.

I can't believe I watched this movie.

[tpendleton · 4/10 · 5 December 2003]

I'm embarrassed to be writing this review. I say that because those of you reading it will know that I sat through the whole thing and that is embarrassing to admit even to strangers. But I just had to warn those who read the viewer comments on IMDb before they watch a film not to watch this one. It's the least I can do. This is a bad movie! Trust me. The plot is goofy. The acting is amateurish. And the directing, camera work, sets, costumes, etc. are all second rate. Let it go.

TERRIBLE

[Prettylittlelie · 3/10 · 9 December 2004]

Wow it's ironic since this movie has been out for awhile I think that someone else JUST reviewed it a couple days ago.

Anyways, I watched this movie simply because it has Nick Stahl, for the record.

The movie was ridiculous. The characters drove me INSANE, they were SO Cliché and STEREOTYPED. This movie had some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. It had way too many plot twists too.

There is ONE scene in the movie worth seeing however, the scene: "Warm heart, cold gun" where Nick Stahl kills the obnoxious girl in the shower. (Well, actually they were all obnoxious.) But his acting in that scene was excellent. The look on his face, it reminded my of American Psycho (a good movie). The scene is worth seeing but not worth seeing the rest of the movie for, do yourself a favor and don't watch it.

One of a Kind

[aatx1154 · 19 January 2004]

Yes truly in its own league of mediocrity. The actors Nick Stahl, Amber Benson,etc persuaded me to rent this film. The script is horrendous and I believe that is why (hopefully) January Jones' character was stone-like. Very cliched that is not funny, suspenseful, or believable. Not the worst film ever but a film that most of these actors will chuckle about or hide in shame when they get older. This film is destined for oblivion. Oh well you win some and lose some.

Grade: D-

Awful, Dreadful, Very Bad, Terrible, Horrendous – A Crap!

[claudio_carvalho · 1/10 · 30 March 2006]

The name of Nick Stahl, the young cast and the attractive cover of the VHS made me buy and watch this flick, expecting to see a good teen slash movie. What a crap! The full of clichés screenplay, the dialogs and the performances are awful, dreadful, very bad, terrible, horrendous – summarizing, a complete waste of time. There is no horror, black humor, only an absolutely boring story, with shameful plot points. The film begins with six characters, indeed three couples, together like a group of friends, but indeed very nasty persons that seems to be enemies, playing a ridiculous senseless game called "Taboo", and with each one of them writing yes or no for certain taboo issues. That is it: no previous development of the characters, the viewer does not know who they are, their motives and relationship. Then, there is an ellipsis to one year later, and the same group is gathered together in a New Years Eve party, insulting each other in a very sordid way. But the plot and the twists are so ridiculous, predictable, mediocre and unbelievable that do not deserve any additional line in my review. One advice only: do not waste your time or money on this garbage, you will certainly regret. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "Taboo – Jogando Com o Assassino" ("Taboo – Playing With the Killer")

How desperate for money was Amber Benson

[XinePie · 1/10 · 29 June 2003]

I rented this film just to see Amber Benson, though after reading the box I thought it sounded like a good story.....however the first problem was that there really wasn't a story...or actually there was a story but it made absolutely no sense. The second problem was there was no set up for these characters...yes I got that they all went to school together, but within the first 3 minutes of the film you realized they had nothing else in common and didn't like each other...so why did they keep getting together. Flaw number 3...the director though long pauses and tight camera shots equaled suspense (especially with the typical suspense music dubbed in)...he was sadly mistaken. It was painful to watch a terrific actress like Amber Benson waste time trying to bring this back to life....my only hope is the money she made here was put toward producing her own film.

my first 1

[LeChoriste · 1/10 · 18 November 2005]

...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.

TO BOO or TWO BOOS, ED WOOD WE *SALUTE* YOU

[philip-ct · 1/10 · 28 November 2003]

A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.

But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side?

How did this movie ever get funding and/or get green-lit?

[Badger-20 · 1/10 · 29 July 2008]

Nothing like a movie about a group of friends who not only all dislike each other to the point of loathing, but they have little to no redeeming qualities to make an *audience* like or empathize with any of the characters either. There are movies so bad they are good (a la Ed Wood or Tod Slaughter films), and there's just plain bad (like 99% of Uwe Boll's "work"). This film is barely tolerable even if you are a brilliantly talented MSTie riffer (e.g., Mystery Science Theatre 3000). Thankfully while I am rather talented in that regard (it's how my mind works All The Time), for those who are not so naturally talented in MSTie riffing, eventually into *this* film you'll just want to pull your own head off, painfully aware the movie "Taboo" robs you of about an hour and twenty minutes you'll never get back. Even my MSTie talents were barely a match for this slow paced, boring waste of time. The most puzzling aspect of this film is that *someone* green-lit and/or funded it... I rented "Taboo" solely for the normally talented Amber Benson, who clearly must have been blackmailed into doing this film. I've another lesser known film of hers in my rental queue, the reviews to which I'd better read first. Ironically the best aspect of the film was its impressive labyrinthine mansion for its interior location.

Movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized

[jrjsj · 1/10 · 4 November 2003]

The movie has the longest, most tortured and agonized ending of any movie I've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it starts right after the opening credits. January Jones gives such a wooden performance, I was surprised she didn't go up in flames when she got near the candles in the film. I don't really remember her from the other films she's done (a blessing I have to believe. I never criticize an actors performance because in film there are too many things which can affect it but in this case,it is so bad that it actually stands out from the ATROCIOUS script. Granted she's given lines and situations Meryl Streep would have trouble with but I swear at times shes reading from a cue card off set. At other times I thought she might actually be learning disabled or slow in some way. For REAL! The plot, dialog and pacing are as bad as you'll ever see but there is still no excuse for this performance nor for the director that let it be perpetrated. I feel sorry for the other actors. Cruel intentions/ 10 little indians/breakfast club shoved into a rotten burrito then regurgitated by a grade school writer- director. Take that back this has Studio exec crayola all over it.

Bad film, but January isn't (now)...

[phdyr51 · 1/10 · 3 July 2008]

I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.

At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.

Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.

To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."

Give it a second chance

[ashieh · 8/10 · 7 October 2004]

I saw this movie at Sundance a few years ago by chance, and didn't remember it being as bad as some here seem to think, so I rented it and watched it again. This movie isn't as awful as advertised, and in fact is actually quite good. I thought it was well directed and well shot, and most of the performances were pretty solid--but there are is one big problem: There's one actor/actress (I won't name names) who is so wooden and awful, that it tainted the film as a whole. And yes, one actor/actress can ruin a film. This isn't the first time or the last time a producer thinks that a "big" name will help put seats in the theater only to have the plan backfire...but don't blame the filmmakers on this one.

young horror story - neither brilliant, nor abyssal

[dromasca · 6/10 · 25 September 2004]

The story in 'Taboo' lays at the border between teenager horror stories and the close space mystery plots, where the authors gather a small - and decreasing - number of characters into a close enclosure, preferable a castle or a running train, or a cabin in the mountains, under the pretext of a snow storm, or more recently of reality shows rules. In this case, the formula works quite well, and the story has some logic, triggered by a kind of cruel 'truth or deed' game, pushed to its ultimate solution. I saw that many other viewers who cared to comment on IMDb did not like the result, I am wondering why because the film never gets into ridicule, the pace is quite appropriate, and the solution of the plot makes sense. If I am to blame the authors for something, their main sin seems to be to me the fact that they avoided shocking the viewers in any way. The result is that despite having at hand a group of young and talented actors, the film never gets its promise of conflict, sexual, or artistic tension - almost like the film makers were trying to get some prime time rating from American TV parent counseling. I was slightly disappointed, but I am not asking for my money back. 6 out of 10 on my personal scale.

Dreadful

[jhs39 · 1/10 · 25 May 2003]

How did such a terrible script manage to attract this cast? Ridiculous, predictable and thoroughly unbelievable, this is well-acted and slickly directed, but the material is so bad it still qualifies as one of the all-time worst thrillers I've seen in years. Amazingly bad, and not in a fun way. Avoid at all costs, even if you're a fan of someone in the cast.

I want my 80 minutes back!!!!!!!

[sherrie shaw · 25 March 2003]

This is going in my top 5 worst movies of ALL time. The acting was horrible!!!!!!!!! What could have been played out as a naughty story line with good results, just wasn't!!!!! Nick Stahl needs to read through his scripts before he accepts the parts. He's such a gifted actor, so what happened to him in this movie, I have no clue. Everyone was acting like they were shot up with novocaine. The plot was so obvious from the get go that I can't believe I wasted 80 minutes to see what I already knew was going to happen (I must be into pain and suffering). Bottom line: I concur with the others, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.

This is really awful

[jgeerling · 1/10 · 17 May 2003]

As a movie critic for several Dutch websites, I have to see lot's of movies, and not all very good ones. Some movies are so bad, you won't be surprised that they are released straight on video. With taboo, Iám surprised that it is released on video at all. This is really low budget bad quality bad written rubbish.

A group of youngsters plays a game of taboo. They write down their most sickening wish or act, and later on people are murdered for their taboo's. The question is, should we believe what we see?

The movie has a potential interesting plot-twist, and I won't give it away here. But what could have been interesting stays stupid, bad acted and without any reason.

Some of the actors have played in bigger titles before, so why on earth did they sign up for this? If you see this anywhere, try to dodge it. There is no logic, no human sense of quality in this movie.

Really bad movie, luckily it's short

[tram84mvp · 3/10 · 19 November 2020]

Tuned in to see early January Jones, she is radiant as usual, everyone else is forgettable.

Don't waste your time

[tonylo6445 · 1/10 · 19 March 2003]

There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.

Don't spend the time on this one.

So bad, it's funny

[glitter-8 · 3/10 · 1 April 2003]

This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.

Possibly *the* worst movie I've ever seen...

[dale-h · 1/10 · 14 July 2003]

Don't waste your time or money on this one. The half decent cast might fool you into thinking that this teen-thriller, whilst hardly about to break any records, might lightly entertain for 80 minutes.

It won't.

It won't make you scared, laugh, cry or even challenge your intellect. It will leave you wondering how on earth this movie ever finished production. Yes, it really is that poor.

one word 'meh'

[Paul_Rudd_has_a_sweet_ass · 10/10 · 17 August 2003]

I watched this film despite reading that it was appaulling for one reason. Mr Stahl. I ended up rather enjoying it despite some of the worst acting I've seen in a long time thanks to January Jones(I've seen bricks that can act better than she can). The ending was a big surprise but then I was pretty drunk at the time I was watching it.... Only really worth watching if you're into one of the actors and you like this kind of film.

Taboo- Thriller - D

[Kidcharlimagne · 6/10 · 29 April 2003]

Taboo was not a very good film. It had a good general plot, and I thought that it could have been a good movie. It wasn't produced very well, and the cinematography was not very good, although I've seen good movies with equally poor production. Nick Stahl is a fairly good actor, and played a very decent role. The other two guys, and the hot girl were also decent. "Piper" was a very poor actress, but her role was limited, and didn't make that big of a difference. The real downfall of the movie was the lead character, Elizabeth, played by January Jones. Her acting was absolutely horrible. She wasn't believable as a character, actress, female, even a human being. It seemed as if she was reading her lines from 100 yards away. If this movie was produced better and made parts more suspenseful, and had a leading lady who actually seemed as if she was acting, it could have been a very decent movie.

If you're not an Amber Benson fan, AVOID at all costs....

[attentionspike · 15 February 2003]

On tonight's episode of MAD TV they poked fun at "How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days" by simply showing pictures of Matthew and Kate and putting a caption that said:"How to Lose Eight bucks in Two hours." The same can be said about "Taboo". Except it isn't in the theaters. It will be available at Blockbuster. Rent it, if you desire to lose four dollars and about two hours of your life and if you want to watch the flattest, emotionless, boring dialogue, actors who don't want to be there (probably more interested in the trip to Romania where it was filmed, then the movie itself). The script....was there one? Or did someone have flash cards off screen as a guide to keep the lame story moving?

The one star that this movie deserves is for Amber Benson. Her character Piper was an alcoholic. She was adorable, cute, fun, but if she wanted to make her character's vice believable she should've experimented in Method Acting and took a few shots of Jack Daniels before each scene.

That's my review.

IT FIT THE BILL - LIGHT ENTERTAINMENT

[BILLIII · 8/10 · 14 July 2003]

Take Edgar Allen Poe horror story development, throw in an Italian Aria finale, blend with a solitary old mansion in a nighttime storm with lightening and wind, throw in 6 kids (JUST post college) for a reunion and you have the makings of a fun, entertaining, non mentally exhausting time, and that's exactly what TABOO was for me.

Two points, without giving away the story:

1) I LOVE to OUTFOX the writers, and figure out endings to movies before they are divulged. This time, I COULDN'T figure out who were `the bad guy(s)'.

2) I was totally SUCKED IN to thinking the movie was rapidly approaching finale, only to discover it was just two thirds through and approaching a second wind. Was I embarrassed with my `sophistication'!

I give this film a rating of 4/5 or 8/10 because I think everyone involved, from producer through director and actors, aimed at a light, comedy-horror action product; I believe there is a complete genre for that, and relative to the genre it is GOOD.

I got what * I * wanted!

Bill Schaefer [e-mail]

p.s. There was one GIGANTIC BLUNDER in the movie, but no one has commented on it, so I'll let it rest in peace.

Wasted Effort

[GePop · 6/10 · 12 April 2003]

In brief, this was a good premise that was shipwrecked by a poorly written script and completely lackluster direction. The actors have all demonstrated elsewhere how talented they are, but lacking any real guidance here, they just sort of meander around for an hour and a half, obviously bored and confused as to just what it is they're supposed to be doing. On the plus side, the cinematography is terrific, very moody and ominous; this is a good film to look at, so long as you don't pay any attention to the dialogue.