Reviews

9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
"What Lies Below" Netflix Movie Review: Guilty Verdicts: Contrived, Derivative, Intentionally Vague, Sloppy Writing, and Stupid
14 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this thing last night. It is so bad I was still angry about it the next day, so here we are:

Contrived: How many different ways can the writer/director come up with to keep the main damsel-in-distress isolated from those who could help? I lost count. So obvious and clunky were these contrived mechanisms that it obliterated any suspension of belief. And let's talk about telegraphing where the plot is going before it actually heads in that direction. It's a shame, because if a bit of mystery was maintained perhaps I wouldn't be so pissed off about this stale time-waster.

Derivative: This tasteless stew is a mish-mash of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," "Night of the Creeps," and so many other "aliens-impregnating-humans" movies to list them all would make this pile of tripe seem more interesting than it is.

Intentionally Vague: Here's an idea...have an idea! Then slowly reveal it. The light in the lake? What's that about? We don't know, and we never will. I'm all for movies that make me wonder or think. This thing? Frankly, it's an affront to good filmmaking in general, and to the horror/sci-fi genre specifically. No good ideas, no good acting, no good camera work. Awful.

Sloppy Writing: The narrative is straightforward at first, though the ham-handed repetitions of "baby girl" and "Libs" (short for "Liberty" because it's soooo much work to say the whole name), put my nerves on edge. The narrative then bogs down in (get ready for use of intentional use of sarcastic quotation marks) "mysterious" revelations because in a house made out of wood, no boards ever creak, so when the teenage girl sneaks around to witness the "creepy" goings on, these goings on are not terribly germane to the plot. The ending devolves into so many tropes you need a scorecard to tally them up.

Stupid: Bad guy, instead of directly coming back into the house to stop the damsel in distress, instead breaks into a basement window he could never fit through, to "menace" the damsel first. The cell phone signal blocker device is the size of a toaster, and has indicator lights brighter than my car's headlights, yet the stupid damsel (who has been to the house many times and presumably had cell phone service many times before), doesn't think to look for it or notice it until the last 10 minutes of the movie. And the mother! Moron! Doesn't notice/feel that the hunky researcher humping her is metamorphosing into a creature? Really?? It's amazing a smart creature would want to impregnate this cretin. Wouldn't it be worried that some of the stupid might transfer over into the newborn grub? Nobody in town notices the influx of identical men? No humans living on the lake notices the nightly landing-light intensity glow under the water? No humans notice all the missing women and report it to authorities? The list could go on for a very long time.

Brief notes: Bad guy = poor man's Joe Maganiello. Wet paper bags have nothing to fear from his acting. Mena Suvari = Hasn't been good since "American Beauty," where she apparently also again played herself. Ema Horvath = Newcomer. Not impressed. At all.

I understand actors want to act. At the very least, earn a living acting. It's a pity ANY actor chose to emote in this stinker.

There. I feel a little better.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Kill Order (2017)
6/10
Good Fights, Hero Okay, Everything Else? Meh...
11 September 2020
The reality of this film is that a bunch of stunt people who are friends got together and made a martial arts fight film. Think Young Adult Fiction (Hunger Games, Twilight, etc.) meets Jet Lee with a dash of The Matrix.

So, fights and stunts - Good: Well choreographed. Visually entertaining. Bad: As another reviewer said, you know who's going to win. Just wait for the eyes to glow. So a little anticlimactic there. Plus digital blood splatters. I like my violence old-style please. Also, could've been a little more graphic overall. The "bad people" fighters were up to the task. Some very good work.

Hero: Great screen presence. Good facial reactions. Acting will improve with more experience. And certainly physically up to the role. Fun to watch.

Big Evil Villain: Terrible acting. Dubbing? I couldn't quite tell. Awful line readings. Really added nothing special to the proceedings.

Plot: Opaque. Obfuscated. Therefore just a stupid mechanism to have action. Could have and should have done a lot better. And the dialog? AArrgghh!!

Style: While obviously done on a very low budget, big props to the cinematography and lighting. They worked miracles with what they had.

Direction: I believe this was written and directed by the star's brother. Shame on him for the writing, but the direction was good for the resources available. Maybe the director should stick with just directing.

Overall, a lower decent effort. A short film at an hour and 17 minutes with credits. I would be inclined to watch a sequel assuming someone else wrote it, the Big Evil Villain was played by another actor, but the hero and crew was the same.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Rich Kids Have Problems Too...
19 July 2020
Let's see...what do we have here:

  • Directorily self-indulgent soundtrack designed to be hip and timely and generate ancillary revenue? Check.
  • Soulful piano playing during heart-to-heart, humanity-revealing, character defining warm moments? Check.
  • Elevator or dentist office-worthy filler music? Check.
  • Fashionable, good-looking cast with a super-decent diversity? Check.
  • Teen romance angle? Check.
  • Wealthy parents who are not self-aware how shallow they are? Check.
  • Articulate, predictably "iconoclastic" protagonist who over-communicates and is quite a bit precocious (see Ferris Bueller's Day Off). Check.
  • Teenage angst? Check.


Trite. Time-worn. Predictable. Too neat and pretty. Boring. It was actually so awful it made me angry that money was spent making it that could've gone for a film much more worthwhile. While the intent to deliver something thought-provoking, meaningful, and inspiring might have been the goal, what was delivered was the exact polar opposite.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spivak (2018)
7/10
Cute, Quirky, Predictable
5 July 2020
Offbeat, small budget rom-com starring Chris Kattan's vestigal twin. While cloyingly eccentric, the main plot is time-worn and used up. Insecure, blocked-up writer with a permanent "constipation-face" meets woman (who in reality would never give him the time of day) in an unlikely fashion. She's engaged to a studly, dim-bulb golf pro. Wacky hijinks ensue, rocketing to a predictable conclusion. No belly laughs, but nothing objectionable either. I thought of two endings that could've made this stand out a bit more, but a happy ending must be more bankable. Unfortunately, the ending destroys the quirky ambiance.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Crash (2017)
Aims High, Digs Own Grave
16 June 2018
Low-budget waste of time and resources. I can't imagine waking up every morning and saying to "I can't wait to work on this!" Much has been said about the spastic cinematography, elevator music score, ridiculous plot, poor dialog, and D-level emoting. Agree on all prior comments indicating this must've been made as a junior high school project. Personally I believe this was made expressly as a tax write-off to decrease a beach vacation rental. Watching people pull wires as high drama. I hope the write off was worth squandering so much effort.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Final (I) (2010)
1/10
Unrelentingly Bad
3 November 2017
I stayed up to 1AM just to see this thing through. My tenacity and dogged determination was rewarded with 95 minutes of overwrought drivel. This is one of those "films" - and I use the term very lightly here - where it's tough to imagine 100+ fellow human beings got up every morning and thought to themselves, "I can't wait to work on this!". Low budget? Absolutely. Horror? Hardly. Paper mache characters, unconvincing acting delivering atrocious dialogue, high-school quality cinematography, and no one will be looking for the soundtrack...ever. Save yourself the time and the headache from gripping your forehead trying to navigate this utter disaster of a cine-mess. Reruns of Leave It To Beaver hold more horror than this...thing.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
52 Pick-Up (1986)
1/10
The 52nd Review
20 August 2017
This is the kind of movie where you want to take a shower afterwards. So much degradation, slimy characters, and dirty-looking locations. Scheider does what Scheider always does, Glover does what Glover always does, Williams does what Williams always does. You see a pattern? The musical score must have been performed on a Commodore 64, and cost $1.98 to produce. While the production is competently lensed, whatever production "value" is overwhelmed by the sordid plot and predictable execution. Tiresome, pedantic, and shopworn, this thing is a pass.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
21 (2008)
2/10
Cliché drivel
2 August 2009
Lots of badly delivered voice-overs (a lazy storytelling mechanism by the way), wooden acting, flashy cinematography, and unnecessary use of slow motion coupled with the basic plot of every Tom Cruise movie from the '80s is no substitute for a real movie. While this may be based on a real-life story, its similarity to good film entertainment ends at the point that they both use celluloid. Trite in every sense of the word, I hope Spacey got paid well as this thing certainly didn't propel his career anywhere. Nobody in the cast appeared to be trying, and the creative forces behind the camera flipped the auto-pilot switch "on". The Discovery Channel documentary reenactment had more dramatic punch.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Six Feet Under (2001–2005)
Started good, became a soap opera
20 March 2005
"Six Feet Under" started with such promise. In fact, the structure of the show after several seasons isn't that bad. Each episode starts with the death of a random person. The story could have revolved around around the people that person knew (family, friends, etc.), their stories, flashbacks about the deceased, and interactions with the Fishers. And in the first season this appears to be the case. Unfortunately, the second season and subsequent seasons disintegrated into a soap opera that surrounds the core Fisher family, and less-importantly "who is sleeping with who" story lines. Significant and substantial plot elements that could be interesting are eliminated in one sentence. AAArrrggghhh! While I continue to watch it because of my overall time investment, this is one series I can't wait to have "put down." Such promise squandered in predictability and triteness. Shame on Alan Ball!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed