Reviews

A think that it's important to approach this movie with an open mind. Forget the source material and watch the film as its own experience, that way you can more accurately judge it. With that open mind you will see that World War Z is very generic and forgettable, a lazy attempt in a very crowded genre.

Much of the criticism surrounding this movie has revolved around how far it strays from the source material, that by doing so World War Z just becomes another zombie movie. I never agreed with the visceral reaction to straying from the source material, the book isn't high literature, it's not some unassailable classic, so it never upset me that they took great liberties with it. However, it really does seem unfathomable that they could make a less interesting movie than the one they did.

In my opinion this movie is caught between worlds; it doesn't know if it wants to be an action movie that takes you from set piece to set piece, or if it wants to be a more thoughtful addition to the genre. Instead, it never commits to either and thus never does anything particularly well. The development hell that this movie went through are well known, and you can see it play out on screen as there's no core to it. The best I can figure is that through countless re-writes (including the final, famous rewrite and re-shoot) elements from many different ideas got lumped together, but an internal logic was lost along the way.

Parts of the movie seem to want to play up a feeling of tension, other parts want to go full action movie, and yet others want to go for good old disaster porn. Is this movie 28 Days Later? Is it Aliens? Or is it The Day After Tomorrow? With such a clutter of competing ideas, no single one ever takes hold, and the audience is left drifting in the wind. The tension has no teeth, the action is boring, and the ramifications of a world ending zombie war aren't really explored in great detail.

One final point; for a movie that puts a lot of emphasis on action set pieces, you will be hard pressed to see find one that makes them less compelling. There's very little weight to the action because the zombies are just so over powering, one turns into 10 in mere seconds, entire cities are fully infested within a matter of minutes, and they're so fast and strong that humans can't compete. This may be compelling on paper, but all it means is that the action is like watching a ridiculous video game. And speaking of video games, who did the special effects for this movie, and how did they pass quality control? World War Z has absolutely terrible CG, it was awful in 2013 and only looks worse with each passing day. Even the makeup of the zombies looks laughable. The poor special effects really hammered home to me that this was not a labor of love, and instead was something closer to a burden on all those involved.

It's not a terrible movie, but there's better ones to see. Nothing is done well enough to make up for the things that it does poorly.

Gone Girl is 2014's Mystic River, a beautifully crafted, powerful, memorable story that leaves you thinking, and yet ranks painfully low on the "entertainment" scale. I'm hard pressed to find a real flaw in Mystic River, just as I am in Gone Girl. That doesn't mean the movie is perfect, I could parrot some of the points raised elsewhere, but in totality I think Gone Girl is a damn fine film.

And I can never recommend it.

This is an insanely dark movie for a major Hollywood production- if this was a smaller film without famous actors I think it would be one of those movies that IMDb members talk about when they're discussing "disturbing movies" like Caligula, Gummo, and Happiness. To bring it back to the Mystic River analogy I would like to turn the attention to Clint Eastwood's follow up Million Dollar Baby. This was another dark movie that I found very challenging, but unlike Mystic River there was enough lightness to it that it felt more balanced, that life wasn't just three hours of being kicked in the balls. I found those small rays of sunshine refreshing and helped add contrast, perspectives, and layers to the ending. Mystic River and Gone Girl never makes the attempt to add contrast in this way, they hammer away at the inescapable darkness of the narrative. Both movies are so packed with impending doom, and suffocating tension, that the viewer never has a moment to relax and enjoy the really well crafted film that is being shown.

I'm not trying to argue that there should have been more comedic moments, they would have been out of place; but even the most serious movies can take their foot off your throat long enough for you to breath.

I'll give the movie a 7 out of 10 and be glad to never watch it again.

This movie has no heart, no soul, like one character claims of Murphy, it's just a "Tin-man"; a shell of a movie that has nothing beneath its skin.

The movie utterly fails to deliver upon the promise of the original. While the original is a flawed movie it does manage to achieve some pure moments that demand the viewer's attention. Robocop 2014 is more polished than the original but is sterile and unconvincing.

Gone is the gratuitous violence of the original. In its place is violence so softened that it loses all gravity. Robocop 2014 resembles a video game, there's no real sense of danger to the main character, no power behind the machine that is "cleaning up" crime, just a sterile movie where everything falls into place and no one is left offended. I'm not trying to say that gratuitous violence is always appropriate, but in order to create a sense of how dangerous the Detroit of Robocop 2014 is there needs to be a real sense that violence is out of control. Only a city that has become a warzone could put a robot on the streets. The original showcased the dangers of Detroit perfectly in the pursuit on the highway in broad daylight. An American city where there's a roaming gun battle between police and a crime syndicate hits home pretty hard. The viewer is made keenly aware that crime is so out of control that it blatantly challenges the authorities without fear. Robocop 2014 doesn't have anything like that; thus the viewer is left unfulfilled in understanding the danger posed to the citizens.

Gone is any cleverness in the satire. While the original's satire wasn't brilliant it was still clever enough to illicit a knowing laugh from someone who was really paying attention. Robocop 2014 removes this cleverness for heavy handed, ham-fisted scenes from Samuel Jackson. Jackson only has one speed in his acting, and his scenes grow tiresome quickly. There's nothing subtle about anything Jackson does in his career and his performance here is more of the same. His portrayal of a sensationalist journalist could have been a great addition to the movie. Instead it's too heavy handed and unoriginal.

Gone is a true villain. How they missed this aspect of the movie I don't understand. The three "bad guys" are composed of 1) A mob guy who is under developed and cast aside pretty quickly 2) a guy who's just a jerk, and 3) A guy who I'm not sure ever actually committed a crime. The original was carried by two great performances by the villains, they ground the movie and help establish the sense of pervasive danger that I mentioned before. RoboCop 2014 just has a couple of guys who you don't like, but who aren't really bad guys. The only true bad guy is so under developed that I almost forgot he existed while writing this review. This is the guy who is bringing Detroit to its knees? Yawn...

Gone is any semblance of character development. The original RoboCop had a really great closing line and helped wrap the whole movie up and left the viewer with some closure and hope. RoboCop 2014 just ends. Murphy's development is stunted (at best), you don't know if he's made any real progress. His development is handled haphazardly, he starts off in good shape, slides backwards, moves forward, then back, and then the final ten minutes of action takes place and you don't get a good understanding of where he is emotionally. The original provided a steadier progress in Murphy's development, slowly but surely the wall is chipped away. In Robocop 2014 you never get this feeling of progress, stuff happens but it doesn't really seem to matter.

Overall this is an action movie for the 21st century. Soulless, heartless, inoffensive, boring, and built to maximize profit. Again, the original is a flawed movie, but RoboCop 2014 is not an improvement and in almost every meaningful way is a step backwards. Some movies should not be family friendly and this is one of them.

All is Lost is perhaps the most inoffensive, unremarkable, forgettable, average, middle of the road, movie I have ever seen. In no way is the movie "bad", I don't regret watching it, but I certainly can't recommend it and will forget I ever watched it by tomorrow evening.

While nothing is "wrong" with the movie, nothing is particularly "right" either. It's not overly compelling, or dramatic, or sensational, and thus not very interesting. The sense of isolation and desperation is there, but it's not very strong. "Our Guy" goes through hell in this movie but somehow it's never really very interesting or exciting. Even when he seems on the verge of rescue there is very little sense of tension. The movie just consistently clicks off minutes, eventually running down to zero. Every minute feels like 60 seconds, time doesn't drag but nor does it fly by.

Perhaps the movie suffers from being in the same company as other movies that do the same theme better. Truthfully I didn't mind the lack of dialog, and what little dialog there is does sum up the situation very well. But when a movie is this long and there are probably less than 200 words of dialog, it becomes a challenge for everyone involved.

There's an interesting concept underneath this movie, but it did not translate well to the screen. This movie is the equivalent to a 65 degree day in late April, partly overcast, and a moderate breeze. The weather isn't bad...but it's not good either. Just another day and just another movie that I probably shouldn't have even spent this much time reviewing.

Only God Forgives (OGF) is a great example of a polarizing movie because you either think it's a masterpiece, or you think it's trash.

Obviously I belong to the latter group, I found Only God Forgives to be an incredibly painful experience. However, I don't think it deserves a rating of anything lower than a "3 out of 10". Anything lower should denote only a movie which is poorly crafted due to incompetence/or is morally reprehensible.

With this in mind Only God Forgives is solidly a three. As many other reviewers have mentioned, OGF seems to suffer badly from poor editing. The closest example I can think of is the movie Vampires vs Zombies, which I gave a rating of 1 out of 10. The difference is that the editing of OGF is clearly intentional, attempting to create a style and atmosphere. Similarly, the non linear elements of the story are deliberate and are inserted with forethought. That's why OGF is saved from a one star rating, it doesn't fail because of incompetence like Vampires vs Zombies, it fails because of a lack of execution.

That lack of execution is apparent from almost the first minute of the movie and is why it is so polarizing. This is not a situation where those that don't like the movie simply "don't get it", this movie just isn't very good. It is not accessible, is not entertaining, is not powerful, and is not well done. It is unfathomable to me how anyone associated with this film, who saw the final product, said "yes, I'm proud of this." It strikes me that the director simply got caught in his own little world where he knew what he wanted to do, and damn anyone else who said otherwise.

On paper this movie has a lot of really interesting elements, but it took the already divisive approach from Drive and shot it full of steroids. Yes, this movie is VERY different from Drive, but if you hated Drive I think there's no chance you'll like OGF. Additionally, if you like Drive, you may not like OGF at all. The movie is trying too hard to conform to develop its own style without concerning itself with the simply question "is the style any good?" No editor in the world is going to save this movie. It is not the editor's job to radically change the movie's style, the movie is assembled exactly as the director saw fit.

TL:DR- This movie really isn't any good. I can see what the director was going for in terms of style, but he utterly failed to produce a decent product. The movie doesn't deserve a 1 or 2 star rating because the style was attempted deliberately and just because you didn't like the final results it doesn't mean the movie needed better editing. Simply put the style just doesn't work and everyone involved with the movie should have known it was junk before it was released to ridicule.

Lincoln delivers. I could end my review right there, Lincoln delivers. So many things have already been written about this movie but I wanted to share some of my thoughts with the world.

Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing, flawless in fact. I've never seen him in a movie that he wasn't flawless in. I'm not sure I can say it any more clearly than that. DDL has made a career of playing strong characters (There Will be Blood) that dominate the screen. But in Lincoln he "cracks the throttle" and plays Lincoln with superb subtlety. President Lincoln is already larger than life, so there's no reason to take the character too far. Instead Daniel Day-Lewis presents a very Presidential Lincoln who is in ultimate control, even if those around him don't know it. If we didn't know President Lincoln was a real person then you would think that this movie was about some kind of impossible superhuman, that's how good DDL is.

The rest of the cast is solid, no complaints about Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, or Joesph Gordon Levitt. They all pale in comparison to Daniel Day-Lewis, but that's the point. Sally Field has the thankless role of playing Mary Todd Lincoln, a person that makes Sybil look like a well adjusted woman.

Holding this movie back is it's length (2 1/2 hours) and its pacing. To say it straight: this movie is slow. If you're into history/politics/phenomenal acting then you should check this movie out ASAP. But if you're expecting this movie to be anything other than a slow burn you'll be disappointing. Again, if you like There Will be Blood, then you'll probably really like this movie.

The only other thing I have complaints about were the ending and it's overly cheesy handling of Lincoln's death (seriously, IMDb better not claim that's a spoiler, I didn't check the spoiler box). I felt that it should have been done differently, we all know how it ends and it could have been done in a more powerful way.

Those two "complaints" aside, go see this movie immediately if you've ever liked anything that Daniel Day-Lewis has done. Go see it even if you haven't because he does justice to President Lincoln that no one else could ever do.

At its core this is a story about a very lonely person, one that we all may know, and how she fell through the cracks of life. One character sums it up perfectly: "It's strange really, it's like she never really existed but was just a figment of our imagination. She was a story. Someone that we all just made up; partly because we just let someone disappeared and die. Someone that we all thought we cared about." A few people have mentioned that this documentary is weak because Joyce, and her story, are mundane and not remarkable." They're absolutely correct, but I see this as a strength for the documentary. Joyce, and her "friends", are not remarkable in any way. Instead, they are normal people who lived their life around someone that was almost a ghost.

It's remarkable to watch these people recite, and discover, how little they knew this woman that they considered a friend. And yet these friends, or interviewees, are the best window into Joyce's life. As the title of the film suggests it really is like Joyce only existed in a dream. Her past and future never existed and she was only a shell of a person. I was reminded strongly of the movie Inception while thinking about Joyce. Not to ruin Inception for anyone, but there's a conversation where one character says to another "I can't imagine you with all your complexity, all your perfection and imperfection. You're just a shade..." That's what Joyce was, only a shade of a real person.

If there's a lesson to take from this movie it's that we need to do a better job of keeping in contact with our friends. I don't know what happened in Joyce's life that left her to die alone, but no one should have that fate.

Before I begin I would just like to mention that this is my first rating of a ten I have ever given out. Perhaps that will mean something to you as you read this review.

In the history of cinema there are some movies that either instantly, or eventually, became classics. Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, Chinatown, The Shawshank Redemption, Forest Gump, etc, are all nearly universally acknowledged as classics that should be viewed by anyone. I dare say that I believe Doubt should be put among the list of movies that should be viewed by everyone. My only hesitation is in Doubt's difficult subject material and design. Where as Forest Gump may be a very easy to follow story, Doubt leaves much up to interpretation. However I reconcile this fact that to have any list of "Greatest Movies" the list should span all genres and tastes, so as a result Doubt goes on the list.

Now that all the formalities are behind us I just want to stress how incredible the acting in this movie is. This is the movie that The Reader was trying to be. Where as Kate Winslet is amazing in The Reader Meryl Streep is equally, if not even more so, amazing in Doubt. Hoffman is equally amazing in his role and the two are polar opposites. The real surprise is Amy Adams who completes the triangle and manages to anchor the film. This is where Doubt accomplishes what The Reader could not, Adams' role is key to connecting the film and its characters with the audience. This key aspect is something that I felt was sorely lacking from The Reader.

Most of what the film does well has been said already and I do not wish to further repeat others words. I would simple like to highlight the multiple layers that this film has which is simultaneously it's strength and most frustrating feature. The depth gives the move it's gravity and it's ability to really get under your skin, make you think, and keep you thinking after the credits have finished. However, some will walk away frustrated that a more definitive argument is not made. This is the nature of the beast.

I am simply hard pressed to find something that the movie did wrong, or more aptly, didn't do superbly. Perhaps a bit of slowdown in the middle of the movie could be pointed out, but nothing that lingers for too long to be considered damaging to the films integrity. Every action, every scene, in the movie is outstanding and there is nothing that holds it back. Not an unnecessary scene, not an annoying/unimportant character who gets in the way, nothing.

Now go watch the film, you may not give it a ten but it is surely worth your time!

Much has been said about this film, both good and bad, and I want to try and add my measured response to the film.

To cover the basics: this is a movie about the genocide in Rwanda in the early 1990s. The main character shelters hundreds of innocent refuges in a large luxury hotel as chaos breaks out around the city. He uses his extensive political contacts to keep the murdering militias at bay while seeking a way for the refugees to escape.

The movie is gripping and intense from the start to finish. The characters are easy to identify with and well cast. The director does a wonderful job at creating an environment of impending doom and chaos. Most importantly this movie depicts a very important chapter of history and records it for future generations. Much like Schindler's List this is a movie that all should see so that the world never forgets what happened.

As a movie it does have it's flaws however. It drags on a bit too long and as a result some of the tension is lost. Repeatedly throughout the movie it seems like the bad guys are about to be victorious only to be thwarted at the last second (literally, the last second) by the main character. The combination of repeat last second saves gives the movie a strong feel of The Boy Who Cried Wolf and the omnipotence of the main character. It's hard to maintain tension when you've seen the same conflict resolved multiple times in the same manner by a character who seems to be able to deliver anything.

This issue should not keep anyone from seeing this movie however. For the subject matter it's pretty easy to get into, which was one of my main worries coming into the movie. Highly acclaimed for good reason this is a movie that won't do you wrong.

This movie exemplifies hyperbole. The accolades that this movie won are leaps and bounds beyond what it truly deserves. I'm not trying to argue that Kate Winslet didn't do a wonderful job, she did, nor am I arguing that underneath there aren't strong qualities, but this movie is certainly nothing special. Unfortunately this is an example of a film getting lost in the bubble of Hollywood where some things take on a life of their own.

Movies about guilt, pride, loss of innocence, have to walk a fine line in their story telling. This movie falls apart with it's inability to artfully hold the story together. The danger when dealing with such subject matter is that in order to make it feel real the characters must show emotional damage. The Reader does a masterful job of showing people who's lives have all been damaged by sin. However, the trap that can be sprung, and that this movie falls for, is that the characters become unidentifiable with. The cold nature of the main characters, especially Hana, keeps the audience at arms length from growing attached to anyone. Watching a 2+ hour movie without anyone to feel for is a hollow feeling.

To best sum up my feelings about this movie I will draw a comparison to Benjamin Button. Both movies have such strong source material to draw from, a wealth of talent and limitless potential but yet neither accomplished much that hasn't already been done. The Reader has been done before and done better by other movies. It leaves too many loose ends to be considered a strong movie, interesting and important plot developments are either not explored or left hanging. Winslet is by far the best part of this film, it's unfortunate that the rest of the film didn't live up to her performance.

Clearly I am in the minority for those who have commented on this film before me as I did not find it anything but average.

Serpico tells the story of Frank Serpico, a young cop who only wants to do his job and lead an honest life. He is confronted from the very onset of his career by police abuse and high level corruption. This is the center of the drama throughout the film.

Perhaps in 1973 Serpico was a groundbreaking movie in regards to its subject matter, but no longer. Today we have countless movies that explore the same subject material and do it much better such as American Gangster with Denzel Washington and Russel Crow. By 2008 standards there is nothing remarkable about the portrayal of an honest cop vs a corrupt system, or the internal strife which compounds the situation, to be found in this movie. A modern viewer with no personal experience from the 70s will be left scratching their head at this movie.

If you like Pacino you will not be disappointed in his performance while at the same time he is still the same old Pacino (though at the time I guess he was new). I cannot help but think that most of us would be very unimpressed with his acting abilities if this movie were to come out today.

This movie is only for those who have a taste/ hobby for older movies; but will hold little value, entertainment wise, for most others.

Well first off I want to say that I really wanted to enjoy this movie but I have to say that it was very disappointing.

When viewing this film it is important to remember its age, and with that in mind only really the audio suffers. I found myself confused by what the director was trying to get across at times with the different sounds from inside the house. This is simply a technical problem in my eyes as the characters would fill in the gaps where I was unsure, but the fact that the sounds, the driving force behind the suspense and horror, had a very hazy role was upsetting. This problem alone however is off set by good acting, good camera work and a great setting (all relative for the time).

What this movie does suffer from however is a feeling of emptiness and missed opportunity. The history of the house, the haunting itself, and the role of the characters is never flushed out very well. In fact it becomes evident that this glaring omission was heavily focused on for the remake years later (which fails in and of itself for a number of reasons). This problem leads to the characters not being important at all to the viewer and more of an annoyance than anything else. No amount of good acting can save a character that is never explained.

As for the suspense of the film there simply isn't enough to sustain the length of the film and there is just simply nothing to be frightened of. The movie never shows you the "ghosts" which is fine, however it does a poor job of giving you anything to be really scared of in any fashion. To relate back to what I said above about the sound quality, this is the biggest selling point for the film (which is a missed opportunity) and then there is little else.

It's very sad to watch this movie and to know that it was limited by the era in which it was produced. There is much potential in it and one can understand how a remake SHOULD have been able to produce one of the most frightening movies in recent memory. I give this movie a very average rating because it really doesn't do anything very well yet at the same time has a good foundation. Perhaps a different director or cast could have brought the film to life better but what we are left with is only a shell of what should be a great film.

If you've come this far to find Salo in the pits of IMDb then you are probably pretty determined to see this film. In that case probably nothing I can say will turn you away and may in fact just spur you on ever more to watch it. If that's the case then so be it, but I felt that I had to try and do my best to warn people.

This movie is not for 99.8% of the WORLD'S population. Of the .2% that remains I don't believe most will get anything out of this movie that will in any way benefit their lives. I've seen some very well written arguments here and elsewhere about the validity of this film, that it explores some very complicated and taboo subjects in society. Of this I have no doubt and non can exist. I've also read that this movie, maybe in the same vein as the former, is also a snuff film that the director, Pasolini, put together in a deliberate attempt to offend people who watch it to its conclusion. The argument being that if you did watch it you must indeed be sick yourself.

You can take these arguments for as much as you want. Some people love this film, others hate it, myself I cannot say I am in either category. I certainly do not like the movie, but my feelings on it are not hatred. The movie simply is the epitome of lacking anything of value. For me any message that the artist was trying to get across was lost in the attempt to make a vile movie. I simply cannot think of one redeeming factor from the movie that would make it of value, simply nothing. Whatever vision Pasolini had he lost it amongst the rage that was obviously tearing him up inside. I beg anyone who reads this to do anything else with their time, read a book, write a story, anything.

The only reason this movie did not get a 1 is because nothing could be worse than Vampires vs Zombies.

What a movie! I think it's important to give a bit of back story on my viewing of this film before I comment on what I liked about it. I walked into this movie with absolutely no expectations. My father had rented this movie and as he often does with older movies acted like it was pure gold. Now my fathers taste in movies is radically different from mine and often I don't think the movies he really likes are anything more than just light hearted fun. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but I was expecting more of the same for this film.

Boy was I wrong.

Yes it is a fun movie, a very slapstick tongue in cheek event, but the movie reeks of intentional spoofing and jokes consisting of winks and nods. If I were to compare it's humor, or more aptly its character, I would have to say it reminds one of the set up from Arrested Development. It will take multiple viewings in order to fully appreciate everything, funny or not, that is taking place on screen at any one time.

Paul Newman is in rare form in this movie as he plays a character very NON Paul Newmanish. HE sports a beard throughout the movie which helps with the illusion but his gruff voice and vocabulary really stand out as a fine approach to a character.

This movie is very good, a real gem that has gone un seen by many.

First off I must stress how rare it is that I take the time to comment on a movie that I have seen, it takes a very special case for me to take the time and write about how I felt about a film. That said, of the hundreds of movies I have watched I have seen some of the most brilliant, Shawshank, the scariest, The Woman in Black, the funniest, Shark Attack III: Megaladon, and now the worst: Vampires vs. Zombies.

The first thing that must be said is that this movie is not funny! For those that are looking for a light hearted movie that will just be fun or at the very least so bad that it's funny, look elsewhere. It is true that a movie such as this is not trying to be subtle and brilliant, with a title such as this you should know what you're getting into. That said, there is no excuse for a movie to abandon any and every rule that governs the movie making world. This is not an argument between the traditional movie making process and newer and more "artsy" methods to creating a film, this is an argument between bad directors and companies being held accountable for making terrible movies.

This movie suffers from the over used saying "I don't know where to start." Truly everything about this movie is broken. From the acting and to the editing there is no reason any movie should ever fail to deliver a cohesive series of events such as Vampires vs. Zombies. Some of the following problems are; 1. Scene misfires- It's clear that the director, the camera crew and the actors were not on the same page. In one scene in particular the scene begins with the camera resting on the ground looking at the passenger side door of a car. You are expecting the person inside to get out, but there is a, and this is NO exaggeration, 10 second, at least, delay between the camera comes on and the director says "action" to where anything happens on screen. The viewer is left staring at a car door for the entire time with no sound, no movement, just the stereotypical "dead air" that radio or TV commentators dread. Where was the editing? 2. Acting- A forgivable offense in most cases, you can't expect a movie like this to have Oscar winners after all, but Vampires vs. Zombies takes bad acting to a whole other level. These "actors" were barely able to read their scripts obviously because anyone with any ability to read and to speak would have been able to pronounce the lines better than these fools. My only comparison for acting would have to be the opening scene from Resident Evil on Playstation. But that acting was even better.

3- Story- Wait, what? Story? Again you can't expect this to be The Greatest Story Ever Told, but is it too much to ask that we have some semblance of a narrative? Why the Vampires? Who are the characters? Who are the bad guys? Are there good guys? Why all the lesbians? But most importantly, what's the deal with the zombies? If you have seen this movie then you will understand what I mean, but to those who haven't I'll be plain, there are no zombies in this movie aside from maybe five minutes of it. It was almost as if the director forgot about the name of the movie and was forced to throw some zombies in without explanation at the very end.

There's so much more, but I hope I've done enough to keep anyone from seeing this movie.

What can I say about this movie other than excellent? For a fan of movies in general and one who was sure that there was nothing left to see that could truly scare me this movie has proved me wrong! I cannot remember the last time that I yelled or screamed out loud in true horror at a movie beyond the occasional "shock" yell. This movie has, hands down, one of the scariest images you will EVER see in cinema! I never write reviews or give reviews out on IMDb, but this movie has left such an impression on me that it is an essential for anyone who is tired of Hollywood's inability to create a good horror movie.

8 out of 10