sign543
Joined Mar 2006
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews5
sign543's rating
I read all the reviews here...went into the watching of this film with the knowledge that, yes, it's low budget...yes, the actors are virtually unknown...yes, it's a B Horror Gore Fest. I was expecting the worst. (Great DVD Cover, by the way.) Despite all of that, this film is not a total train wreck. I even enjoyed it. The story line is pretty clear...straight forward. The special effects are very effective, gore, blood-vomiting and gut-eating at all the right spots. If you are a true fan of that sort of thing...this film delivers.
I've watched many badly made films and usually, when they are total train wrecks, you can't get past a certain point in the film. Eventually, you just stop watching or eject the DVD. That never happened with this one. It piqued my interest from beginning to end. I wanted to see what was going to happen next. Yes, the acting wasn't first rate, but it was good enough to move the film along nicely.
My biggest complaint is the lighting. It was too dark, too often. They used a very greenish filter on most of the scenes and sometimes it was distracting. When you notice the lighting effects too much...it can't be good. Also, the warden's young son wasn't as believable as he could have been. When their are limb-ripping, blood-covered, shrieking zombies running in every direction...you expect fear in a little kid. Instead, he mostly just stands there, looking like he was waiting for direction from the director.
So, I went in expecting the worst...and came away with an entertaining 80-something minutes. I liked it despite the flaws.
I would also like to say that I rented two films last night: This one...and The Da Vinci Code. I couldn't make it through the Da Vinci Code. This one had me entertained through the entire film. Kudos to the filmmakers. Keep pumping out these gore-fests. The fans are waiting. ;)
I've watched many badly made films and usually, when they are total train wrecks, you can't get past a certain point in the film. Eventually, you just stop watching or eject the DVD. That never happened with this one. It piqued my interest from beginning to end. I wanted to see what was going to happen next. Yes, the acting wasn't first rate, but it was good enough to move the film along nicely.
My biggest complaint is the lighting. It was too dark, too often. They used a very greenish filter on most of the scenes and sometimes it was distracting. When you notice the lighting effects too much...it can't be good. Also, the warden's young son wasn't as believable as he could have been. When their are limb-ripping, blood-covered, shrieking zombies running in every direction...you expect fear in a little kid. Instead, he mostly just stands there, looking like he was waiting for direction from the director.
So, I went in expecting the worst...and came away with an entertaining 80-something minutes. I liked it despite the flaws.
I would also like to say that I rented two films last night: This one...and The Da Vinci Code. I couldn't make it through the Da Vinci Code. This one had me entertained through the entire film. Kudos to the filmmakers. Keep pumping out these gore-fests. The fans are waiting. ;)
I find it disheartening that so many of King's masterpieces were treated so badly in their film adaptations...and perhaps it's mostly because his books are too complex to adapt well to film...I'm not sure. Delores Claiborne, Stand By Me, Misery, Carrie, Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, and the Green Mile all did well. Then we are treated to stinkers like IT, Maximum Over-drive, Dreamcatchers, Thinner, The Running Man, Firestarter...and of course, this one.
Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.
This film has all the feel of a made-for-TV movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.
That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.
Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.
Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.
They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.
Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.
Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.
Did I forget to mention Stephen King's own remake of The Shining? He should have settled for the original.
This film has all the feel of a made-for-TV movie or direct-to-video film...and, in fact, that's what it should have been. The film was terribly fast-paced and left out some of the more necessary plot elements of the book. They jumped into the darker elements way too quickly. There is barely a set up for the horror to come.
That they left out Norma Crandall was very disappointing as she added to Judd's character so much. He's barely even interesting in the film. Fred Gwynn turned him into a goofy, drawling, old man. Over-acted. Not subtle at all, as his character was in the book.
Ellie, the daughter, was a terrible actress. I am sure they could have found a better actress than her. She was whiny and abrasive and her lines were very forced and unnatural.
Even the cinematography was badly done. Everything is way too bright for the plot line. Too many primary colors. It felt like they were on the set of a soap opera. At least it matches the acting of the principal characters.
They tried to sew it all up with gory makeup effects, but set in the backdrop of a badly made film, it just makes the blood and gore goofy and laughable. The only way this film could be considered "scary" is with the cheap haunted-house "BOO!" scare tactics...like when a hand shoots out of the dark and grabs a shoulder.
Why would they choose Mary Lambert to direct this film? She barely had any experience as a director before this gig and most of the experience she did have was with music videos. And, as expected, beyond this flop, she has barely done anything worth mentioning. Well, except for more music videos and the follow-up stinker sequel to this film.
Let's hope the 2008 re-make is better.
