Change Your Image
Jeremy_Urquhart
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Saw (2004)
A flawed classic, 20 years on.
I got through most of the Saw sequels around this time last year, watching them for the first time and largely enjoying them, even though they're heavily flawed in many ways. It felt fitting, then, to revisit the first, which I hadn't seen in about a decade. Whether I go through and watch all the sequels again, I'm not sure. Probably not on my own, as I feel like they'd be more fun to watch with people, much like the Fast and Furious series.
This first movie is also flawed in some ways, like the sequels, but I really respect what they were able to do with a budget that barely exceeded $1 million. The sets are all very limited, and you can tell in some of the chase scenes that they didn't have much room to play around with. I think the only time it's laughably bad is when they didn't have the budget to do a proper car chase and they try to show fast-moving cars that obviously aren't moving. It's also kind of charming, in all honesty. The same goes for some of the melodramatic acting. You kind of just accept it as part of the Saw series.
It was fun watching this knowing how it ended (the final couple of scenes are still such an adrenaline rush), and seeing some seeds sown for later films was also fun. There are lots of moving parts to Saw, and though it's a little choppy at times, they all collide rather spectacularly by the time the film comes to an end. It's such a simple set-up, too, and instantly engaging. Plenty of suspense, even on a second viewing, and I do quite love how tasteful this is violence-wise compared to the other films. Not that I'm squeamish; it's more just that the over-the-top gore gets old after a while, whereas the intricate plots and unceasing plot shake-ups never do.
I love Saw when it's being a soap opera with non-stop twists the writers have to keep juggling. It's so entertaining how convoluted it all gets. And though the series got more violent, that hyperactive melodrama was set in stone right from the start, and I like when the sequels double down on all that wonderful goofiness.
Pane, amore e..... (1955)
A Serviceable Scandal
I don't know, this Sorrento scandal seemed pretty mild to me. There's a small town and Sophia Loren is in the town and so more than one person wants to be with Sophia Loren and there are some sort of comedic moments and then it kind of ends.
It gets by because Loren had star power, and because it's a colorful film that makes good use of its seaside setting. I guess to some extent, I appreciated how drama-free it was, with little sentimentality or forced tension/conflict later in the film. It really just felt like it was trying to be a fairly gentle comedy about some love-related chaos, and a little escapism as a result.
It's not essential and probably won't be memorable in time (to me), but it felt like it did what it wanted to do. Scandal in Sorrento isn't really ambitious at all, from what I can tell, but it does succeed at being decent. That's more than can be said for some movies, and I do also want to go a tiny bit easier on this one because of its age.
Rashômon (1950)
Come on, Homer. You liked Rashomon!
When I first discovered Akira Kurosawa, I started with Seven Samurai, and got a little frustrated when I watched other films of his and found they weren't Seven Samurai. I realize now the errors of my ways, because films like Ran and Rashomon I appreciate more on their own terms. Part of me might still prefer the kind of experience Seven Samurai offers, but his other well-known films are all great also for what they try to do.
And it's easier to appreciate now the range of films Kurosawa was willing to make, also tackling pretty much every genre he tackled with immense skill and care. Another thing I love about his movies (especially as someone who has to write about his movies a lot) is how easy they are to summarize with just a sentence or two. Rashomon, broadly, is about the more difficult than intended search for truth surrounding a crime that ended with murder, unpacking how several different people experienced the related events.
It's such a small movie compared to Seven Samurai, which I also saw on the big screen recently. Both the screenings for Seven Samurai and Rashomon pretty much sold out, which is always good to see. Rashomon has just a few actors and sets, but with the actors, they do all have to change their performances a little every time the story is retold. It's almost a bit too subtle to notice at times, but I eventually caught on.
I don't know if it perfectly works its way around the repetition by making it engaging every single time, but it's generally paced decently. Any longer, I might've gotten a little restless (and I think I was very restless the first time I watched this). Part of the ending comes on a bit suddenly, but I appreciated there being a hint of hope near the end, because the film otherwise comes to a very bleak and blunt outlook on humanity as a whole.
Frankenstein vs. the Mummy (2015)
Not very good
Maybe the intent was to make a modern-day equivalent of some of those Universal Monsters crossover movies from way back in the 30s and 40s, but it feels more like Damien Leone making an Asylum film, sadly. I think it's better than the handful of Asylum releases I've seen, but that doesn't mean I'd go so far as to call it good.
Also, anyone who feels Terrifier 2 is too long will have whatever the opposite of a field day is with Frankenstein vs. The Mummy. Some of those Universal movies were 60 to 70 minutes long, and this one should've taken inspiration from that aspect of them.
At least the Mummy looked kind of cool. We could use a good gory/modern-day full-horror take on the Mummy one of these days.
All Hallows' Eve (2013)
Iffy
At one point while watching one of several horror shorts featured throughout this anthology movie, a character sighs and says "why am I watching this?" And I had a similar thought while watching All Hallow's Eve.
I guess I know why. I was curious about Damien Leone's other movies after being on a bit of a Terrifier high. I guess this one has at least made me appreciate them more, because it's extremely rough around the edges. It's a good deal sloppier than I remember the first Terrifier being, and I didn't really love that one all that much.
I can't be too harsh when a movie looks like it was made for $12 though. Seeing proto-Art was also fun, but he was played by a different actor here and certainly not as charismatic or memorable as he'd later become.
Carrie (1976)
Really good
Weirdly enough, Carrie was better as someone who's no longer in high school compared to how I found it when I was in high school. So much time has passed between watches, but I feel like it's aged very well. Anything I found cheesy or a little forced before either hasn't gotten worse, or just flat out bothers me less. There are definitely Stephen King adaptations that do a much worse job of translating his sometimes corny/stilted dialogue to the screen, with Carrie translating it all very well.
I think I appreciate Piper Laurie and Sissy Spacek more, too. They bring some depth to characters who would potentially run the risk of seeming overly simple or cheesy in less capable hands. And though it's visually not as stylish as something like Blow Out (which was the first part of a double feature I saw tonight), there's still quite a few De Palma-isms. Life is injected into this visually, but it never goes too far. It still feels grounded and very straightforward, with what must've been 75% of the budget going toward the whole prom sequence. That's the first point in the movie when things feel big.
It's also a sign of good filmmaking when you know the outcome of a movie, but you still can't help sitting there hoping you miserembered, or that you've somehow lucked your way into watching a re-edited version with an alternate ending. The way Carrie concludes is spectacular but so saddening. And then it's all capped off with a very cruel jump scare (which wasn't as bad as I remembered, but there was genuine dread at anticipating it this second time around).
Blow Out (1981)
A good one to catch on the big screen.
This was the first part of a Brian De Palma double feature. Oddly, the second movie was Carrie, which was released earlier and I assumed was the more popular film, so I thought it would be on first (possibly after both Abbott and Costello). But some people seemed to leave and didn't come back after Blow Out finished, so maybe I was wrong.
Beyond the De Palma connection, John Travolta and Nancy Allan play significant roles in both, but are the leads in Blow Out and villains in Carrie. Both movies also look amazing, and seeing them on the big screen made me respect even more what a great director Brian De Palma was at his peak. When he was on fire, there's just so much energy and style to his movies; far more so than most directors of his time. I think both films hold up very well for the most part.
Blow Out I definitely liked more this second time around. It has some minor problems with eventually grouping up its narrative threads and pacing around the halfway mark, but the premise is intriguing and most of the final act is excellent. It also has one of Travolta's best-ever performances, without a doubt. Could've used more John Lithgow (every movie could, really) but he's great when he is on-screen here at least.
Also, shoutout to the one person who fell asleep at one point and snored a bit throughout the middle stretch of Blow Out. It was a little funny, and I think also backs up my feelings regarding the pace dropping (or the person had just had a busy day- I know the feeling!)
Go West (1925)
Pretty fun
I watched Go West back to back with Battling Butler, and liked it quite a bit more. It's a fun Buster Keaton movie that sees the silent movie legend bringing his comedic style into the Western genre, and the results are generally fun to watch. It's not top-tier, but it's a good enough time to make it easy enough to recommend to anyone who's liked his other/better-known stuff.
It's pretty much Keaton goofing around in the West, trying to make a living and striking up a kind of endearing bond with a cow. In fact, there are so many cows/bulls in this film. It might be one of the few ever made that have more cows/bulls than people. It's this and one other John Wayne movie (I think Red River, if that's the one about the cattle drive... but they all blend together a bit) that might qualify.
Battling Butler (1926)
A good first half, but it loses steam at a point.
Battling Butler starts off really well, kind of on par with the other Buster Keaton movies from this era that I've seen. The best gags came in the first act, and then it initially seems pretty funny when it gets all farcical with Keaton's character getting mixed up with a boxer while trying to woo a girl.
Then it becomes more of a comedic sports movie, which I thought would be where things really take off, but I found the second half a bit dull. It just wasn't as funny as early on, and it lacks a little something to elevate it into A-tier by Buster Keaton's standards. It's very watchable, even in its second half, and there were a few laughs early on. It's pretty good for a silent flick, but I felt it didn't really stick the landing (or the whole final act or so, really).
The Apprentice (2024)
Who's the devil, and is there sympathy for him?
Movies have been taking wild swings lately and I'm here for it. Megalopolis was a lovely mess, Joker 2 was messy without being lovely (but it took risks I guess), Terrifier 3 genuinely made me nauseous (I slept poorly last night because I also saw it last night), and now The Apprentice goes to some insane places. There are a couple of points where I wondered "are they allowed to show that?" I was shocked.
The shocking scenes generally have a purpose. I think the film's argument is presented without much subtlety, but I guess some people still think Jordan Belfort's cool based on The Wolf of Wall Street, so who knows. Then again, there is one very alarming scene in this though that feels like it's there to say unequivocally what the filmmakers think of Trump's character. It will be the most controversial scene. Will Trump sue? Has he begun that process already? There is also a lack of follow-up to that scene that left me even more uneasy and upset. I think that was the intent. Some people will not like it - people who both like and dislike Trump - and I wonder if it'll make The Apprentice this year's Blonde.
The writing lays things on thick in The Apprentice, and I don't think it quite knew how to end, but I otherwise found this engrossing. The three leads - Sebastian Stan, Jeremy Strong, and Maria Bakalova - are phenomenal. Juxtaposing Trump's rise with Roy Cohn's fall was an inevitable angle to take, but it makes for extremely compelling drama. It is a blunt movie but there is some nuance in parts that I think will provoke discussions and/or arguments. I don't always love provocation, but when it feels purposeful and is backed up with good filmmaking, I'm on board. This film's going to stick in my mind for a while.
Terrifier 3 (2024)
This series keeps getting better.
This Terrifier series is fascinating. The first movie kind of sucks, having nothing memorable narratively or cinematically, really, beyond introducing a memorable villain and having impressively grisly violence. It's a slasher movie not broken down to its bare essentials, but driven down further somehow. It's a bit of a nothing movie, without a plot and seemingly not caring.
Then the second came along, made the villain even more memorable, and had scenes of bloodshed that proved more shocking. It also had a pretty good story and character development (don't think that's a popular opinion, but I liked it), and introduced more of an intriguing series mythology, for lack of a better word.
Terrifier 3 takes all that stuff the second movie did well and I think does it even better. Terrifier 2 felt a bit overlong, at 138 minutes, with Terrifier 3's slightly shorter runtime helping the pacing immensely. I still feel surprisingly invested in this series, which is becoming something genuinely fantastical. They could eventually overdo that side of things, and they almost do here, but I really dig what these films have evolved into.
The violence is disgusting. It's at least as sadistic as the second, maybe more. Art the Clown is hilarious when he's not killing people but I hate him deeply. I love to hate him. Unironically one of the best villains of the last 10 years. He's Harpo Marx if Harpo was also a serial killer.
The final act elevated this film immensely. Chainsaws have never sounded louder. I was worried I'd have a panic attack and I felt queasy. I feel a bit shaken after the whole thing, now that it's over. The sadistic violence played a part, but I think I also cared. These characters have all suffered so much, and I was so invested in them winning. The final scenes had me squirming in my seat more so because I was invested, rather than the violence. I think that's impressive, or maybe I'm just easily entertained.
There are some scenes here that look too cheap, and the pacing isn't perfect. Occasional rough line deliveries and inconsistent acting here and there, too. It sort of ties the first movie and the second together in a way that felt a bit rough early on. But much of the second half had me feeling so jittery, and I have to celebrate a movie that gets to me like that. The last month or so has had some high-profile disappointments new release-wise, so I'm really happy Terrifier 3 was a film that exceeded my expectations. This is the best of the series so far.
Crazy Heart (2009)
It's just fine.
It might open in a bowling alley and star Jeff Bridges, but Crazy Heart is much more Inside Llewyn Davis than The Big Lebowski.
It's a decent but kind of slow film, and it fell back on some sort of tired conventions and beats surrounding movies about addiction and/or musicians. I didn't entirely buy either Jeff Bridges or Colin Farrell as musicians at all.
The alcoholism of Bridges' character similarly didn't feel authentic to me. Maybe it was, or reflected a certain experience someone had, but there was just something off about how it was communicated. I am conflicted over whether it's more or less believable to have him succeed in other parts of his life, like writing enough musically to make a living and apparently have his own place, as well as be apparently irresistible to women (I mean, two, but that feels like a lot to me within a small space of time). I don't know what his appeal was as a heavy drinker and an older man. I guess musicians can be attractive but whatever.
Bridges is okay, considering the screenplay here is unremarkable, but I think Maggie Gyllenhaal fared much better. Her character was less well-defined, but she made some choices that made a fairly straightforward "love interest" character feel like a real person. It's also always fun to see Robert Duvall show up for a couple of scenes.
It's a movie with good intentions, but the execution hindered the overall watch for me. It wraps up better than I was anticipating (only so many ways a story like this can go, and it finds the most balanced and appropriate option), and I liked some of the supporting performances. Bridges did surprisingly little to impress here though, I felt, and Crazy Heart is also pretty ordinary as far as screenplays go.
Du bi quan wang da po xue di zi (1976)
Gonzo
It's funny, I used to reject the Shaw Brothers Studio style for a while, then I got really into the studio's films about a year or two ago, and now it's hard to adjust to classic martial arts movies that are done in a different style.
I have to take a step back and try my best to appreciate a style as different as the one found in Master of the Flying Guillotine. Some of the quirks here make the film take wild detours, just infrequently enough to catch you off guard every time. There's the casual walking up walls/along the ceiling early on, the titular flying guillotine weapon, and then my favorite part: the guy with the very long (and not particularly practical) arms. Any fight scene with him was hilarious.
There's also the proggy/electronic music used throughout, giving the whole thing a distinctly unusual vibe. It felt jarring to me, but I think only in terms of it not being what I'm used to. I kind of like it going there with the music, and putting a weird fantastical spin on some of the martial arts action.
I was still a little bored here, at times, and I think I might've felt it sagging a bit here and there even if I had been on board with the style/tone of Master of the Flying Guillotine. And the story isn't just barebones. It's basically somewhere between non-existent and entirely nonsensical, and that may have contributed to the sense of fatigue. The action can get a little repetitive, at least when it's not relying on gimmicks. I feel like the choreography was competent, but not often remarkable.
When approached as a blend of schlocky grindhouse cinema with martial arts, and some surreal humor for good measure, I think it works. It wasn't a cocktail that went down smoothly for me, but if I approach it for what it is, I at least appreciate most of the ingredients that went into it. If they'd been blended properly, we could be talking about an all-timer here.
Hatsukoi: Jigoku-hen (1968)
Confronting and (sometimes) confusing.
In line with a title like Nanami: The Inferno of First Love, this one is pretty grim overall. It's already a far from sunny look at love, but it delves into darker territory when it comes to exploring the histories of its two main characters, and in that sense, I feel this still has the capacity to shock.
It doesn't compromise and I guess I could call it a gutsy film. It sometimes feels like it's trying to be steamy, for lack of a better word, and that clashes with the more disturbing parts of the film. To what extent that was intentional and, if so, what purpose that was supposed to serve, I'm not sure. I guess that's the main reservation I have about Nanami: The Inferno of First Love.
It's one that's kind of impossible to recommend unless you like Japanese New Wave films (and that's a whole movement I have kind of mixed feelings about personally), but if you are and don't mind a disturbing and downbeat watch, then sure. Knock yourself out and ruin your day. It's only one day; you get plenty of them anyway. Hopefully.
Thunder of Gigantic Serpent (1988)
It is what it is.
Very cheap, sometimes boring, but also sometimes charming low-budget giant monster movie about very big snek that get more big as film go on.
There are some very slow parts, especially in the first half, but when the snek get really big, this is movie magic.
- Snek: is big
- Special effects: cheap
- Dubbing: atrocious
- Consistent editing and smooth scene transitions: non-existent
- Fun when big snek is on screen: immeasurable.
You get exactly what you think you'd get out of a movie called Thunder of Gigantic Serpent here. If you think that title sounds awesome, you should watch this, but if you think it sounds stupid, maybe it's best to find another movie to watch.
Wandafuru raifu (1998)
Very intriguing
Quiet, low budget, and sometimes quite touching film about a group of people who have recently passed away and now, in some kind of purgatory, have to select one memory from their life to take into the afterlife. A good deal of time is also spent on the people who run this strange, otherworldly facility.
I wondered if this was an influence on Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I guess because memories (and forgetting/treasuring them) are thematically important to both. Pacing wise and as far as genres go, each film is very different, but the exploration of the pst and how we remember it, as well as some of the dreamy visuals in each proved similar.
A fascinating concept, I did think After Life became a little less interesting as it went along, and maybe feels a tad overlong at two hours... but there's still a lot of good in here, and it's the kind of movie I could see sticking with me into the future.
Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
Fast and Furious finally says "Yes, we're in on the joke."
I have come to like the sincerity of the mainline Fast and Furious movies, though this spin-off definitely takes things in a different direction tonally. Because this film (8.5 in the series; Fellini would've loved it) is snarkier and more self-aware, I'd honestly say it would have the best chance at appealing to someone who's never watched any other movies from the series.
The first few Fast and Furious movies were a little rough-going at first - at least the first one was for me - and learning to like what they're going for took time. Hobbs and Shaw is more outwardly a comedy, so anyone looking for sincerity or wholehearted melodrama isn't going to find much of that here. But some people don't like the self-seriousness of the other movies, and I didn't at first either. So I appreciate there being a different-flavored F & F movie.
Leaning more toward science fiction than ever before was fun, the action satisfied, and there were more laughs here than expected. I can understand it being a bit more divisive, but I enjoyed some of the similarities this had to the others and some of the differences. There are still moments that aren't great, and some slightly shaky special effects here and there, but it's dumb fun. The movie is just more wink-wink-nudge-nudge about it all, for better or worse. Movies 5 to 8 I generally prefer over movies 1 to 4, and I think Hobbs & Shaw would fall in the middle of both camps quality-wise.
The Fate of the Furious (2017)
Let's get silly
Furious 7 was a tough act to follow, but I think The Fate of the Furious is about as good as it could've been in the circumstances (without Paul Walker). It throws Charlize Theron into the mix and Helen Mirren also has a small role, with the central gimmick involving Dom seeming to turn his back on the family (with good reason). It feels more like a soap opera than the others, and that broad storytelling coupled with big emotions and ridiculous action made for a fun watch.
I feel like this eighth movie gets off to a bit of a rough start, but I was on board from the prison breakout sequence onwards. The car chase throughout New York City with all the self-driving cars getting hacked was a lot of fun, as was the final big action sequence that revels in silliness. I tend to enjoy the silly Fast and Furious more than the comparatively grounded street racing-focused ones, and there's no real jumping of the shark yet.
In fact, I think the almost shark-jumping nature of the series and how it continues to get dumber is what keeps me coming back. I quite love this meaty, stupid series. There are problems with this movie and a bunch of the others, but good entertainment is good entertainment, and I had a good time here.
Tender Mercies (1983)
Quite good
Tender Mercies is a perfect title for this. Just like how that bar in The Blues Brothers has both types of music (country AND western), Tender Mercies is a movie with more tenderness and mercy, the latter being a theme here and the former being the quality that shines throughout. It's a slow-going film that has heart, and keeps things at a pretty brief runtime, ensuring the slowness never gets too boring.
In the end, the film - about a somewhat washed-up musician and the various women in his life - is mostly a showcase for Robert Duvall, who won his only Oscar for his performance here. I don't know if it's his best performance, but it is a very good one, and he definitely shines here.
I'm not sure if it's fair to call Duvall underappreciated, but I feel tempted to. Anyone who's done a little digging into older movies - or the "classics" - is going to stumble across him a bunch of times, thanks to the Coppola movies he starred in, and then also roles like To Kill a Mockingbird (even if brief). But he's probably not as well-known as Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, or Al Pacino, even if he's kind of at their levels. (And I say that when Al Pacino might not be as well-known as I give him credit for. I met someone around my age who thought they'd heard of him before, but they were mixing him up with Al Capone and hadn't actually seen any of his movies, as it turned out).
Anyway, Tender Mercies is gentle, a little plodding, and sometimes a bit of a bummer, but I liked it as a quiet character-focused drama. The film's well-presented and Duvall is very good. It's not a full-blown classic, but it's pretty good.
Donzoko (1957)
A bit middling.
When it comes to Akira Kurosawa films made in 1957 and based on non-Japanese plays, I much prefer Throne of Blood, even though I wouldn't include that one among my very favourite Kurosawa films either.
This one has some good direction and Mifune does a decent job of course, but it never really manages to transcend feeling stagey, and there's so much hysterical shouting in its final act that it ended up getting on my nerves, unfortunately.
Truly one of Kurosawa's weaker efforts, and I really didn't like it much, to be brutally honest. I hate to say it, but I kind of appreciate why this one isn't super well-known.
You Can't Take It with You (1938)
Decent enough
It's not bad! I'm just not crazy about Capra, sort of in the same way I can respect John Ford's films without really loving them. Even though Capra mostly did dramedies, and Ford did dramas/westerns, I have similar feelings towards both, knowing full well of course that they're both important filmmakers.
The Capra movies people love I usually like, and I guess the ones like this that most people like, I think are mostly okay. Nothing about this is bad- it's just not really my kind of movie (and no, not just because it's old. It's to do with the tone, pacing, and just overall story not really grabbing me).
Mauvais sang (1986)
Really good
It's definitely uneven, but the strengths are stronger than the weaknesses are weak, if that makes sense, so it still makes for a very good film overall.
Gets into its fairly unique spin on the heist/crime movie fairly quickly, with a fast-paced first act that has plenty of energy. It slows right down in the middle, to slightly mixed results. It is more about the characters than the crime, but a few scenes did still feel a little stretched. Thankfully, it nails the home stretch, with a satisfying final act.
Leos Carax's direction is fantastic, and many of the experimental touches work in giving the film its own identity. The acting is strong across the board, too, with Denis Lavant being particularly great.
There's also a great sequence featuring David Bowie's Modern Love, which was essentially copied (some would say homaged) in 2012's Frances Ha. Also noteworthy is a skydiving sequence that's incredibly nerve wracking to watch (in a good way).
Evangelion Shin Gekijôban: Jo (2007)
Pretty good
Not a lot that'll surprise you if you've seen the first few episodes of the series, but some small changes and some excellent/improved animation do make this worth a watch. That first 1/4 to 1/3 of the original series was always fast-paced and entertaining, with just a little darkness/ominous feelings bubbling under the surface, and that feeling is captured well here.
I hope the remaining parts have a few more changes to the original series. Even if they don't, it's been a while since I finished NGE, and I don't remember much about the ending other than it got weird, so maybe I'll respond in a similar way to the later parts of this remake/rebuild regardless.
Also, I liked some of the cgi additions, surprisingly. The Angels being otherworldly, unsettling beings mean the cgi used there actually created an extra uncanny effect, like they didn't belong in the world they were invading (which was mostly non-cgi). It kinda worked for me, in that way.
Brother's Keeper (1992)
A strange one
There's something I find really off putting about the way most documentaries from the 90s were shot and edited. They often have similarly strange pacing, and more often than not look and sound really muddy and unpleasant.
This one's no exception. It just looks and feels a certain way that I really don't like, but it may be a subjective thing. The only other thing I can really point to as an issue (again, subjective) is how hard so much of the dialogue is to hear, and there's no narration, which could help guide the narrative when most of the other people speaking are hard to understand, thanks to poor sound quality and lots of mumbling.
But for what it's trying to do, technical limitations aside, it's successful. It was an engaging story (when I could follow it), and as other reviewers have pointed out, it shows the Netflix model of making true crime documentaries 4-10 hours long is often unnecessary.
Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015)
So-so
Was tossing up between a 2 and 2.5 for this (we're talking out of 5), but it was entertaining in parts and not quite as bad as I feared. It's technically proficient, I guess? Looks alright and most of the gore effects are good. Just suffers when it comes to writing and humour, because there's not a lot happening in terms of the plot and characters, and many jokes fall flat.
Serviceable, mindless entertainment at best, and kinda by the numbers and unnecessarily crude at worst.
(I wrote this a few years ago. Updating the review now, I actually remember pretty much nothing from this film, so maybe even a 2.5/5 was a little generous).