Reviews

Just yesterday, I attended the Blood on the Beach convention, where I got to meet and talk with several different celebrities who made an impact in the horror genre. I managed to actually meet and speak with actor Michael Biehn, who you may remember as Kyle Reese from "The Terminator". It was at that moment when I found out he had directed his very first film titled "The Victim", which starred Biehn, his wife Jennifer Blanc, and even Danielle Harris. All of them were very nice people in person, and I knew that I had to see this movie for myself at the screening. How was the film itself? Well, I actually enjoyed it! I don't watch independent films that much, but this one, I have to admit, entertained me throughout, and is a damn fine directorial debut for Biehn.

Now there are some things that you need to know before you see it so you know what to expect. It's low budget, it was shot in 12 days, it's not meant to be taken too seriously, and it's played for exploitation. So as long as you don't expect a bigger-than-life, serious, brilliantly acted/written film, I think you will end up enjoying the film. I must admit, for a film that had a small budget and was shot in only 12 days, it's surprisingly well made. For me, no scene in particular felt forced, because whether it was a flashback used to build up on certain characters or a scene that further develops the story, it all came off as natural and I never felt that any scene should have been re-done.

The acting was pretty solid as well. Some of it or even some of the dialogue in particular could have been improved, but it's never quite groan inducing like you would find the acting or writing in other thrillers. Biehn's wife, who is basically the title role of "The Victim", plays her role pretty well and although she isn't particularly great, her character became more and more interesting as the film progressed, so any 'meh' writing given to her character was instantly forgettable. Ryan Honey and Denny Kirkwood are pretty great as the 2 cops who are hunting down Jennifer Blanc's character after she notices a murder of one of her friends committed by them. Danielle Harris, as usual, comes off as great looking eye candy and turns in a nice performance for the screen time that she is given. As for Michael Biehn? Well, he pretty much gives the best performance of the entire film. No surprises there.

As for the overall tone of the film, I gotta say, it doesn't quite play out like you may think it will. While it never takes itself too seriously, it never plays into "B-movie camp" either. Also, the film never reached that point where it really felt like an exploitation flick. The violence itself is not over-the-top and most of it doesn't occur until the last 20 minutes, so if you go in expecting a gore-fest, you will probably be disappointed. The editing itself is also a bit of a mixed bag. Although it is mostly impressive, it sets a tone that makes you feel that the film will play different than it REALLY does. Those things weren't really an issue for me, but I feel that some may not like the film because of them. I thought it would have been nice, however, if some of the driving scenes were cut a little bit, as I thought they went on a little too long.

Overall, despite some small nitpicks, I found myself really enjoying "The Victim". It won't break any new ground nor will it win a lot of awards, but for what it is, it's a fun, well-made, and entertaining independent film that proves that actors can do more than just turn in good performances.

Congrats to Michael Biehn, Jennifer Blanc, Danielle Harris, and the rest of the cast and crew involved for this fun romp!

All right, I agree with most people when they say 2010's Clash of the Titans was not a great movie, but I didn't hate it. I didn't walk out of the theater with a feeling like "OMG, that movie kicked ass!". It was OK, I thought the film had pacing issues and the 3D was, well... about as bad and pointless as people made it out to be. So is the sequel, Wrath of the Titans, an improvement?

I'm happy to report that yes, Wrath of the Titans is better. It's not a great film by any means, it is flawed, but if you're looking for 99 simple minutes to kill by looking at some pretty darn impressive action sequences, then you are in luck. Also, if you thought the 3D in Clash was bad, that's not the case with Wrath. Don't expect anything along the lines of Avatar, but I gotta say, the 3D was used pretty nicely and didn't come off as a total gimmick.

My biggest issue with the film, however, is one that I had with the previous film. The film sometimes feels a bit slow and that it takes a while to get started, and there's not really much investment in the story or the characters. Some of the characters are mostly there to provide comic relief, but even that is very hit-or-miss. For the most part, Sam Worthington played his role pretty good, a fine example of under-rated acting. It's nothing great, but it's far from abysmal. Liam Neeson was also rather enjoyable to watch, but hey, it's Liam Neeson. Everybody else isn't particularly interesting, but they're not unforgivably boring or useless. There's also a small romance in the film between Worthington and a female side character, but it comes off as pointless and un-needed. I just don't see why the majority of popcorn action flicks require a relationship when we go to see explosions and amazing special effects, it's just not necessary.

Flaws aside, I enjoyed Wrath of the Titans. I am aware of the hate that this movie is receiving and I can understand some of the quibbles that one may have against it, but hey, at least it's better than it's predecessor.

"Act of Valor" was a very anticipated film for me. The thought of using real Navy Seals as characters in a war/action film sounded very intriguing, but then my hopes were slightly lowered when I read reviews regarding their acting and the writing of the film. I never would've thought this movie would receive the negative reception that it's currently getting, and frankly, I was kind of scared when I went to see it. Well, the good news is that I didn't hate it. The bad news is that it could have been so much more than what it already was.

Let me start out on a positive note and say that as an action film, "Act of Valor" is completely watchable. The action sequences are very well staged and given the amount of carnage, it was nice to see some impressive and steady camera work for once. One may argue that the film works more as an action thriller than a war movie with a political message, but it is what it is. Don't expect realism that was seen in, oh, "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Hurt Locker". But hey, I didn't mind that, because on a technical standpoint, the film is well done.

While the action is fun to watch, the same can't be said for the Seals. All of the things you have been reading about the Navy Seals and their acting is sadly true. It's not the worst acting I've ever seen, but it certainly did not impress me either. There are times where it comes off as decent, and there are times where you'll be rolling your eyes. Even the dialog comes off as laughable. With all of the mediocre-at-best acting and writing, there's also not much reason to care for the Seals or even the story for that matter, and it's even worse how the most interesting and compelling character is the villain.

It's sad to say such things about a film that had such potential, but I guess we can't all be winners. While not as bad as some may have said, it's certainly nothing special. If you are looking for an entertaining action film and you don't mind bland acting/dialog and stiff characters, I say take your chance. Otherwise, "Act of Valor" only makes for a forgettable, if not horrendous, piece of entertainment.

Back in 2004, we were introduced to Harold and Kumar, 2 stoner buddies who end up getting in tons of outrageous shenanigans trying to get to White Castle. In 2008, we watched as they escaped Guantanamo Bay and try to clear their names, obviously getting in more shenanigans. Now we have them trying to save the Christmas spirit, and you guessed it, the shenanigans ensue.

"A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas" may not have a deep story, but the simplicity of it all makes it so much fun to watch. I don't know about you, but I think a movie where 2 beloved stoners try to find a Christmas tree for a certain angry Mexican step-father, played by Danny Trejo, makes for quite an entertaining and engaging movie. But we don't see a movie like this for the story, we go to see the gags, jokes, and what not. For the most part, the film-makers know how to make you laugh or put a smile on your face.I laughed quite a bit during certain jokes, whether they were references to other films or a racist joke, and don't worry, this movie has a lot of those, but the way they were executed was pulled off quite nicely. Even though some of the humor comes off as a bit forced, I found the majority of the film to be clever, witty, amusing, and very funny.

Do I need to bother talking about Kal Penn and John Cho (Harold and Kumar)? Let's face it, these guys steal the show in every single H&K film, and that's exactly what they manage to do again here. Kumar is the typical stoner while Harold has grown up, but once the story kicks in, we're back to the good old times. Since we've grown up with these characters, the situations they get into are always interesting, and a bit random at times. Neil Patrick Harris is back and delivers yet another great comic performance, but it's the 2 stoner buddies that steal the screen presence from anyone else.

As for the 3D, I was surprised by how good it was. The film obviously is self-aware of the whole "3D jumping the shark" idea, but it takes that idea and uses it in ways you can't possibly imagine. Seriously, you will never guess some of the things that will pop out at you, and I liked that, because the whole film is basically a carnival ride of fun and surprises that you don't see coming.

Overall: "A Very Harold and Kumar Christmas" manages to deliver everything we expect from a movie titled as such, and even manages to pass by with impressive 3D, which I didn't think a raunchy comedy could pull off so well. Some of the jokes aren't very funny, but the ones that do work are a joy to watch, no matter how offensive or disgusting they are.Harold and Kumar are as likable as ever, and as simple as the story may be, it's actually quite an engaging one.If your a fan of the franchise or you like your Christmas movies with raunchy humor and weed galore, then your sure to like this one.

Wow, I was really disappointed in this movie.From the trailers, this looks like a hard-core action movie that promises graphic violence and maybe good performances.At least the violence is graphic.Everything else is pretty much rubbish.I liked Gerard butler in underrated movies like "The Ugly Truth" and "Law Abiding Citizen". Allison Lohman was terrific in "Drag Me To Hell". Ludicrous is a good rapper.All of these people are in the wrong movie.Gerard Butler is the main character yet there's no humanism in his character.He seems like he never wanted to do this role but only accepted it for money.Money is 1 waste this movie offers.It offers poor performances, uninteresting story, and Terry Crews.What happened Terry? You were great in movies like "Idiocracy" and even "White Chicks" and now you should be ashamed of yourself."Gamer" is simply a waste of 85 minutes and good actors.It had potential, but it just sucked.It could make a cool video game, but as a movie, it's a real let down.I pray to God and Hollywood that there will be no "Gamer 2".

I'm pretty much with everyone on this. "Jonah Hex" is not a very good movie.Josh Brolin's performance as the disfigured, vengeance seeking Jonah Hex couldn't save it.Hell, Megan Fox seemed like she wasn't even trying to act.The movie's only 80 minutes long so it has very little time for plot development.In fact, take out the end credits and you get a comic-book based western that's only a mere 73 minutes.That's simply too short of a movie to even be allowed to have been made.Jeez, at least make it 90 minutes.I did somehow find myself to be MILDLY entertained by it.I would be a terrible liar if I said I wasn't bored by it.It wasn't boring, but it's still not a good movie.Don't go to this movie expecting good performances and a top notch story that'll raise Oscar buzz.Go see "Inception" for those 2 things.What you get out of "Jonah Hex" is a sometimes poorly acted and made movie that just doesn't cut it.

I knew I was going to like "Inception" from the start when I watched the trailers and TV spots.When I read the plot online, i was even more excited because I new more about it.And here I am, reviewing one of the best movies of not only the Summer, but of 2010.Christopher Nolan is a master storyteller who knows how to give us a captivating plot and mix it with fascinating special effects and believable characters.It's no surprise that the performances are great.Leonardo DiCaprio was the right choice for his role, as he is with his other movies.It's not just him that brings the movie to life.Ellen Page (Juno) is very good here and Cillian Murphy (Red Eye) gives another mature and powerful performance.I don't think I could think about one feature about this movie that's not as good as the others.Every minute of this 148 minute thrill ride is absolutely dazzling.Oh, and there's the action sequences.What's great about them is that they don't go over the top like Transformers or Shoot Em up.They're not only realistic and convincing, but also exciting and even thrilling at times, and that's rare for a smart action thriller.There you have it, "Inception" is here and the hype that's been going about is certainly worth it.As I mentioned before, It's probably the best movie of the Summer and one of the best pictures of 2010.Move over Dark Knight, there's another summer blockbuster in town, and it's pretty damn spectacular.

I had very high expectations for the latest Karate Kid film, not because i've seen the originals, because I've never seen the original movies.What attracted me to this film was mostly the cast.Jaden Smith delivered an absolutely fantastic performance in "Pursuit of Happiness" and I wanted to see what new surprises he would bring to the table in terms of kung fu.Jackie Chan was also a good reason to see it.The concept of kung-fu shown in the trailer also made me interested.So the big question for everyone is: Is it necessary to make a Karate Kid remake? My answer: absolutely.I was absolutely absorbed into the movie due to it's surprisingly very good acting, convincing plot, great fight sequences, and even a sweet romance between Jaden Smith's and Wenwen Han's character.The film even has an exciting climax where Jaden smith's character enlists in a kung-fu tournament and we just want him to win, which I will not spoil for you.If you like movies about kung-fu and you like Jaden Smith and Jackie Chan, this is a must-see.

When I saw Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" -which just so happens to be one of my all-time favorite films- I had an urge to see his other movies.I'll agree with pretty much everyone and say that "Casino" is no "Goodfellas".But who cares? This is a fascinating and powerfully dramatic film with great performances by Robert De Niro and the unforgettably talented Joe Pesci who won the Oscar for best supporting actor in "Goodfellas". No one can play a more dramatic role and act as dramatic as Pesci.He can blurt the F-word several times non-stop and go absolutely berserk on screen, which really captivated me in "Goodfellas" and now has done it again in "Casino".I'm kinda upset with the movies rating on Yahoo by the film critics.Why and how did this movie get a B- by the critics.Okay, I'm with Roger Ebert on this one and I'm gonna say that it's an absolutely great film.Everyone else can go chop their schlong off and die somewhere.Not as good as "Goodfellas", but like "Goodfellas", it's a four-star masterpiece by the legendary Martin Scorsese and I wonder if he'll ever make another mob movie.If he does, I'm there.

For me, "Iron Man II" was one of the most anticipated movies of the year for me.Given the fact that the first was sensational, I just knew this would be excellent, and maybe better than the first.Well, that's what I thought.I have good news and bad news for this movie.The good news is that "Iron Man II" is a solid movie, no doubt.I enjoyed it.There's no reason to not see it.It's a solid piece of 2-hour entertainment.The bad news is that it was too talkative.I really hate to tell this to people going into this movie looking for non-stop action, but there's only 3, count em 3, major action sequences in the entire movie.2 are serious and quite effective while one is played mostly for comic relief, and I enjoyed it for it's sheer goofiness.The problem with it is that there is too much talking between the action.If I could estimate, I'd say there's about 20 to 25 minutes of action through out the whole movie.The other 90 minutes are nothing bu talk, talk, talk.I'm not saying I was bored, I'm just saying that there could've been more cool action sequences.Maybe 2 more wouldn't have hurt.Those looking for the same level of entertainment as the first might be a little disappointed.So I would recommend that you don't see it with high expectations.But I am recommending "Iron Man 2" for the cool special effects, the iron man suits, and Robert Downey Jr.'s performance.A solid, but not excellent, sequel.

We all remember the effectiveness of "The Descent".It was an extremely gory attempt that tried to tangle our nerves and entertain us with extremely gory death scenes, and it worked.The sequel isn't QUITE up there with the first, but the scares, gore, and mutants manage to make this sequel a real jolter of a movie.It's a shame that I've seen the first movie on a small television, so I really didn't jump much.But this one I watched in my bedroom and Me and my friend watched it on my much bigger and better television set and I was quite scared.Sometimes you know that scare is coming, but you jump anyway.The film is not as good as the first.I'm going to throw that out.But you have to admit that it's a very solid piece of entertainment for a movie that didn't make it to theaters.Well, not my theaters.It's a shame to know that a lot of people disliked this movie.C'mon people, it ain't that bad.If your complaining that it's too gory for you or it takes too long to get to the first part with the mutants, you don't know sh*t about film criticism.I really liked it and I'm giving it a very positive recommendation whether you like it or not. "Descent 3" anyone?

For the past couple of years, we've been given many, many remakes of popular horror movies.You have "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "The Wolf man", and now we have upcoming remakes such as "Child's Play" and "Alien".Now we have what we knew what was going to happen.If "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" could be remade, why not "A Nightmare on Elm Street"? There are many good things to enjoy here.The acting is surprisingly very good.Trust me when I say that you don't have to worry about bad acting by some of the characters.That's another pro.Almost every character in this movie kept me interested.The death scenes really keep the effectiveness afloat.It's much bloodier and violent than the other Krueger movies, so brace yourself.My number one reason why I loved this movie was Freddy.I know Robert Englund was excellent as Freddy, but Jackie Earl Haley really steals the show from every character in the entire movie.He portrays Freddy as more of a disturbed and disturbing character then Robert portrayed him as a scary villain that could also be a little funny.Alright, I've been reading some very negative reviews by users on IMDb and even from film critics like Roger Ebert, who gave it a one star rating.This was not a guilty pleasure for me.I am not ashamed that I sincerely enjoyed this movie for the new Springwood slasher and inventive death scenes.If there's any remake out there to see, this is one of them.

A movie such as "Hot Tub Time Machine" hardly comes along.This is the type of comedy that escapes from the real world and becomes it's own movie.That's why this movie works so well as a raunchy and funny look at time travel and not to mention hot tubs.So forget those bad expectations you might be having all because of the plot.We hardly get a movie like this, so just sit back and enjoy the ride.There's no reason to explain the plot of the movie.Given the title, all you need to know that the movie is about 4 guys who get in a hot tub and they wake up in the year 1986.Simple as that.If you like hot tubs and time travel and you want to see an unusual but very fun combination, this one's all for you.If you don't like hot tubs and time travel and you think the combination is just plain stupid, go see this movie for yourself and maybe you'll change your mind.I know I did.

From the producers of "The Ring" and "Disturbia" (the movie, not the song) comes "The Uninvited", a classic thriller with great characters, some startling scenes, terrific performances, and surprisingly good acting.This is an American remake of a foreign horror movie called "Tale of Two Sisters". I have not seen this film but now I think it wouldn't hurt to give it a chance now that I have seen it's great American version.I am glad to know that film critic Roger Ebert enjoyed this movie.I admire him as a film critic and I was quite surprised when I learned that he liked this movie.What a shocker.You know what else is a shocker? It's a shocker how undeniably entertaining this horror-thriller really is.It's not just a great way to spend 87 minutes and kill time, it's a great piece of entertainment that contains a huge twist that I will absolutely not reveal to you.I want you to find out for yourself for it will ruin your expectations.The performances in the movie are great.Emily Browning is fantastic and pretty attractive, but the real key to success is the stunning and rather sexy Elizabeth Banks.Sure, she was good in "Slither", but here she delivers her best performance.So what is there to say about "The Uninvited"? It's a terrific thriller with good acting, interesting characters, and fantastic performances.An overall classic thriller.9/10.

In the future, organ failures are occurring all over the globe.A corporation called The Union supplies it's customers with artificial organs to keep them going again and help them lead healthy lives.But there's a downside.If you don't pay for your artificial organ(s) in time, The Union will send repo men to come after you and repossess your organs, even if your alive.One day, a repo man played by Jude Law gets into an accident while on the job that leads to a cardiac arrest.He wakes up in the hospital and realizes that his heart was replaced with an artificial heart.He can't pay for it in time, so The Union sends out repo men to catch and repossess his organ.

Sounds like a pretty good movie, right? I knew I thought it was going to be good.I was actually excited to see this movie.Unfortantly, me and my friend were both left with a feeling of utter disappointment.It's a real shame, too.The plot sounds so good! I don't know about you, but I was really hooked into the idea of the film.But did the movie hook me in? No, it did not.There wasn't as much action as I thought there would be, and some of the settings are just dumb and even ghetto.I'm sorry to say that this was kind of a waste of 2 hours.Movies with plots like these should always be better than this.

Where do I begin with "Goodfellas"? How do I start off my review for a movie that is absolutely mind-blowing.A movie that is gritty and dirty, yet beyond entertaining at the same time.Can a movie possibly be this good? When it comes to this movie, it is possible.I was left astonished when the end credits were over.I was left thinking "Wow! What a great film!". I am not over-reacting here folks.I am not trying to compete with another movie.I am telling you the truth.If you have not seen this film, then there is no point in talking to you.This Martin Scorsese film is an exhilarating piece of American filmaking that's well directed, well acted, and well constructed.The only other film that I've seen from Martin is "Shutter Island", which was another great movie, despite what some critics said.I feel that I must warn you: This is an extremely gritty and dirty mafia movie.Swearing and violence run rampant in this film, so viewers who can't stand brutal beatings and four-letter words being uttered out every 5 seconds are going to be in for a depressing experience.But that's not the point.How much do you think the real life Mafia swear and murder? That's what I thought.As explicit this movie is, It's also an Oscar worthy sensation.Joe Pesci really steals the show here.De Nero and Liotta are good, but Pesci brings the thunder here.Do not miss this movie.If you see it on the shelf, but it.Steal it if you have to.Just be sure to witness what may be one of the greatest crime-dramas of all time! No joke.

I have not seen any of the animated or live-action films that were called "Alice In Wonderland" or "Alice goes to Wonderland" or "Wonderland In Alice".I honestly don't have an urge to.But I'm glad I saw this movie.It isn't quite as good as "Charlie and the Chocolate Facotry", another Tim Burton movie starring Johney Depp, but it's great entertainment nonetheless.What can't escape my thought is why this movie is getting bad reviews.well, the movie's been doing good at the Box office so far and it's making a lot of money, but the reviews on this website are really starting to make me wonder if people have just lost their edge.Really, don't you people think that your being a little harsh.What's not to like about this movie? So it's not a masterpiece, but it's still a pretty good film.I will admit that it's not near as good as "C&TCF", but c'mon, it's not bad or anything.I'm giving "Alice In Wonderland" an 8.5 out of 10.That's just me.Don't judge me.Don't insult me.Just let me be.

"Brooklyn's Finest" is without a doubt one of the best films that tells 3 separate stories about 3 different cops.It may actually be the first movie about 3 different cops that I've seen, but I know that no other movie could be better than this.Richard Gere plays a cop who thinks he has nothing to live for.Ethan Hawke plays a good cop gone bad when he realizes that he needs money in order to keep his family afloat.Even if it means killing gangsters and not telling the other cops if they had money on them.Don Cheadle plays a cop going undercover for reasons that he doesn't to.Take those 3 stories and put them together and you have 2 hours of sensational and terrific entertainment.There's no doubt that these people should win an award for their performances.In my opinion, if Richard, Ethan, and Don are fighting for the Oscar, Ethan should win.His role as dirty cop struggling to put food on his family's table and pay for the house is just riveting."Brooklyn's Finest" isn't the finest movie ever made, but it's a gritty masterpiece nonetheless.See it, then see it again.I know I would.

Kenan and Kel are very similar to Harold and Kumar.The main difference is that Kenan and Kel are not potheads, but that's what they seem like in "Good Burger", a fun and enjoyable comedy about fast food.Kenan Thompson plays Dexter, a teenager who's been looking forward to summer vacation.Everything goes well until he gets into a car accident with his teacher.In order to pay the amount of money he owes, Dexter decides to get a job.He eventually gets a job at a fast food restaurant named Good Burger, which is mostly known for their burgers and their famous motto: "Welcome to Good Burger, home of the good burger.May I take your order?". Dexter eventually befriends a dim-witted but likable employee named Ed, played by Kel Mitchell.They then realize that they need to stop another establishment named Mondo Burger from stealing their business.

What mostly makes "Good Burger" work as a comedy are the performances by Kenan Thompson and Kel Mitchell.Kenan is a character with some funny one-liners and is always funny in his movies.Who could forget "Fat Albert" or "Snakes On A Plane".Then there's Kel Mitchell.His character may not be a genius, but his goofiness makes him very watchable.I must complain about the movies low rating.Seriously, a 4.9? What's not to like about "Good Burger"? It's a fun, funny, and entertaining movie that really should be given a break.At least Brian Robbins wasn't ashamed to film this movie.Trust me, this isn't a bad movie.Just don't watch it thinking that it'll be worse than dead cow meat, because it's not.

Those who disliked "Saw V" are going to be asking many questions about "Saw VI".Is it better than "Saw V"? Is it any good at all? Should the franchise continue? My answers to these questions are: Yes, Yes, and Yes."Saw VI" is a whole lot better then "Saw V". I'll admit that "Saw V" was a decent film.But it really didn't bring anything new to the table.It was just an OK 6.5/10 slasher film.I do believe that the franchise should continue.Luckily for me and everybody else who loved this movie, there will be a "Saw VII".It's also going to be in 3D.Can't wait for that one.My suggestions: If your shopping for dvds and you see "Saw VI" on the shelf.Unrated or not, it's definitely a movie that you should put on your list.If you were liked the previous movies, then you'll be in for a nice surprise when you see... "Saw VI".Bloody good movie.

Wes Craven, who brought us the Scream franchise and introduced us to Freddy Krueger, returns with a suspenseful and masterful piece of film that will make your fear of flying take flight.Seeing a man harasse a woman on a plane for about an hour may not sound interesting to some, but those people will change their minds once they see "Red Eye".Boy, was this movie good.Cillian Murphey really sets new ground here.He was great in "28 Days Later" and "Batman Begins", but "Red Eye" may be his best performance yet.I can't wait to see what new movies he'll be starring in.The main person we must thank for this film is Wes Craven.The way he puts his characters in this suspenseful situations is just fantastic.

My advice: "Red Eye" is a great way to spend a zippy 77 minutes and will leave you begging for more.

"Daybreakers" is set in the year 2019, where almost everybody is a blood sucking vampire.These vampires come out and walk in the night time and use a daytime mode to protect them while they're driving in the daytime.Now that's what I call futuristic.Humuans are hunted down and are farmed for their blood.Soon, the vampires realize that they're starting to run low and they try to make a blood substitute.One night, a vampire played by Ethan Hawk crashes into a carload of humans.Ethan manages to persuade the humans that he's not going to hurt them and he manages to befriend one of them.With the help of his human friends, Ethan sets out to try to find a cure and set everything right.But a certain vampire played by Sam Neil doesn't want this to happen, and he realizes that he'll have to do whatever it takes to stop the humans from curing the world of vampires.

Review: "Daybreakers" is, at best, a ground-breaking vampire film.Scratch that, it's a ground-breaking sci-fi/vampire/action/horror film.What's best about the film is that it dumps on humanity and decides to put millions of vampires into the story, and the outcome is a good one.What's also good is that the movie is slam-bang with plenty of bloody and stylized action and great performances by Ethan Hawk, Willem Dafoe, and Sam Neil, and all of these things combine together and make one hell of a great movie."Daybreaker" went and made my day.

I found "It's Alive" to be an effective and rather gory tale of a woman who gives birth to a monster of a baby that has an appetite for flesh and blood.I'll admit that I have not seen the 1974 original movie that goes by the same name and was directed by Larry Cohen.Instead, a friend and I watched this remake and we both agree that this was a good horror film.The death scenes of the movie are fast-paced and violent, the baby is a satanic monster, and the mother knows about the baby but refuses to tell anyone.What more could you people want? I mean really, a 3.8? I was not in any way disappointed by this movie.It's no contender for a best picture nomination, but it's good entertainment that only some people don't claim it to be.If I had a problem with the movie, it would be the ending.I thought the ending of "The Stepfather" was bad, but this one was something else.But I am giving a recommendation for "It's Alive" and I hope that the reviews that come in after mine are mostly positive.

7.5/10

The plot in "Phone Booth" starts about 10 minutes in when Colin Ferrell tries to use a phone booth and he gets a mysterious call.He thinks that it's just a prank call but the guy on the other end of the phone tells Colin that if he hangs up, he'll die.Now I love movies with interesting premises.I liked how "Crank" revolved around a guy who had to keep his adrenaline up or he'll die.I liked how "Cellular" revolved around a guy who had to stay connected to a kidnapped woman on a phone or she'll die.Movies that have these kinds of premises are always fun to watch."Phone Booth" is just that kind of movie.Given the short running time of 75 minutes without the end credits, it's good to know that the film isn't 2 hours because I don't think anyone wants to see a guy in a phone booth for 120 minutes.The film would REALLY start to drag if it were that long.Luckily, we're left with a short yet entertaining thriller that has plenty of room for a sequel, which would be nice.