spikemaze Reviews

Baby Daddy (2012–2017)

Uses baby as pitch for bad sitcom

[4/10 · 25 September 2016]

Someone wanted to make this sitcom, but needed a pitch and made it about a single dad. The fact that this guy has a baby is rarely a part of the plot and they mostly work around it rather than including the baby thing.

Honestly one thing is making a bad sitcom, but making it on false pretenses is stupid.

Ben and Riley are shallow portrayed by poor actors while the other characters are alright and actually the ones who interact most with the baby.

I guess someone really likes this show, but I can't understand why.

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

People hate it because of the hype

[10/10 · 3 March 2015]

This movie is really not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Many voters haven't even seen it and others have hated it before they saw it.

I was so focused on the book the first time I saw it that I didn't really appreciate the movie for what it was. Then a friend dragged me in for a second viewing and I knew what to expect. I was very surprised because it wasn't as bad as I thought the first time.

No, it is not a masterpiece. And it's missing many scenes from the book - a book that was terribly written and originally was a Twilight fanfic (which still pains me),but had a good story. This is the story, they should focus on.

The sex scenes were not necessary to that extent and they should have cut it short.

Dakota Johnson was not my favorite choice for Ana Steele. She's not tiny enough. But I found her actually very fun and quite good.

Jamie Dornan was a good Christian for me, though many do not agree. A few times his accent slipped, but other than that he did a very good job. Sadly the script didn't give Jamie and Dakota much room to explore their roles. It was too shallow so I applaud them for doing it so well.

But a few casting choices were not so good. Elliot was not a sweet, hot lady killer, but looked more like a creepy drug dealer. Kate was not gorgeous enough and Grace (Christians mom) was too young.

All the criticism for being anti feminism is something I don't understand. We start out with seeing a girl who doesn't have any self-esteem and lets everyone walk all over her. Then she meets a man who gives her confidence to stand up for herself. She finds her own inner strength. Also, there's no rape between Ana and Christian, not in the movie nor the book.

Many from the BDSM community complains that the book makes it seem that you can only be into BDSM if you have psychological problems. It isn't true. Ana discovers that she likes it too and that 'it isn't the how that was wrong. It was the why'. There's nothing wrong with liking BDSM, but it is wrong if you do it to punish and work out your personal problems.

I think it's sad that the movie has such a bad rating on IMDb because it's not terrible. Many horrible movies have better ratings so it's obviously because of the hype that many don't like the movie (or the books for that matter).

Go watch the movie without expectations. You'd be surprised.

Dark House (2009)

I love this type of film

[9/10 · 20 November 2011]

This is an example of a classic, entertaining horror movie. And who better to star in it than Jeffrey Combs? He's one of the best horror actors out there and is greatly underrated.

A little girl witness a massacre and 14 years later takes the advice from her therapist to visit the house once again. It is now a commercial horror house. But of course everything doesn't go as planned.

Tired of horror movies that never really shows a thing and only run on atmospheric tension? Or of movies pretending to be horror when it's actually a thriller? This movie goes back to the good old-fashioned horror. You'll be entertained. You'll laugh, you'll be scared and you'll want more.

Episode 50 (2011)

Fairly good - very underrated

[8/10 · 6 November 2011]

I must say that this movie is underrated. Yes, it isn't perfect and has many flaws, but what do you expect for a small-budgeted film? Don't dismiss it for those flaws 'cause it's still an interesting horror movie, especially if you like ghosts like me.

It starts with a reality paranormal team. They find very plausible, scientific explanations for seemly supernatural activities. We learn that they want to make the paranormal a legit science where ghosts and apparitions are explained by electromagnetic fields interfering with our brains. They will do this by proving that a particular ghost hasn't died in the place, it haunts and therefore must be formed by the human brain. Thus proving that life after death doesn't exist.

They get a job in one of the most notorious haunted places in the US which is their big shot. But they're not alone: A very Christian team of believers is also there to prove the opposite.

I've always hated horror movies that doesn't really show anything supernatural. This movie isn't afraid to show us the different ghosts and that's what I really like about it. In the end the whole story goes too far and gets a bit confusing, but until then it's very good.

The story especially is very interesting. It may not be anything new, but the characters mostly seem real and some of them we actually like. This is already more than we can say about most horror movies nowadays.

If you're a horror buff who particularly likes the ghost genre, you shouldn't hesitate to watch it!

Faces in the Crowd (2011)

Very interesting

[7/10 · 31 October 2011]

This movie has a very interesting premise: A woman runs into a serial killer roaming the streets of the city she lives in. She sees his face, but hits her head and suddenly she can't tell people apart anymore. Her boyfriend, her best friends or even an absolute stranger look completely different every time she sees them. Because their faces are unrecognizable to her. Every man she sees could be the killer for all she knows. And the killer knows what advantage he has.

It could have been done a lot better, I must admit. The movie moves along slowly and it might be difficult to keep your focus when watching this movie. But the interesting premise is worth it.

The leading actors are also very good in their roles. Milla, Julian McMahon and Michael Shanks are all strong actors. Sadly the lead men keep changing in order to fit the premise and this does cause some problems. Though it's very well done, the changing actors aren't as strong in their acting as McMahon or Shanks. This ruins a lot.

The positive aspect is that the viewer also get the faces mixed up. In a normal film it would be a catastrophe, but it works so well in this movie because we become as confused as the leading woman.

All in all I liked the film. It wasn't perfect, but I doubt that anyone will expect this movie to be just that. And the best part is that if you then watch another movie afterwards, you might just like me start questioning every character's face.

The movie sticks to you.

I Spit on Your Grave (2010)

Mixed review

[6/10 · 27 May 2011]

I watched the original when I was 18 and was simply blown away. Therefore I had very high expectations to the remake, but at the same time I've seen enough remakes by now to know better.

I was very disappointed by the first half of the film. The rape and torture in this movie was nothing compared to the original. Also, we hear too much about the men which isn't interesting at all. We're only gonna feel sorry for the woman, so we don't need any knowledge of the men. The rape and brutality scene was, like in the remake on The Last House on the Left, cut way back on. She wasn't beat up and left for dead, but instead jumped into the water herself.

However, the second half was great. I hated the fact that a month had passed, that she wore clothes and she talked so intelligently after a month in the woods, but the killings were great.

I think that if you took the first part of the original and the second part of the remake, you would have the greatest revenge movie ever made.

Dark Floors (2008)

I don't say lol a lot, but for this movie I do

[4/10 · 19 October 2010]

In Danish we have a word called "lort" which means "shit". "Lort" is pretty much pronounced like Lord and therefore makes Lordi sound very funny for us Danes. Also, as a metal-head, I find Lordi even funnier. It's silly metal to be honest.

When I saw that this movie was with Lordi, I knew it was gonna be good.

The whole movie revolves around a man and his autistic daughter who get caught in some kind of dark dimension. They try to find a way out while being haunted by Lordi (yes, it IS funny!) who wants the daughter.

The movie starts off alright, but gets really annoying. This is actually the first film that has annoyed me terribly and not for any reason I can put my finger on.

What saves this movie is the whole thing with Lordi, as you might have figured out by now. I kept expecting them to break into song! Therefore I give it 4 out of 10.

If you're bored and have some time to kill, I would recommend it. You probably shouldn't buy it though.

Dead Silence (2007)

A horror movie with more tension than action. Wonderful!

[10/10 · 9 October 2010]

This movie didn't really appeal to me when I first heard about it. Dolls don't creep me out (though I can see why they could) and have always hated horror films about them.

This changed my mind about doll movies.

It is filled with good old fashion horror tension. Sometimes it is a bit silly, but it holds your attention with its atmosphere.

The direction is very good and I'm amazed by Ryan Kwanten's performance! Hell, even Donnie Wahlberg did his first good acting since Band of Brothers.

I've seen a lot of reviews saying that Dead Silence is a ripoff of Saw. I don't see it at all. Yes, there's a doll in Saw and yes, they make a little reference to Saw at one point, but the plot is absolutely not "Sawish". I think that a lot of people have forgotten that doll movies have been around long before Saw and that it doesn't even contain that doll very much.

So, watch it yourself and find out what's your opinion. If you're half as surprised as I am, it's very much worth it!

End of the Line (II) (2007)

A pleasant surprise

[8/10 · 23 August 2010]

I'm a sucker for horror movies and watch about every one I can get near of. That usually leads to a lot of bad movie-watching. So I consider myself fairly educated in the ways of horror movies.

This movie was such a surprise to me. I had expected the typical people-going-crazy formula, but I found that there was more than that. It was interesting because of the religious reason for the craziness. I have a degree in religious studies and I found this formula very accurate.

Another great thing about this movie is that you feel sympathy with all the "good" characters and really hope that everyone gets out alive. Even through we all know that this rarely happens in horror movies.

The movie's atmosphere makes the movie work very well. No, it's not the world's greatest script and the direction is surely not perfect, men it works and is entertaining until the very end.

I really recommend this film to every horror fan.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

OK if you don't have any expectations

[3/10 · 19 March 2010]

After having read a bunch of reviews before watching Alice in Wonderland, I'd lost most of all my expectations to the film. I only expected to see some pretty 3D... (as it was my first film in 3D)

The 3D really sucked. It's fine in the beginning, but after a while it's just annoying.

The movie on the other hand was not horrible. It wasn't a real Tim Burton movie - only the character Hamish reminded me of something Tim Burton would put in a movie.

But having said that, it wasn't a bad movie. Yes, it was quite boring and though it contained a lot of the great actors, who normally shine through every film, it was clear all the way through that the whole thing was filmed in front of a green screen. They lacked connection, not only to their surroundings, but also to their fellow actors. It was clearly too difficult for the actors and they probably did the best they could. Johnny Depp didn't seem at all like Willy Wonka or Jack Sparrow to me(okay, perhaps the latter once or twice), but he didn't become the role as you normally see with him. Maybe because he didn't know who Hatter really was. This was a confusing character. He didn't seem directly Mad, just like he had a bit too many personalities (one of them reminding of Jack Sparrow). The other actors did OK too with the character and script they had been given. There was some overacting here and there, but all in all they could have done much worse. The main reason why some people (also me actually) is disappointed with the acting is that we naturally expect so much more from such great actors.

What saved the movie for me was the talking animals - though I normally loathe these things in movies. The voice acting over-shone the "real life" acting, especially Stephen Fry was wonderful. And the animals made the movie fun too.

I think that if Tim Burton had made this film as in the old days with real surroundings and not too many animations (a la Beetlejuice), the movie could've been great. The actors would have been able to act with their surroundings and communicate with each other which probably would improve their acting a great deal - 'cause we know they can act. Or else Burton should have made it as a real animation film.

I missed the Tim Burton heart of the film. The problem is that when you go to see a Tim Burton film, you're not gonna be satisfied with a "normal" film. And that is what Alice in Wonderland is: A "normal" film with way too many special effects.

Mirrors (I) (2008)

I wish someone had warned me about this movie

[5/10 · 6 October 2009]

Okay, so I have seen a lot of horror movies and therefore I've naturally had my share of bad horror flicks. But I wasn't prepared for this one. I liked the Japanese version and I thought that it wouldn't hurt to catch the remake. After watching this movie, I'm still waiting on that remake. Oh yes, the two movies may have a few similarities, but the people behind the American remake decided that they could it better. In which they were wrong.

This movie starts up with the Japanese storyline about a ex-cop who has been in a shooting that didn't end well. We don't really get the whole story behind that shooting... Well, this cop gets a job as a night watch at a mall where a fire was several years ago and it still hasn't been restored (unlike the Japanese version). Weird things then happen to the ex-cop at the mall. So in spite of the fact that the movie has undergone several changes in form of American clichés, the movie remains to be a remake of the Japanese version. After that it seems that the movie (with Keifer Sultherland's monotone acting in the front seat) slips away from the original version and into it's own little world filled with dull scenes, more clichés, a fair share of gore and a storyline without sense. And just to top things off, they try to end it like the original version. But with their own confusing storyline that ending doesn't make sense anymore.

At first I struggled to not stop the film right away. Then I realised that this wasn't a remake of the original movie at all and got confused with all the horror clichés in it. I must say though that I really liked Paula Patton as Amy Carson, so that kept me watching a bit longer.

All in all I actually wished that I hadn't watched that movie. It was the worst I have ever seen and advise that people only watch it for the acting of Paula Patton and Amy Smart.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Very good, but no masterpiece

[6/10 · 26 July 2008]

I admit it: After seeing the ratings( that I usually trust) on this site, I went to see The Dark Knight with great expectation. I also admit that Batman Begins quite disappointed me because it was so different from the comics I grew up with. But I was ready to watch The Dark Knight with respect for the new Batman.

I found The Dark Knight to be a wonderful film, but not a masterpiece. I expected it to open my eyes like The Shawshank Redemption or Memento - creative movies you can't forget because they have touched something you and surprised you. I was surprised by The Dark Knight, but it didn't touch me. For me it was an action movie with dark psychological elements and wonderful, complex characters. Though without anything extraordinary about it.

Actually only a few things actually bothered me about the movie: 1. The many story lines which made me think that the Joker isn't the main storyline - perhaps there even isn't one. 2. How most of the film only contained a Joker who laughed at Batman's rescue attempts - not the Joker whose mind we really get to enter. 3. 3. Batman's voice when in costume. 4. How Scarecrow was suddenly made a small criminal. 5. How Lucius Fox suddenly was a new Q (from Bond, not Star Trek) and even Bruce Wayne acted like the clumsy agent who had a hard time with his new toys (technological objects). 6. How Two-Face was killed so quickly.

These things I can overlooked because of the wonderful acting and the amazing plot and direction. But that is not enough to create a masterpiece.

The IMDb's top 250 has been my guiding list for classic movies. I have become a movie freak, mostly thanks to this site. I trust the ratings in here. Therefore I expected to see a masterpiece. And this wasn't one. Not like Dr. Strangelove or Leon. Not even close to A Clockwork Orange or Amadeus.

So tell me this: why has The Dark Knight received such respect from some of the best movie critics in the world who have gathered here on this site? I read your comments, but I still haven't gotten an answer to what makes this a masterpiece.

I suggest people to watch the film and decide for themselves. Just think: In what way will this movie make you reflect over your own life and is it enough to be #1?