MovieChat Forums > Joshua (2006) Discussion > Joshua sucks...I mean, come ON!

Joshua sucks...I mean, come ON!

posted 18 years ago by zilla7777
18 replies | jump to latest

I can't believe all the people here spouting praises for this piece of crap! "Joshua" is WAAAY too long, with so many "dead spots"....it's difficult to stay awake through it, honestly. My wife and I rented it (we are both horror enthusiasts, and like indie films as well). After reading all these glowing reviews here on IMDB, we thought, "We've GOTTA see this one!" I thought it was going to be the next "Shaun of the Dead", the way people were touting it! But instead, we got this limp piece of garbage.
The acting is horrid; possibly the worst acting is done by the cop, whose [unnecessarily melodramatic] acting is so similar to Dave Foley at times it's laughable (well, it would be if this movie weren't so bad, LOL).
The make-up is horrid.
The "twist ending" is stupid, and just proves that the films' creators had an interesting concept, and nothing more.
The "alternate ending" was tacked on just to piss me off, I think. It's awful, and in no way does it pull the emotion from the viewer(s) that the producers intended.
There are two redeeming things about "Joshua", though: the first 10 minutes are interesting, and the choice of soundtrack music is appropriate and refreshing.

Stay away from "Joshua"; save your money; don't believe the BS/hype!

[–] grodery 18 years ago

I love low budget horror flicks, but this was terrible. I saw the fangoria seal on the cover and thought it would be extremely gory and disgusting. It was disgusting, but not in a cool way. The people that compare this director to Raimi or Romero should seek professional help. They made masterpieces with no money. This film also had no budget, but it is terrible. Don't waste your time watching it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mags22 18 years ago

"Have a sense of humor about how horrible this movie was"

I've seen quite a few movies that were so bad they were funny - this wasn't one of them.

It was a waste of cellulod and a waste of my time!

I found myself looking for family resemblances trying to find a reason for casting... "well me and my brothers had a long weekend so we shot this film... "

still, no excuse

B.T.W. IMDB should, I.M.H.O., include info on the age of its posters - that way when I read somone gushing about a film - I can check and see: Aha, 12 yrs old THAT'S WHY HE LIKES IT!

[–] zills7 18 years ago

I just watched it. I hung myself half way through. RIP

[–] lmdoom 18 years ago

i agree with grodery and zilla7777. it's nothing compared to evil dead. and im really surprised that people gave this movie great reviews when it wasnt even good. if you want to see a new decent horror film that was released, watch "rooms for tourists". at least "rooms for tourists" had a better director and was more entertaining..

[–] moviemuncher1 17 years ago

I too was fooled by the Fangoria Seal on the cover. :D

[–] tragedieandy 18 years ago

the "alternate ending" was a joke, stupid...

[–] TheDraytonSawyer 18 years ago

Yes very the worst I've ever seen in a movie. I thought the movie was alright though, until it just ended. They needed to do more with the ending, I guess they ran out of money or something. It was kinda weird movie though. One of the better low budget movies I've seen in awhile.

!The Future Is Now!

[–] Mooshaminkin 18 years ago

It was ok, but not great, although I like the idea of raising a devil child. I've always wanted to do that.

[–] apost87 16 years ago

okay...so just to clarify....

"yes the very worst i've ever seen in a movie" emphasis on EVER. and then "the movie was alright" "one of the better low budget movies I've seen in a while".

I mean....do you like it or not? are you just agreeing to agree...personally, yes it was one of the better low budget movies i have seen since castle freak....i like the gritty feel of it and i freakin loved the story line...

not to bash you or anything, but make up your mind before you post so someone will know what you opinion is.

The lack of humility before nature that's being displayed here, uh... staggers me.

[–] zilla7777 18 years ago

Yes, tragedieandy, I knew that. When I said in my original post that "in no way does it pull the emotion from the viewer that the producers intended" I was referring to laughter. When I said it that way, it didn't spoil the fact that it was a (lame) attempt at humor for someone who has yet to see this piece of crap, if they still choose, after my review.
I'm not stupid; people who give away plot devices ("spoilers") are stupid. Like in your post, tragedieandy (oh, and if you could spell, your name would be tragedyandy, stupid).

[–] GoodAaron 18 years ago

Ha ha ha! Wow. All of you, wow.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zilla7777 18 years ago

You are sorely mistaken, GoodAaron. I suggest that you report to IMDB the possibility of someone posting with 2 accounts. When they check the ISP numbers, I'm pretty damn certain that Zils7 will be writing from a different part of the country than I (I'm in DFW, TeXXXas, and have no idea where he/she/they are).

None of this will help with how bad "Joshua" is, however.

[–] zills7 18 years ago

Im from Colorado and Joshua still sucks.

[–] Mr_Deltoid 18 years ago

I'm very surprised to see fans of low-budget horror film trash this one. I thought this was very good. It didn't suit my taste as much as others because I'm more a fan of the gross-out silly ones that make me laugh (Evil Dead, Zombie, Dead Meat, Bad Taste, Re-Animator). This one was more dark, disturbing and grisly. It wasn't an enjoyable experience like "Evil Dead" and I think that's why a lot of people dislike it. It was more along the lines of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in the sense that it was just horrifying and disturbing (but TCM is one of my favorites because it's such a masterpiece).

I was impressed by the plot, story, the characters, and the psychological aspects. I especially liked the end because it justified what I thought were so many plot holes earlier on in the film. Plus it was not one of those "plot-twist" endings that make people say, "Awww Geezz...they only did that so the audience cannot walk out saying they predicted the ending."

All in all I was very engaged in this one and it seemed to me like a very intelligent film with everything coming together nicely. I got the feeling the writer/director took great care to materialize all the plot elements. It didn't seem reckless like the Fulci flicks (God, those are horrible...but I still enjoy them!)

So if you people like shoe-string budget horror flicks which ones do you like? I'm trying to get a gage on why you all hated this one. I can't accept "bad acting" or "poor special effects" or "shoddy camera work" because those are the prevalent aspects of any low-budget horror. Compare it to movies that you really like because I just can't understand how fans of the genre would despise this film.

Later!

[–] teadm 17 years ago

Joshua has a good story, but with a ponderous screenplay, pedestrian direction and lack of atmosphere, the movie just doesn't work. You cannot seriously tell me that this film compares to Evil Dead, Reanimator or Zombie. Those movies truly entertain and, despite their low budget, they had real talent behind them, Joshua does not. The tedious pacing and the well-meaning but ultimately inept artsy fartsy camera work only sink Joshua into oblivion. At 96 minutes, the film feels much longer than that, I felt compelled to turn it off before it was over (I didn't). I don't deny the good intentions behind it, and I'm sure the director felt he was onto something worthwhile here. Again, it's a good story, and it could have been a good film, but as it stands, it's an undeniable failure. One more thing: Aaron Gaffey is the only good actor in this movie. Having seen him in two other films, I can surely say that he deserves to be in much better productions, he's very talented.

[–] TvDemon 16 years ago

Can I join in on the hate? What depressed me the most is the harsh, amateurish lighting. No bouncing, tons of direct light in all the wrong spectrums. The camera work was okay but it often had the feel of an amateur cinematographer experimenting. It was bad.