That bad?? - Dead Wood (2007) Discussion

[–] OneTrueBroad 15 years ago

2.9/10 is too much for this movie. It's over a month since I watched and commented on it and I only returned today to check if the shills were still manipulating the ratings or adding more false reviews. 25 people have given this 8/10 or over and believe me every one of them is a shill for the production company (in fact I believe anyone who gave it more than 2/10 is). This isn't anywhere near that calibre of movie. It's a downright insult to the viewer for these plants to give us fake reviews and ratings, treating us with contempt. That really angers me. IMDB should ban their accounts and keep an eye on any future movies released by the company for the same pattern of behaviour. Not just this one but all of them. I've lost count of the number of terrible B-Movies with rave reviews I've read on here then wasted my time on.

Anyway this one has no redeeming features whatsoever. Bad acting with lines delivered in monotone, terrible script, a plot that defies all credibility and a budget to match. The so-called "special effects" are a really bad joke. A more realistic rating for this if you remove the fraudsters is around 1.2/10. I personally gave it 1/10 only because I couldn't give it zero. You have been warned!

reply

[–] MadWatch 15 years ago

I just finished watching Dead Wood and rated the movie 2/10. The premise was weak. The acting was okay. The scares were almost non-existant. Special effects were generic (except for the backwards flowing blood, that was really old-style special effects). For the people that review this movie and claim that it is a "creepy" or "very scary" movie, I imagine that these same people don't see many horror movies or get scared by their own shadow.

reply

[–] kadeskiss 14 years ago

I've read a bunch of reviews praising it and I usually agree with sites like Slasherpool. They're usually dead on about good horror films. Is this really that bad, I mean "2.9" bad?

They rated it that high?! This movie gets a 1.5,and even that is being way too generous . absolutely nothing happen nothing happen in the first half of the movie. Actually, nothing happen until the last 30 ,or 40 minutes of film...the very end..and even that is boring as hell.

SPOILER ALERT!:

the four people (couples) discover a women who showed up at their camp site,(as they sleep) claiming she hungry,and cold. She tells them her boyfriend went to check out a noise in the woods,and she haven't seen him in days. ...than she goes skinny dipping with one of the guys..WTF! You can tell that something is wrong with her, since she had not cried about her missing boyfriend,nor has she left the woods to reported him missing,or anything like that. The movie makes everything so obvious, it's unbelievable boring

Luv

Kades

reply

[–] mjswooosh 14 years ago

Yes. It really is that bad. Avoid.

reply

[–] coop82 14 years ago

i dont think its bad at all! and i DONT work for the production company.

its a indie film for one, people see a horror movie and want a torture porn like Saw, or a multimillion dollar extravaganza. and second its a british movie. alot of americans are in the dark when it comes to british actors.

while i dont think its the best horror movie ive ever seen, i thought it was alot better than what ive been seeing in theaters in terms of the horror genre.

reply

[–] G_man2 14 years ago

quoting coop 82:

"its a indie film for one, people see a horror movie and want a torture porn like Saw, or a multimillion dollar extravaganza. and second its a british movie. alot of americans are in the dark when it comes to british actors."

i agree that people want to see blood and gore. 'torture porn', very aptly put, and anything less in horror sucks, even if it contained elements of classic, gothic horror.

but i disagree and take exception to americans being "in the dark". these generalizations are ridiculous.

i am american whose certainly NOT in the dark with brit actors. i have stated in other reviews that i think by environment and culture they are generally well versed and have a greater command of the english language. often times that is what SAVES a boring british film.

it was a couple of the characters that actually saved this movie for my tastes.
i did enjoy the film, but wouldnt call it memorable.

reply

[–] coop82 14 years ago

G_man_2: what i meant when i said 'Americans are in the dark' was about the target audience for horror films. when you watch our American horror films we get characters that are like "Aww yeah dude! like smoke some pot and see some titties!" then they get sliced and diced and we feel nothing for them. we are conditioned to see actors like that and expect (and cheer) when we see the deaths.

the audience here are expecting these types when they watch 'Dead Wood' and get extremely dissapointed when the characters arent. so they automaticly think the movie sucks before watching 15 minutes of it.

reply

[–] G_man2 14 years ago

i gotcha now, coop. thanks for clarifying! :)

reply

[–] catlebrity 14 years ago

It's pretty mediocre, but not quite that bad. It's not worth seeking out.

----
http://blankingdelicious.tumblr.com/ Replace "blank" to get the real URL.

reply

[–] hardcorecactus2003 12 years ago

Nobody bases this on the fact it's an indie film. The acting is terrible, the moves at a slug-pace with nothing happening literally for the first 40-50 minutes, and then that horrendous plot "twist" at the end is just icing on the cake. This movie deserves probably at highest, a 2.

reply