hush. thriller. actually this wasn't bad to say it was really cheap for such a recent film. the acting was so so in places and the plot was a little predictable but for what it was, and how cheap it was (£0.50- 7 nights) i am prepared to forgo one or two minus' in the pack. it also has those great moments of silent panic where there is obvious shouting and screaming but the sound editor decided to mute everything. i really like those. it's british but nowhere near eden lake. 51/100 IMDB
donkey punch, horror, thriller. damn damn damn this was good. i saw this a year or two ago and must have been drunk or something because i completely forgot about it but this time it kicked my arse. it had everything you would want from a thriller. the plot was great, the acting was great and the thrills were....well, arse kickingly good. should be pretty reasonable now. 88/100 IMDB
i know this is coming on the tv soon video guy but tv sucks and they probably cut it to shreds.
julias eyes/ los ojos de julia; horror, thriller. not a bad plot to this, i wasn't expecting much to be honest, hadn't heard that much about it etc etc but for what it is, it does what it says on the tin. i would say the horror comes with a small `h` but hey, what's a small `h` between friends? nothing seems to lose itself in the translations and as a film for the weekend? i would put it on your shortlist (of 50). 77/100 IMDB
now then video guy, i know you were pissed that i went to the £ shop the other day dude but i hope we're square again now?
Jimmy and Judy, romance, thriller (kinda) indie. once again a £ shop film beats a hollywood film hands down. i watched frozen before this and that bored me stupid so i stuck this on and it was like a breath of fresh air. edward furlong is awesome, really awesome, in fact so is rachael bella for that matter. the only thing this film doesnt have is a killing spree but apart from that if you can find it, get it, it's fucked up and beautiful and rare and true. 83/100 IMDB
right at your door, thriller. i don't know if it was the frame of mind i was in or if it the amount of alcohol i had drunk but this bored me stupid. i watched it straight after paranormal activity 2 and maybe that had something to do with it but if there were only 2 movies on the shelf at my video shop and the other one was titanic, i would pick that, go home and slash my wrists rather than watch this again. 23/100 IMDB
it isn't your fault video guy, i know that and you know that i know that.
paranormal activity 2; thriller, horror. when a sequel comes along the natural thing to do is to compare it to the previous offering and in this instance i much preferred the first one. that doesn't or shouldnt take anything away from this one coz if i watched this one first it would (if i was horror with a small `h`) scare the crap out of me but as it is, i'm not and the first one did the job far more satisfactorily. i would hope from here that the makers/ producers (blum) think about spreading their wings a little, they're obviously good at what they do and have made giant leaps but to make another of these i think would be overkill and i'm not so sure a hack would pay good money to watch the same thing again. 58/100 IMDB
hey video guy, just better than a b but you my friend get an A*
black death, thriller, historical. set in 1308 it tells the tale of.....er....well, the black death, although that's not really the full tale. i first noticed this tucked behind something in the action section; clearly it wasnt so i got it thinking it was a sign. was a pretty damn good sign as it goes. i particularly like villages created for movie sets coz they're pristine and usually authentic. the plot was spot on and the acting 2nd to none. this could easily have been made into a costume drama for the bbc and shown over 10 parts and probably won some obscure award for it but it is to the producers credit that he chose to slam it all into one. featuring superb performances from Sean Bean, Tim Mcinnerny, Eddie Redmayne and John Lynch to name a few. well worth your money, if you can find it. 87/100 IMDB
hiding in the `action` section video guy? you need to re-categorise, the viewing world relies on it.
shadow; thriller, horror. i think the reason i picked this up was because it was one of the few films in that night that i hadn't seen anything about. it was an IFC production which i thought was fair enough. as it went, it was ok. it was fractured into its little sections and very occasionally those sections crossed over into each other which too, was ok. the actors weren't terrible, the filming was excellent and the script was average and the ending was decent enough but it was missing something that i can't quite put my finger on. it's that something that makes you want to watch something again or talk about it afterwards with friends or that leaves you stuck on the couch for a minute afterwards with a feeling like a wave has just crashed over your picnic 80 miles inland......or something, i don't know. but everything was present and maybe i'm wrong but i felt a little cheated. 61/100 IMDB
hey video guy. you're cool as fuck man, cool as......
sauna, history, horror (finnish). this is set i think in the 1500s and started off as a whirlwind then it slowed and slowed and slowed some more. loads of stuff happened at the start, none of it particularly making any sense whatsoever so i watched the first 20 mins again and still.......no, actually i kind of got it. it's not like anything i have ever seen before and that's usually a good thing but this.......i couldnt watch it again. it bored me crap-less. filming and shots were awesome though. 55/100 IMDB
yo video guy, i know i hate hollywood but maybe that would be the perfect antidote to this.
p2, thriller. as a point of reference this is quite do-able and therefore pretty fucked up but it was just above average as in the way it was done. mediocre acting, mediocre storyline and just above mediocre filming. not much to write home about, i've almost forgot i watched it. 52/100 IMDB
good job this was below half price video guy. you win.