Q: I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.

I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.

The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.

Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.

Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.
A: negative
Q: This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week's holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).

This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.

Keep away from it, as far as you can.
A: negative
Q: This movie is good for what it is, and unpretentious; I wouldn't watch it twice, however: I am a Peter Cushing completist and that's why I watched it. The best asset of this movie is: BREVITY and EFFECTIVENESS. Compared to other similar movies, it does NOT drag its feet forever as each of the four (plus one) segments lasts under 30 minutes, with the last under 10. Good uncanny vibes. In the first segment, horror writer suffering from 'writer's block' relocates to secluded old house seeking inspiration. He finds even too much of it when he starts to visualize one of his fictional madmen. Plot contrivance similar to PREMATURE BURIAL. Good use of the point-of-view twist: is the writer getting mentally ill...or (as the ending shows) his trophy wife wants her lover to play along with the husband's phobias to drive him mad & secure his estates...yet will the scheming bimbo survive to enjoy the fruit of her ingenious plan?

In the second segment two long time lost friends get together in the same secluded old house but cannot seem to help visiting a bizarre horror museum featuring the wax statue of the long lost love of their youth, which had once separated them. From the Gothic museum keeper they learn the woman portrayed is a deceased ax wielding murderer...or was she?

The third segment was the less interesting to me.

The fourth shows a horror movies actor -who thinks he's the best of all- sunken to the depths of low budget C movies. Seeking a costume to lend more credibility to his fictional vampire, he gets the real deal. This segment also lacks the solidity of the first two.

Acting is fair, with the 2 initial segments contributing the bulk of it. Good movie, taken with a grain of salt. Not the best Cushing, nor Lee...but worth watching.
A: positive
Q: It was all over with the slashers around 88 so it was time for the cheesy rip offs of those older movies. The Brain is well done, the script reminded me of Videodrome but then in a more cheesy way as said before. The acting can go through with it. But it's the effects that makes you laugh, the so called Brain is really a turkey and the blood is never shown. The opening sequence is what makes this movie worth watching, the hallucinations are really nicely done and reminded me of Nightmare on Elm Street, remember the telephone coming alive.... Some how you keep watching this flick, waiting what is happening next. It's viewable for all freaks out there cause there isn't any gore in it and as said the blood isn't there neither but there is nudity for the perverts. I have seen worser movies than this one, only wished they had made it bloodier...
A: negative