input: Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.

While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness.

Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.

I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.

-SPOILERS FOLLOW-

First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.

Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.

Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.

The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.

The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie is yet another in the long line of no budget, no effort, no talent movies shot on video and given a slick cover to dupe unsuspecting renters at the video store.

If you want to know what watching this movie is like, grab a video camera and some red food dye and film yourself and your friends wandering around the neighborhood at night growling and "attacking" people. Congratulations, you've just made "Hood of the Living Dead"! Now see if a distribution company will buy it from you.

I have seen some low budget, shot on video films that displayed talent from the filmmakers and actors or at the very least effort, but this has neither. Avoid unless you are a true masochist or are amused by poorly made horror movies.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative