Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Hotel Inferno (2013)
A fair review of Hotel Inferno
As it stands right now, all of the reviews from this movie are 1 star or 8-10 stars. All of these people are wrong.
For starters, this movie plays out exactly like a fist person shooter video game. The tropes, the dialog, and obviously the camera angle and movement. There's little doubt what this movie is supposed to be and, in all honesty, it does it rather well. The whole first person thing has been tried to a much more limited extent in some movies. House Of The Dead and Doom come to mind. But in these movies it was more for the movie's denouement...a final showdown. In Hotel Inferno it's done throughout and it's kind of enjoyable.
This isn't without it's drawbacks. The camera is jumpy, the dialog is on-par with a video game, and it lacks a bit of continuity. You'll find a 10 minute action sequence ended just to have some exposition on what happened and what will happen next. Again, exactly as you would in a video game. It's like finishing a mission and waiting for a cut scene to tell you what you did and what to do next, except it's a movie. This gets a bit old even if you follow the premise.
For a movie with this budget the special effects are actually quite well done. Gore fans will undoubtedly appreciate the over-the-top violence and gore and others will probably just laugh at the preposterousness of it all. Either way, the special effects team absolutely did the most with what they had.
All in all it's a relatively enjoyable movie if you know what you're in for (and have a six pack of your preferred adult beverage available). It's something a little new but absolutely not without it's flaws. Is it perfect? No. Is it a bit of fun to watch with some friends? Absolutely.
The Taking (2013)
Beating you over the head with suck
A lot of people on IMDb like to throw out hyperbole like "worst film I've ever seen". I've said it before, but if you can point to just one movie as the worst, you're clearly not watching enough crap. So what does that mean for The Taking? Well, it's not the worst, but it's probably in my top 20.
You're no doubt asking yourself "Can it really be that bad?" and surprised that you're concerned what a stranger on the internet thinks. It's not the wooden and unpleasant acting that does it. It's not the painfully bad "special effects". It isn't the complete lack of any comprehensible story. It's not the fact that the movie tries to come off as surreal by using horribly juxtaposed images and grating sound in an attempt to create a tense atmosphere. These things are all certainly true, but it's the way the movie combines these aspects into such a colossal pile of failure that almost has to be seen to be believe. Think I've overstating this? About halfway through the movie I caught myself thinking about what I had to do at work the next day. I was watching a movie, a medium that only exists to take your mind off of your own existence and live vicariously through a character or set of characters, and was thinking about something as mundane as work. I'm not even sure how bad a movie has to be before that takes place because it's never happened to me before.
Seriously, this is garbage.
As of this writing, this film is sitting at a sub-3 star rating. Seriously? Sure the film's got it's problems, but it's pretty well written, pretty well acted, and solidly put together. Maybe England is going through a rash of hooligan films that I'm not aware of and this was the straw that broke the camel's back? That...or people are just kind of idiots.
OK, maybe idiots is a harsh term as there's no accounting for taste, but this film actually works pretty well on most levels. It moves along at a good clip, the characters develop well, and the story is though out. My only real gripe is the way the film jumps around between certain scenes. There's a bit of that "three weeks earlier" crap that makes it a bit hard to follow at times. But on the whole I'd say it's at least worth a watch.
Suing the Devil (2011)
Trite in the worst way
I can't help but think back to the Billy Connoly movie "The Man Who Sued God" based on title alone. But then I realize that his movie was funny and engaging. This is not. There's something innate about taking any form of media and making it "Christian" that seems to automatically make it unpalatable to everyone else. Sure, Christians love it, but everyone else just sort of laughs or rolls their eyes...often with good reason. Look no further than Christian rock for examples of this.
But I'm not faulting the movie for that reason. Well, not entirely anyway. The acting is beyond bad and there's nothing worse than having a message crammed down your throat. That is to say I have no problem with movies that contain a message, but make the message subtle...otherwise you just end up with propaganda. Yes yes, I understand the point is to confirm what is already confirmation bias, but do you have to be so blatant about it?
I honestly think this movie fails in 3 ways. First of all, it fails as a source of entertainment that is accessible to a wide variety of people, thereby seriously limiting it's appeal. Second of all it fails as a film promoting a Christian message because all it's doing is pandering to people who already believe, not trying to answer any questions non-believers may have. Third and finally, it just plain fails as a movie. Complain all you want about how everyone giving a bad review is an atheist or "Christian-hater" (whatever the hell that is), but it doesn't change the fact that the movie had a bad script, ridiculous plot, and seriously sub par acting. You do realize that at some point the filmmakers have to take some responsibility for making a bad movie, right?
One Hell of a Christmas (2002)
So, so bad
Man...it's been a long time since I gave something a single star, but believe me, I'd give this movie less were I given the option. There is quite literally nothing redeeming about this movie. Let me repeat that: there is absolutely nothing worthwhile about this movie whatsoever.
I'm not going to complain about the budget. A lot of movies get by on low budgets and do rather well. But this...this movie can't blame the budget. The actors are horribly ill-equipped. The story is garbage. The plot itself jumps around to the point that it becomes laughable.
I try to avoid the hyperbole that so often plagues IMDb reviews. if you can point to one single movie and say "Yep, that's the worst thing I've ever seen", then you clearly haven't seen enough crap. I will say that this would go in my top 5 of crap movies. I was actually mad at myself about halfway through that I was still watching it. Learn from my fail...
Everything you want from a horror-comedy
As my rating would suggest, I am very nearly in love with this movie. Horror-comedies can be quite fickle...very often having too many elements of one and not nearly enough of the other. Sure, you have movies like Shaun Of The Dead that get it just right, but for every one of "Shaun" there's about 15 that just don't get it. And now we have Chillerama.
From start to finish you get the impression that someone was trying to get the aforementioned mixture just right. It interweaves 3 different movies (essentially hilarious mockeries of the old grindhouse/midnight drive-in genre) with a story of what takes place in between at the drive-in where they're being shown (think of it as the play within a play from Hamlet). Mocking these types of films is certainly nothing new, but few have gone so over the top while still somehow staying true to the source material. I have to say my favorite segment has to be "The Diary Of Anne Frankenstein" if for no other reason that Joel David Moore's portrayal of Hitler. Watching him make up gibberish that was subtitled as legitimate German had me laughing my ass off.
Gripes? Only minor ones. The movie runs a bit long for this genre. Two solid hours is typically a bit more than you'd expect, but then again it doesn't feel stretched or wasted. I also kind of wished they had put a little more effort into the story of what happens at the drive-in. All in all I would (and already have) recommend it to just about anyone who enjoys a good, albeit sometimes crude, laugh.
Full of meh
While I'm not sure what I expected going into this, I didn't really get what I was looking for. I think I was hoping for something a bit more like Hatchet which was a ton of fun and had quite a bit of gore. This movie feels like it's just a step above a Syfy channel movie. If you've ever had the misfortune of stumbling upon one of those without expecting it, you'll know what I mean.
I liked the slight throwback to 80's era movies what with the camping, one-by-one killing, and somewhat gratuitous nudity. Everything else was pretty bland. The creature effects are OK, but not fantastic. The effects in general, really, are just OK. Then there's the suspension of disbelief which is just a bit more than I can handle (aside from the monster stalking the swaps of Louisiana). I won't go into why exactly, but it's just a mess. The movie isn't terrible, but it's certainly not anything that's going on your favorites list.
Trying far too hard
I'm really trying to figure out why this movie is currently rated at 7.2. I mean...it's OK. Even as comic book movies go, this is just silly. I think what floors me the most is that Natalie Portman signed on to do this. Not that she's above making questionable movies, I typically see her as a more serious actress. And it's directed by Kenneth Branagh? Anyone who's seen a Shakespeare movie in the last 20 years has likely seen Branagh's work, so to see him stoop to this level is pretty disappointing.
While the movie is a bit of fun, I just can't see the point to the whole thing. Yes, I know they have to make it so they can put an Avengers movie together eventually. But the movie just essentially puts Thor on Earth with no powers and...well...that's it. He just sort of hangs out while the main story plays out in Asgard (in what appears to be a giant pipe organ). Worst of all, instead of the movie providing any type of satisfactory ending and giving you the setup for the aforementioned Avengers movie, it sets up a clear sequel. And that to me is just a waste of time since nothing happened here. I don't know...it's a bit of fun in some cases, but overall it's just over the top, silly, and kind of pointless.
Man, I hate to parrot what everyone else has said about this movie, but it's so patently obvious. This film starts so well. It really is very interesting and holds your attention pretty well. The about two-thirds of the way in it just totally falls apart. I don't mean the ending is just kind of weak and gives you the same feeling as when you watched "Signs"...I mean that it utterly and completely fails to provide any kind of storyline progress and might as well have just happened in a different movie.
Now you may be asking yourself, if you were so inclined, "Can it really be that bad?". You wouldn't think so, but it is. I literally cannot put explain to you how awful this ending ruins the film without giving anything away. A friend of mine actually inquired about the movie, and I gave him my two cents. He decided to watch it anyway, and I got a text later telling me what part of the movie he was at and he had no idea what I was talking about. About 20 minutes later I got another text full of swear words. Yes, it's that bad.
Assassination Games (2011)
Proof that one can be redeemed
I full admit I watched this movie for two reasons. First of all, the last thing I saw Van Damme in was JCVD, and I have to say that I was more than a bit surprised by the weight and depth of his performance. Second, I'm a fan of Scott Adkins ever since the last two Undisputed and Ninja films where he showed that westerners could screen fight just as well as anyone in martial arts flicks. How does all of that translate to this movie? Read on.
Assassination Games probably isn't what you expect. It's not a knock down, drag out action movie. In fact the action sequences, while well done, aren't very plentiful. I actually think this may be a good thing. I'm starting to think that if Van Damme would take himself more seriously and stop doing all of the hacky crap he did in the 80s and 90s that he could very well be a well respected actor who just happens to know action movies. While I grew up with movies like Bloodsport and Kickboxer, watching someone mature and actually convey an actual sense of a character is quite rewarding. Here's to hoping that the man can stick with movies that have substance rather than just being some guy who can kick stuff and do the splits.
The Orphan Killer (2011)
As anyone who's ever tried to make a cake knows, you can have the right ingredients to make a really awesome cake, but if mixed wrong you can come out with something a little mediocre. That's kind of how I found this movie. It has all the right ingredients to make something truly amazing, but the execution left me wanting more. Don't get me wrong, it's still a bit of a shot in the arm for some more predictable horror films. It just also happens that it's hampered with limitations.
The story is very much rooted in the 80's horror mentality: children witness murder of parents, children are sent to orphanage, the one who isn't evil (and is subjected to inexplicable cruel treatment even by his caretakers) is adopted, the evil one tracks down the other later in life while all hell breaks loose. OK, fair enough. You've seen it before, but it's still fun. The kills are fun to watch and the effects are genuinely good for what feels like a movie on a budget. The setting is where I find a lot of fault...it takes place in pretty much one single building. While I often enjoy horror films that employ a sort of claustrophobic setting, in a stalk and slash movie it just seems silly. Basically, you'd just need to leave the damn building for it to end. I was also a bit confused when the movie turned from the aforementioned stalk and slash into sort of a torture movie. The transition kind of makes sense, but I was really hoping to see more of the effects-driven kill scenes.
All in all the movie plays well and keeps up it's pace. But at the end I was left wanting more from it. I imagine if you remove the limitations (many of which I suspect are financial) you'd have a truly great horror movie, not one that's just good. Here's to hoping this movie gets a second chance...or possibly a sequel.
Peep World (2010)
Not good, not bad...it's just sort of "there"
I watched this movie for a lot of reasons. I really like Sarah Silverman and Michael C. Hall, plus I was looking for a comedy that might offer a little something different. I guess on both fronts I got what I was expecting, but it still felt like a hollow victory.
There's nothing really bad about this movie. The acting is done well and the pace is kept pretty good, but it always feels like something is missing and I still can't figure out what it would be. It seems to be one of the many comedies that tries to derive humor from awkward situations and subtle quirks in common situations. Though it's just a personal preference, that has always kind of bothered me. And the storyline of the horrendously dysfunctional family also feels a bit tired to be, especially as it's been done to much better effect.
But the film isn't without it's charms. They're just a little hard to notice. Honestly, I thought this movie delivered more on the drama aspects than the comedy and perhaps that's how it was supposed to play. But hey...at least it wasn't terrible. That's really about all the endorsement I'm willing to give it.
Bad on so many levels
After reading a blurb about this movie declaring it "the most hardcore horror film of the year", I set out to watch it for two reasons: I either had to know how awesome it would be or how wrong that blurb was. It was wrong. Dead wrong. In so, so many ways. Allow me to explain.
I can excuse a lot of things in low-ish budget horror movies. I understand you do what you can with what you have. I had to stop making excuses for this movie after about 20 minutes. The acting is among some of the worst I've seen in quite some time. It actually made me cheer on the ridiculous antagonist solely because I wanted all of these kids dead so I wouldn't have to put up with their unique brand of suck anymore. Then there's multiple levels of laziness. Putting the bad guy in a bunny costume? Are you kidding me? The only reason you do that is because you're too damn lazy to do the makeup. Same goes for all of the kill scenes. They're all implied, never shown aside from some blood spray. Yes, it saves money but it also makes you look lazy and incompetent if you use that style every single time.
I'm trying to think of something redeemable in this movie and I just can't. I was almost mad at myself for sitting through the entire 90 minutes without throwing something at my TV. Low budget horror movies are supposed to be fun...or at least an attempt to get away with something that wouldn't really go over well in a theater. But this...this is just a failure on so many levels that it's embarrassing.
Ahhhh, the Italians
One could certainly argue that the modern zombie films owe a great deal to the Italians. They created a time tested formula that worked. Plus they were never ones to skimp on the gore, and I deeply appreciate that. That being said, there are problems with this formula. Namely, that it's old.
Eaters sticks quite well to the old Italian model, with it's clearly defined protagonists and antagonists, steady introduction of new characters, and healthy dose of violence. All of that works pretty well, but as this way of doing things is - perhaps a little too - time tested it feels a lot like you've seen it a million times. Maybe you have, but that doesn't really mean the movie's no good. It certainly has it's faults, but all in all I found it pretty enjoyable. The characters are well developed, the actors do a good job, and the practical special effects are surprisingly good for a film that feels like it was a little light on budget.
Alright for what it is
I honestly didn't know what to expect when I saw this. I purposefully avoid trailers these days as they often to tend to show the best parts of the movie which is a total killjoy. So while I wasn't blown away, I was a bit surprised. Mostly because this movie works very well on some levels and very poorly on others. Allow me to explain.
First of all, as an action movie, it definitely succeeds. Indeed, sometimes the only thing keeping the movie going are the fairly intense action sequences. Yes, the overuse of wire work to give even the regular humans amazing abilities seems trite, but it can be forgiven. As a horror movie...well...not so much. The concept for the vampires is certainly not your average altered human, but there's no real peril or tension as you'd find in a horror movie. The casting is...questionable. Primarily: why can't Karl Urban be in a substantial role that actually suits him in an American movie? My only real gripe is the sort of anachronistic steampunk western style the film uses. I cannot tell you how sick I am of these movies that portray the future - with all of it's technology and benefits - as the old west.
So if you just wanted a turn-your-brain-off action flick, this is actually a pretty good choice. If you wanted a...wait...was there anyone who expected something else from this movie?
Stake Land (2010)
Bit of a mixed bag
While I did enjoy this movie, I am by no means in love with it. To me it seems a bit like a modern True Grit mixed with I Am Legend. Bear in mind that's not a bad thing. I'm just using a reference to recent movies as a context. Although I will say that I am already a bit dismayed with the whole sub-genre of "Let's get to the last piece of unspoiled humanity by killing our way through zombies/vampires/what have you".
I like to think the film is really more about the bond that holds humanity together rather than killing vampires to get to some fabled promised land. Sure, killing bad guys is fun, but it's rather meaningless without knowing why the characters protect each other. I quite like the whole "Us against the world" feel of the film. To me the plot line was only so-so, but what really got my attention was the acting. Certainly not Oscar material, but everyone is just about perfect for their part. When all is said and done, I'd definitely recommend it for what it is...I just kind of wish it didn't have to be all about vampires.
A good kind of insane
This movie is just about impossible to fit into a genre, and that's pretty much a good thing. If you've ever seen the Japanese movie Wild Zero (which is also awesome), then it kind of helps to understand this movie. It's a bit of absurd comedy, action/thriller, and horror. The great thing is how abruptly it transitions between the genres and yet still have it work.
Any sort of breakdown of the plot would not really do it justice. The essential bit is a strange group of beings from another dimension invading a small town. But there's so much more in terms of sub plots and the film explores them just as much. The end is a bit of a let down, but the rest of the ride is just a ton of fun if for no other reason than it's so crazy.
Sometimes I feel like I have to watch a lot of Asian thrillers just to find one that really works. For every 50 or so I watch, there will be only one 20th Century Boys or Confessions. The film works on pretty much every level, though it might be a bit hard to follow for some.
The story starts with a pretty simple event. What you're completely unprepared for is that such a simple act will spiral completely out of control into an incredibly twisted series of events. You see...this is one of those movie that will tell (relatively) the same story from different angles and perspectives. That bit may throw some people off, but I promise it all makes sense if you're paying attention. And you should be paying attention, because watching the whole thing unravel is a hell of a lot of fun.
Every movie has at least a couple drawbacks, however minor. One minor thing that kind of irritated me was the frequent use of slow motion shots. I understand using it to emphasize the importance of a shot, but this is just a little out of hand. Also, I wish some of the alternative tellings of events happened more linearly at some points. In some cases results are shown before the audience has a chance to even follow the story line to what leads to said action. But those are both minor nitpicks, really. On the whole, the movie is just plain excellent.
The Be All and End All (2009)
Wow...this movie is conflicting
Let me get one thing out of the way early on: I really did like this movie. I know a lot of Americans don't really get British humor (outside of Monty Python) and I really think that's a shame. But I'll admit this movie muddles the waters even further for some with it's relatively seamless transitions from melancholy to humor.
As a basic premise it seems sound; a dying 15 year old boy has one final wish: to get laid once in his life. And who better to help him carry that wish out than his best friend? Seems like a good set up for some wacky hijinks, no? Well...that's kind of the problem. Remember, the kid's dying. There's a lot to explore there that's not at all funny. So while the film does deliver on some of the humorous aspects of a teenager's search for some action (on behalf of a bedridden friend, no less), much of that humor gets overshadowed by the weight of the situation. Plus, the film often attempts to transition between humorous and heartfelt a little too quickly. It's hard to laugh at something immediately after the main characters get soul-crushingly bad news. That said, for those who like a little something different and are tired of the usual teenage sex comedy, this might be just the thing. Sure, it's more than a little dark, but it lends some weight to the story in the end.
Night of the Demons (2009)
A little cliché, BUT...
Well...what exactly did you expect from a remake of an 80s horror flick? Even when it was made, the original was less than fresh. Don't get me wrong, the original (and it's sequels) were some of my favorite movies to rent as a kid. But let's not pretend the original movie was some mind-blowing feat of originality. So since everyone is apparently out of ideas for stuff and remakes/reboots are all the rage, why not remake a movie that, while loved by many, wasn't exactly setting box offices on fire?
This isn't exactly a true remake, nor is it a reboot. It falls somewhere in between. It doesn't exactly follow the original story...it varies on some key elements. The parts that got changed don't really effect the overall story, though. The film does take a bit long to get going for my tastes. It tries to focus a bit too much on being sexy in the first half rather than being a horror movie. But once it gets going, it's fun and the practical effects are actually quite well done. The CGI effects, while sparse, are actually pretty bad. Then the casting. I'm not sure who thought it'd be a good idea to use Edward "remember, I was John Connor. No, seriously" Furlong, but I would question their motives. He's fine in his role, but he just seems like he's there for the paycheck. And Shannon Elizabeth as Angela? Again, she does fine with the role, but I don't see her potential as a villain in a horror flick. She's always going to be that hot girl who got naked in American Pie. But whatever...it is what it is. All in all it's a fun popcorn movie. If you're a die-hard fan of the original you'll probably find a lot to nitpick over. Otherwise, just open a six pack and enjoy it for what it is...a fun, fairly gory horror movie that doesn't take itself too seriously.
I really wanted to like it more
Please don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this movie. I just wanted to enjoy it a lot more than I did. See, in an age of remakes, I feel like it's really hard to find fun, original material so it makes it so much more rewarding when you do. But there's few things worse than feeling like you got the old bait and switch. And that's sort of how I feel about this movie.
Sure, the story and plot aren't exactly a rip off, it's just that someone wasn't trying hard...at all...to make it original. It's a stalk-and-slash movie (Haloween, Friday The 13th) where a guy makes masks out of his victims at an old, abandoned farm house (Texas Chainsaw Massacre). I wish there were more to it, but not really. That being said, don't let that alone turn you off of this movie. It really isn't without it's charms. The kills are fun, the actors actually do a pretty good job in their roles, and the effects are surprisingly good. If you want to just sit on the couch (preferably with some sort of adult beverage) and have some fun, this isn't the worst way you could do it. You just have to get past the relatively well-tread plot.
A story as old as time itself
Provided, of course, your definition of "time" happens to roughly equal "the last 3 Psycho movies". Let's face it, there's just not a lot you can do with the "mentally unstable man-child who owns a hotel and hates women" angle. What little there is in that well was done in the original Psycho film...and even that was heavily influenced by Ed Gein who, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, never owned a hotel.
And that's pretty much the plot...a few people get offed at a hotel owned and run by a mildly creepy guy who seems a bit too attentive. The kills are kind of fun but there's hardly enough to justify a whole film. They even introduce characters just to kill them a minute later. Understandable, considering there's only really 3 main characters. You gotta stretch the film out somehow. The film itself isn't bad, it's just not terribly good. I guess if you have some time to kill and you're not faced with a plethora of terrific options, it might be a good way to waste some time.
Gakkô ura saito (2009)
Needs a new title
This is not a bad movie...let that be said right now. The title, however, is totally misleading. I can only imagine it's trying to cash in on the popularity of Tokyo Gore Police which totally lived up to it's name. This movie has very little gore (or none, depending on your definition of "gore"). A better title would have been something like "Tokyo Fight School" or something along those lines. Terrible choice of title aside, it's really not a bad film.
Owing at least some of it's story to movies like Battle Royale, it's basically a teen-vs.-teen fight movie. Basically, a website has a bunch of kids' names on it and they all have some sort of secret they're fighting to keep a secret. Kids get points for "defeating" other kids and sending info to the site from their mobile phones. With these points they can delete their own data or cash them in for money. It's really a bit more well thought out than all of that, but I'd say that's a fair summary. It's a bit low budget, but not in a totally repulsive and terrible way. Everyone plays their parts quite well and the story moves along quite nicely and never lingers on itself.
The one thing I don't understand is why the Japanese are really the only people (aside from perhaps the British) that are willing to depict teenagers capable of terrible violence. Here in the U.S. violence is our bread and butter, but the only movies you'll see depicting teens as they really are (let alone violent) seem to be indie films that only a handful will ever see. I'd definitely recommend the movie to anyone who knows that the title is total crap.
There's something to be said for any filmmaker committed enough to put their vision on film. The problem is that sometimes those visions suck. The British have often been able to do a lot with a little, especially in the horror genre. This is not one of those times.
S.N.U.B! does not need the exclamation point. Nothing that happens in this movie requires such punctuation. Really, it's pretty much one big (and tired) cliché. I'll excuse the bad digital special effects...this is a rather low budget film after all. But the poor story building, plot, and practical special effects are just bad. I mean...hell...just plain terrible. Nothing that happens here will be a surprise. Nothing will urge you to keep watching. In fact, even at 1 hour and 14 minutes it still feels too long. I feel bad for everyone whose name appears in the opening credits. After all, if you're going to make a low budget affair, why list everyone's name in the opening as if they would ever appear in anything ever again? Ditch this in favor of much better films from Great Britain. This is just a waste.
A bit of something different
I've long been a fan of movies...horror in particular...that takes place in a relatively small, constant set. I don't know why Maybe it's because it forces more of a story than a huge, sprawling set. So in that respect, I was pleased with this film. Sure, it's got it's downsides...but what movie doesn't? The basic plot is a group of kids flying a plane to a concert when a mechanical problem leaves their plane stuck in a climb. While trying to figure out how to fix the problem before they run out of fuel and/or oxygen things get...strange. Secrets are revealed, tempers flare and...well...that's all I'm going to say about it. Then in a nice little surprise, it climaxes in an almost Lovecraftian way.
The downsides are the norm for what you'd see in a movie featuring some college aged kids. Namely, everyone except the couple main characters are utterly moronic and horribly annoying. Every story needs an antagonist, but I found myself just pleading with something to kill these kids. Plus the very thing I liked (the almost claustrophobic set) could very well be a minus for some. All in all I got a little more than I expected, but not something I'd insist all my friends watch. It was just good...not great.