|
Showing reviews from 1 to 50 (total: 56)
|
|
 |
This movie certainly represents the characteristics of a genuine thriller. Some part were pretty good, but others could of been a bit more gripping. This film is more of a rent and see it at home kind of movie.
7/10
16.5.2007 -
bonsanpar2@ - age: 18-25
Not only is it absolutely devoid of even a single nanosecond of suspsense, there is also not a speck of mystery, terror nor even one attempt at even a lame plot twist. So many holes in the plot that they're not even worth mentioning. Not even worth watching for free, uncut and commercial-free. Belongs in the annals of "What Were They Thinking? "..
1/10
22.11.2004 -
lazysupper@ - age: 26-35
My friend and I rented it, THINKING it would be totally scary, but of course we were disappointed and I don't care if the acting was good, it sucked and the sad thing is you can tell they actually thought it was a scary movie.
10/10
27.5.2004 -
shelly_11111@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
Why were the girls teeth in the front yard and not in the devils throat? Missing family but no one decides to look around the manor? What happened with barowners wife, she supplies them with a horse and we never see her again? How come the guy just didnt push quade in the hole also?
10/10
25.4.2004 -
randi@ - age: 18-25
Total Dud - Undramatic, unsuspenseful. Snake scene in the house was laughable. The plot is a complete mess. Don't waste your time or more importantly, money!
1/10
6.3.2004 -
emanmark666@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
This movie sux I thought that it was going to by scary it's a piece of crap if u like this movie your crazy1 don't waste your mone y go see somhing worth your time.
2/10
26.10.2003 -
jess_b1@ - age: 13-17
Boring. The end was O. K.
3/10
23.10.2003 -
redbud83@ - age: 18-25
Garbage!
3/10
21.10.2003 -
ccrewe8@ - age: 18-25
If you want a movie with a lot of dialogue and no action... this is the one. The best part was the ending!!!
1/10
19.10.2003 -
kalikbeer@ - age: 26-35
If you want to see this movie wait until it's in movie stores. I didn't think it was terrible but it wasn't great either. There was one part that was supposed to be "scary" that just made me and my friend laugh. This movie isn't a horror film, but there were a couple suspenseful moments I guess. If I could turn back time I would wait until this movie is out of the theatres and into the movie store before I see it.
6/10
18.10.2003 -
clairej_88@ - age: 13-17
Boring!
5/10
15.10.2003 -
tivalcunningham@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
I was fooled, like many other movie goers into believing that there was actually going to be a great story behind this creepy manor, judging by the sneeky previews offcourse. I would actually pay to see the previews over and over instead of being paid to watch this movie; it was more like a very good buildup to a seemingly intriguing plot line and then it all goes down-hill within the first half hour, there was no point in staying to watch the ending because all was already known from that moment: who the killer as, his motifs, where the bodies were hidden and that the good guys would obviously win... but I styed anyway to prove my point, it really was a waste of time, no scary or thrilling scenes except for the loud crashing noises caused by that hammer that would make you jump every so often, but besides that it had no scream potential at all! So if you enjoy waiting for a twist that will never happen, please be my guest and by a subscription to this movie or better yet, wait until it comes out on DVD, which I'm sure will be very soon because it was a major flop, and watch it everyday hoping that maybe eachtime something exciting will happen...
3/10
14.10.2003 -
pattyc_85@ - age: 18-25
I went and saw this movie tonight, after reading the comments from the other "movie critics" I was a little sceptical... but went anyway. I was glad that I spent the money, this was worth seeing. The ones that rated this movie low obviously are closed minded... you have to look at the bigger picture in order to understand the true meaning... I recommend this movie.
7/10
13.10.2003 -
heffalump61@ - age: 13-17
It was soo bad if it wasnt for my wife and her antics I would have set fire to the screen. Definitely the worst movie ever I thought I farted but it was the terriblee acting~~~!!
1/10
11.10.2003 -
jojo_tito_t2@ - age: 18-25
Great trailer - for misleading folks. Don't draw the haunted house fans unless you have something to deliver to them :-) Really strong cast but they didn't have a lot to work with. AMAZING HOUSE! I spent most of the time just wishing it were ME that could explore that place :-)
6/10
7.10.2003 -
qnevin2@ - age: 36-49
This movie had potential to be a great movie. The plot line was very weird. They move into a houes... yadda yadda yadda and then thing start to go wrong... the snake thing was totally retarted... the whole... kill your family throw them down the devils throat thing... I dunno, it was messed. It had so much potential to be a great movie, why? Common you could have at least had some suspence in it... or something to make it more intresting..
6/10
5.10.2003 -
krista_32@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
Alright... we all know this movie had a lot more potential then it was rightly given. The actors and actresses did as good as they could with what was dealt to them. The director it seems couldn't decide what type of movie he wanted... piece of advice... rent it if you want... don't go pay movie price!
5/10
3.10.2003 -
grand_champion85@ - age: 18-25
Wow... there was a MAJOR lack of suspense in this movie. I kept guessing what was going to happen next and I was completely wrong. Nothing really scarry happened until the very end of the movie, and even then it really wasnt that bad. I'm not usually this hard a critic, but don't bother wasting your money.
4/10
3.10.2003 -
jewlsm@ - age: 18-25
This movie made me wish I was writing a university exam. I put me to sleep... nuff said.
2/10
1.10.2003 -
freestylebella@ - age: 18-25
Very predictable movie. Nothing new. A lot longer than it should have been. They could have cut out allot of unesesary parts.
6/10
30.9.2003 -
crazybones_@ - age: 18-25
| | | | |
Okay, not as bad as some reviewers insisted. I hadn't been out to see much in a while and this was the perfect escape. The house was big and creepy.. just enough suspense to keep you interested. A bit slow moving but then picked up some momentum. No plot twists. A very easy story to follow. No Oscars here, but a fun night out.
7/10
30.9.2003 -
jepower@ - age: 26-35
They culd have done so much with that movie!!! The end sounds like 1 of my jurnalas(from grad 1)I cant say any more it panes my brane to thing(it was so boring)I rate it -1111111111111111111111111111/10.
1/10
28.9.2003 -
alex_zee_baby@ - age: 1-12
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
"Okay, Honey. I'll just wait here in the woods, at night, in the rain, all alone, by this deep hole, with the dead bodies, when there is a psycho after us, while you go for the sheriff." RIGHT! At least she had the boom microphone to keep her company... in every other scene! And who finds a strange man trespassing in their home and then hires him to do work? If the family had owned a gun, the film would have been over in 30 min. Dennis is still the greatest. Meg Ryan made a huge mistake.
5/10
28.9.2003 -
sadulin@ - age: 26-35
This is one of those movies where the preview is actually more entertaining than the movie. I thought is was boring, it's just about some psycho who decides to torment a family, that's about it... none of the "plot twists" are surprising.
4/10
26.9.2003 -
kevinjmceachern@ - age: 18-25
Disappointing. The trailer leads you to think haunted house. Nope. Instead, you get a ridiculously obvious villain that I found more laughable than menacing. Sharon and Dennis are wasted in this very predictable storyline. And why does Juliette Lewis ALWAYS play the trailer tramp role? I laughed out loud when I saw her. The star of the movie: The house. The scariest thing in the movie: Juliette's hair.
4/10
26.9.2003 -
davlyn@ - age: 36-49
This movie wasn't what I thought it was going to be. I thought it was supposed to be a ghost story with lots of suspence, but, it wasn't. I was kind of disappointed, it was far too long, and far too slow. Some parts didn't make sence.
5/10
25.9.2003 -
hypnoticmonkey2003@ - age: 13-17
I thought this was one of the worst films I've seen yet... the movie would perhaps be a comedy if anything b/c by the end people in the theatre were laughing at how ridiculous it was.
1/10
25.9.2003 -
abcd@ - age: 18-25
Slow, boring, dull and just when you think something is going to happen... nothing does. Worst movie I've see in a really long time. Only reason I'm gaving points is for Stephen Dorff without a shirt.
2/10
25.9.2003 -
julie,alain@ - age: 26-35
Just wait till it comes out on TV, this is definitely not worth paying a penny for. The story, although it had some potential, was slow and mind numbing. Sleeping is probably more entertaining than this movie!!
2/10
25.9.2003 -
gi2@ - age: 18-25
Slow and boring. I love Sharon Stone, but this movie sucked. The scenes you see in the trailer... that's the last 10 minutes of the movie.
2/10
24.9.2003 -
mysterons23@ - age: 26-35
Good movie, but it had so much more potential. Sharon Stone & Dennis Quaid are VERY good. The story moved too slow though. Not enough suspence & the ending was fast & wierd. All in all it would be good on a cheap night or matinee, or if your not fans of the main actors I'd wait for video.
6/10
23.9.2003 -
pp@ - age: 26-35
The movie was slow predictable but the actors made you want more. The scares anticipated from the previews were few & far between. Could have been a great movie.
6/10
23.9.2003 -
tanis@ - age: 36-49
It was aiight, not as scary as I thought I actually laughed through out the movie. Depends on if u like thrillers or not.
7/10
22.9.2003 -
cybamen@ - age: 13-17
This movie, it was lacking in depth though, go see it on cheapy nites or wait til it comes out on video.
6/10
22.9.2003 -
jtaylorhickey@ - age: 18-25
Great, enjoyed it lots!
9/10
22.9.2003 -
megges99@ - age: 13-17
| | | | |
[ATTENTION: This review reveals content of the movie.]
I went into this thinking it was about a haunted house, and was actually quite pleased when I found out it wasn't. Cold Creek Manor is a suspense movie very similar to Pacific Heights, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle and Cape Fear, but is nowhere near as good as any of them. The acting is top-notch. Dennis Quaid is a good actor when not displaying that ear-to-ear grin of his, and I didn't see it once here; Sharon Stone is great, and Stephen Dorff was particularly menacing as the town badboy come back to harass the family that bought his house. Even Kristen Stewart, who plays the Tilson's teen (pre-teen?) daughter, is quite good, but hey, she's had some practice, having already starred in another suspense movie about a family that buys a ridiculously large and creepy house and is harassed by madmen, which was Panic Room. Heck, even hammers were important props in both films. What I did like about this movie is that the Tilsons are not perfect people, shining examples of human beings, angels who had never done a thing wrong in their collective lives. The mother is a bit of a strumpet, the daughter is a brat with a cell phone (no explanation necessary) and Daddy is a nosy jerk who thinks nothing of going through the personal things of the previous owner with intentions to make a documentary, even after meeting the guy and hearing his story. It's no wonder the dude hates him; I would too. And this adds depth to a villain who other critics have described as being one-dimensional. I find the character of Dale Massie to be the exact opposite. We see some of the factors that could have molded him into the type of dangerous man he is, and while his actions are clearly wrong, we still have to find some sympathy for him, in light of what he went through. Unfortunately, however, the movie lacks any real memorable scenes. Other movies of this kind have those scenes that just leave you cold (Hand That Rocks the Cradle had the greenhouse trap, Fatal Attraction had the bunny stew), but this just doesn't really do much. Dale's attacks on the family are rather mundane, realistic for a simple small-town bully and not some criminal mastermind, so I guess it makes sense. But for a movie, it does little to impress, and by the end, we all realize not much is going to come of this 2-hour excursion, and sadly, that there were no ghosts in Cold Creek Manor, not even a little one.
7/10
22.9.2003 -
newscott13@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Cold Cold was interesting in the way it pitted two stronge willed men against each other. One protecting his Family, the other protecting his "Family Secret" The things left unsaid had me pondering, however. Such as why were the wife and children of Dale murdered and was "the devil's throat" just the well? As with most suspence stories a hint at things that have evolved in the past is enough to titilate our imaginations.
6/10
22.9.2003 -
sheebah1000@ - age: 50+
Not what I was expecting, the best scenes are shown on the the trailer already, a bit disappointed. Felt like 2 hours wasted.
4/10
21.9.2003 -
mcqueen_q@ - age: 18-25
I liked it, though Dale Masssie should have been played by someone a little older to make it a more realistic.
7/10
21.9.2003 -
carguy@ - age: 36-49
I was expecting more it was slow and very disappointing... luv Dennis, but that's the only reason I gave it any points at all.
3/10
21.9.2003 -
ronip@ - age: 36-49
For what it was worth, it was a decent 'family' thriller that the whole family could see. However, I found some of the scary scenes laughable and for some reason, the music was just terrible. Steven Dorff was good in it, and it's nice to see Sharon Stone back. Pretty simple story, no major twists - I'd wait for the rental.
6/10
21.9.2003 -
mikeadc@ - age: 26-35
Rental!!! Don't pay money to see this movie.
5/10
21.9.2003 -
lkloster18@ - age: 26-35
Well, I thought the first half was good, but then I sobered up, and realised I had already seen "The Ring". Not too original or scary. Sorry, but big names and buff bodies does not a good movie make!
5/10
21.9.2003 -
smurftheday@ - age: 18-25
Oo scary.
8/10
21.9.2003 -
roxy_girl203@ - age: 13-17
Terrible movie. No story line whatsoever, and the worst part was TEN incidents where the boom microphone enters the frame. This totally takes you out of the movie and how that happened is beyond me. Even one incident is terrible but TEN!?!?! There is one scene where Sharon Stone and Denis Quaid are on the floor and we see the mike coming in from the left where it's almost hitting them in the head. The only redeeming scene was the final one.
1/10
21.9.2003 -
tbond_trader@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
Not as bad as some critics made it out to be, but really not that good either. The characters make some pretty stupid decisions along the way.
5/10
21.9.2003 -
kkwg99@ - age: 26-35
Good movie! Although it was not too scary, but it was exciting.
8/10
20.9.2003 -
peotu@ - age: 26-35
Extremely predictable movie. The fomula for this film has been done hundreds of times. Nothing new here. Mediocre at best. Wait for the rental.
6/10
20.9.2003 -
vodriscoll@ - age: 36-49
| | | | |
Better then the others and what lies beneath.
8/10
20.9.2003 -
legroschristian@ - age: 26-35
| | | | |
I thought that this movie could of been much better by not having a slow build up throughout 3/4 of the film (I was asking myself if I should leave the theatre along with my girlfriend) The last quarter was happening a little fast. I think that the snakes could of been replaced with tarantulas or other venomous spiders (get the Crocodile hunter from Australia to handle those nasty slithering snakes-"yeah mate, these snakes are scary, watch out they don't bite! ") The acting from Stephen Dorff was very effective in conveying his creepiness and ill-natured personality! However, the acting from Dennis Quad and Sharon Stone could of been better. Are they trying to revive their careers with this movie- bad choice Sharon and Dennis! Christopher Plummer's character was a little effective as being a senile old dad but his acting wasn't up to par. Does Juliet Lewis always chose parts as a trampy women? The movies I've seen have her portrayed as this type, but maybe I'm wrong. This movie wasn't worth the price paid for, so if 2/4 of the theatre was full, then the movie should go straight to DVD.
4/10
20.9.2003 -
almn20007@ - age: 26-35
|
