"Stay Alive"- Crappiest movie ever?

Crono1000 · 03-24-2006, 11:29 PM

Wow. This movie was so bad I envied the dude with the scissors in his throat 15 minutes into the movie- at least he didn't have to put up with the remaining hour 1/2 of visual crap. I wouldn't even bother with this thread if this movie wasn't the productive sequel to Gigli. The budget clearly went into about 10 accumulative minutes of CG animation and the kid from Malcom in the Middle. That's it. Everything else about this movie screamed "BUDGET!" The quality of the scenes looked grainy the entire movie like it was filmed using a budget home camera. I just couldn't believe that something so poorly done was on a big screen- it was totally a rejected film student project. The sound simply wasn't impressive. But who cares right? It's a horror movie, so was it scary? To give you an idea, I scary pretty easily at horror movies. I jump from the pre-scare moments. You know, when you hear a movement in the next room but it's just a bunny. This movie doesn't even classify as a horror movie, although it does follow the typical horror movie equation to a fault- begins with some unrelated death in a scary two story house, then a confusing/predictable/unconvincing/often contradictory plot involving teenagers dieing, followed by some "Oh it was just a bunny" scenes, then when it's all done and you think the monsters are gone the entity still exists somewhere. Wutever. The "scary" scenes were poorly done. You know whats about to show up, but it's worst than you expect because it's either some obscenely fake costume, a pathetic attempt at being a "scary" computer generated monster, or a simply not scary old person. The monsters when not in the video game are still made to look like video game mobs, and simply doesn't come across as scary but more like... ninjas would or something.

So the big question, what's most important about any horror movie, the one salvation that can fix the problems of any movie:
Were there boobies?

The answer?
No!

Being PG-13, not only were there no boobies, there was no gore! There was implied gore; a morbid room where the victoms were hung upside down with blood and bits everywhere was shown for maybe half a second before your brain can register what was there. This seemed to happen a lot, where the characters would look at some unknown object or room and then look away in disgust. Indeed, it seemed like the best scary stuff was all happening behind the cameraman. Furthermore, there's one particular scene that seems incomplete, where a girl is screaming and struggling, but there's nothing there, as if either the monster is behind the cameraman but more likely that they never finished generating the monsters for that scene (since most of them are CG).

I'm very easy to please with movies, but avoid this movie at all costs. Aside from a few funny lines here and there, and hearing Malcom in the Middle kid cuss, there's nothing worth seeing. Indeed, it's offensively bad. The best thing about the movie was seeing it on opening night and joining in the gathering of geeks to watch it. Hearing people laugh when someone got killed and going "HE GOT PWNED!" is quite entertaining. There are a lot of references that only true gamers would appreciate, and the movie treats being a "gamer" as something hard core. And either the producer had a strange fixation for Dreamcast, in which one might notice all the Dreamcast boxes in the video game stores or the Dreamcast controllers scattered about to play the game with, or the movie was on such a budget that they had to buy the cheapest gaming paraphanelia available since the next-gen revolution, the Dreamcast.

BigDyl · 03-24-2006, 11:31 PM

You could have asked me before you went to see it...

LexusGS · 03-25-2006, 04:41 PM

To me it looked like they spent more money on advertizing the movie then the movie itself.

03-24-2006, 11:29 PM	#1
Crono1000 Peelosopher Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5,661 Photos: 11	"Stay Alive"- Crappiest movie ever? Wow. This movie was so bad I envied the dude with the scissors in his throat 15 minutes into the movie- at least he didn't have to put up with the remaining hour 1/2 of visual crap. I wouldn't even bother with this thread if this movie wasn't the productive sequel to Gigli. The budget clearly went into about 10 accumulative minutes of CG animation and the kid from Malcom in the Middle. That's it. Everything else about this movie screamed "BUDGET!" The quality of the scenes looked grainy the entire movie like it was filmed using a budget home camera. I just couldn't believe that something so poorly done was on a big screen- it was totally a rejected film student project. The sound simply wasn't impressive. But who cares right? It's a horror movie, so was it scary? To give you an idea, I scary pretty easily at horror movies. I jump from the pre-scare moments. You know, when you hear a movement in the next room but it's just a bunny. This movie doesn't even classify as a horror movie, although it does follow the typical horror movie equation to a fault- begins with some unrelated death in a scary two story house, then a confusing/predictable/unconvincing/often contradictory plot involving teenagers dieing, followed by some "Oh it was just a bunny" scenes, then when it's all done and you think the monsters are gone the entity still exists somewhere. Wutever. The "scary" scenes were poorly done. You know whats about to show up, but it's worst than you expect because it's either some obscenely fake costume, a pathetic attempt at being a "scary" computer generated monster, or a simply not scary old person. The monsters when not in the video game are still made to look like video game mobs, and simply doesn't come across as scary but more like... ninjas would or something. So the big question, what's most important about any horror movie, the one salvation that can fix the problems of any movie: Were there boobies? The answer? No! Being PG-13, not only were there no boobies, there was no gore! There was implied gore; a morbid room where the victoms were hung upside down with blood and bits everywhere was shown for maybe half a second before your brain can register what was there. This seemed to happen a lot, where the characters would look at some unknown object or room and then look away in disgust. Indeed, it seemed like the best scary stuff was all happening behind the cameraman. Furthermore, there's one particular scene that seems incomplete, where a girl is screaming and struggling, but there's nothing there, as if either the monster is behind the cameraman but more likely that they never finished generating the monsters for that scene (since most of them are CG). I'm very easy to please with movies, but avoid this movie at all costs. Aside from a few funny lines here and there, and hearing Malcom in the Middle kid cuss, there's nothing worth seeing. Indeed, it's offensively bad. The best thing about the movie was seeing it on opening night and joining in the gathering of geeks to watch it. Hearing people laugh when someone got killed and going "HE GOT PWNED!" is quite entertaining. There are a lot of references that only true gamers would appreciate, and the movie treats being a "gamer" as something hard core. And either the producer had a strange fixation for Dreamcast, in which one might notice all the Dreamcast boxes in the video game stores or the Dreamcast controllers scattered about to play the game with, or the movie was on such a budget that they had to buy the cheapest gaming paraphanelia available since the next-gen revolution, the Dreamcast.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-25-2006, 04:41 PM	#3
LexusGS 3UZFE Join Date: May 2005 Location: United States Posts: 2,636	To me it looked like they spent more money on advertizing the movie then the movie itself.