StudioLAX
Joined Feb 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges8
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews19
StudioLAX's rating
This is the worst kind of lazy, cynical content pooping (using the word filmmaking is an insult to filmmakers) with the end result beings so poor technically, it's tiring to watch (the only reason I did was to write a review for YouTube).
Underexposed video capture (using the word cinematography is an insult to cinematographers) is compounded by randomly dropping filters onto the poopage resulting in over saturation and further darkening of the image. There's actually a scene in the content poop where the people pretending to be actors argue about poor lighting. I found this insulting as it shows the content poopers knew enough to include it as dialogue but didn't implement it themselves.
Sound is terrible, obviously recorded using the phone mic and the stereo field isn't balanced, the dialogue should have been recorded in mono, or mixed down to mono. Music is awful and used throughout destroying any molecule of tension remaining after the embarrassingly bad 'acting', complete lack of production design, props and costumes.
In an attempt to be positive there's a stripper playing a scientist who has a very nice face, unfortunately I'm not a fan of (obviously fake breasts), for anyone wondering, they are not revealed, guess the content poopers didn't have $50.
The worst thing though is the people connected to the content pooping who have written glowing reviews, what do you think that's going to achieve? It just further demonstrates your contempt for the audience and complete lack of integrity, although as you are clearly not filmmakers I don't suppose that matters to you.
Underexposed video capture (using the word cinematography is an insult to cinematographers) is compounded by randomly dropping filters onto the poopage resulting in over saturation and further darkening of the image. There's actually a scene in the content poop where the people pretending to be actors argue about poor lighting. I found this insulting as it shows the content poopers knew enough to include it as dialogue but didn't implement it themselves.
Sound is terrible, obviously recorded using the phone mic and the stereo field isn't balanced, the dialogue should have been recorded in mono, or mixed down to mono. Music is awful and used throughout destroying any molecule of tension remaining after the embarrassingly bad 'acting', complete lack of production design, props and costumes.
In an attempt to be positive there's a stripper playing a scientist who has a very nice face, unfortunately I'm not a fan of (obviously fake breasts), for anyone wondering, they are not revealed, guess the content poopers didn't have $50.
The worst thing though is the people connected to the content pooping who have written glowing reviews, what do you think that's going to achieve? It just further demonstrates your contempt for the audience and complete lack of integrity, although as you are clearly not filmmakers I don't suppose that matters to you.
RE: 19 April 2011 | by corey_dw (Australia)
After varying degrees of success with the franchise, My faith that "Fast 5" could deliver on the hype was waning somewhat. However despite the fact this film hasn't been released yet and I've not actually seen it but I work for the studio I am pleased to say the series hasn't redeemed itself. Fast 5 pulls out no stops this time around. It almost delivers on action, cars, poor quality acting and a hackneyed storyline. It doesn't bother exploring the character personalities, not showing humour, fear, vulnerability and determination this time around which gives the movie no strength or depth also missing from previous Fast n Furious movies.
I found myself cringing out loud a few times at the unsubtle humour, and leaning forward for the action scenes which should've been truly amazing.
The Story is predictable and will not keep the surprises coming to the end. The Cast has not matured and it shows in the lack of quality of acting over previous F'n'F movies. Ironically, one of the production companies involved is called Original Productions.
Pros:
Average pace throughout the movie
Average storyline and plot
Average Cast of actors/ actresses Unimaginative and un-inventive elements throughout
One or two "Wow" moments
Cons:
Would be nice to have more screen time for the cars
a 130 cheesy moments ( but this adds to the humour of the film)
Overall: Highly recommended if you have low expectations, nothing better to do and a free cinema ticket, or your a complete drone with no imagination who likes retarded films with spoon fed plots. Just be sure to fast forward until the end of the credits!
0.5/10
After varying degrees of success with the franchise, My faith that "Fast 5" could deliver on the hype was waning somewhat. However despite the fact this film hasn't been released yet and I've not actually seen it but I work for the studio I am pleased to say the series hasn't redeemed itself. Fast 5 pulls out no stops this time around. It almost delivers on action, cars, poor quality acting and a hackneyed storyline. It doesn't bother exploring the character personalities, not showing humour, fear, vulnerability and determination this time around which gives the movie no strength or depth also missing from previous Fast n Furious movies.
I found myself cringing out loud a few times at the unsubtle humour, and leaning forward for the action scenes which should've been truly amazing.
The Story is predictable and will not keep the surprises coming to the end. The Cast has not matured and it shows in the lack of quality of acting over previous F'n'F movies. Ironically, one of the production companies involved is called Original Productions.
Pros:
Average pace throughout the movie
Average storyline and plot
Average Cast of actors/ actresses Unimaginative and un-inventive elements throughout
One or two "Wow" moments
Cons:
Would be nice to have more screen time for the cars
a 130 cheesy moments ( but this adds to the humour of the film)
Overall: Highly recommended if you have low expectations, nothing better to do and a free cinema ticket, or your a complete drone with no imagination who likes retarded films with spoon fed plots. Just be sure to fast forward until the end of the credits!
0.5/10
In light of the overwhelmingly negative comments on here I thought I'd try and even the balance a little.
Granted Chronicles of an Exorcism is not great, some of the acting is pretty ropey and obviously being no budget there's not much action. For the money though I think it's decent enough film, superior to say anything from The Asylum or a sci-fi channel original movie.
I don't know what sort of idiot would think this is actually a real exorcism, there's no such thing, and even if there was the Catholic church would never in a million years allow one to be filmed. Let's face it this is an organisation whose leader thinks use of condoms increases the risk of aids.
Maybe people were put off a bit by the reasonably intelligent and wordy script which discusses in depth matters of faith and also goes into some detail about exorcisms. Perhaps the reason for all the negative comments is overly sensitive religious types, however the treatment of the catholic religion in the film is in no way critical.
Granted Chronicles of an Exorcism is not great, some of the acting is pretty ropey and obviously being no budget there's not much action. For the money though I think it's decent enough film, superior to say anything from The Asylum or a sci-fi channel original movie.
I don't know what sort of idiot would think this is actually a real exorcism, there's no such thing, and even if there was the Catholic church would never in a million years allow one to be filmed. Let's face it this is an organisation whose leader thinks use of condoms increases the risk of aids.
Maybe people were put off a bit by the reasonably intelligent and wordy script which discusses in depth matters of faith and also goes into some detail about exorcisms. Perhaps the reason for all the negative comments is overly sensitive religious types, however the treatment of the catholic religion in the film is in no way critical.