TheLittleSongbird Saw 'Cold Moon', being fond of horror regardless of budget (even if not my favourite genre), Christopher Lloyd and being intrigued somewhat by the idea. Being behind on my film watching and reviewing, with a long to watch and review list that keeps getting longer, it took me a while to get round to watching and reviewing it.Giving 'Cold Moon' a fair chance with being interest and apprehension, it turned out to be far better than expected. Won't say that 'The Haunting of Helena' is a great film because it isn't and the potential, while not wasted, is not fully lived up to. Considering the large number of films seen recently being mediocre and less and wasting potential, was expecting worse and was relieved that while wanting in a fair few areas it was actually one of my better recent low-budget viewings.'Cold Moon' started off quite well, the first half is promising, unsettling and atmospheric and really does intrigue. Production values did have some eeriness and nowhere near as cheap as expected, and the music, which not the most memorable in the world, didn't detract from the atmosphere. The setting is effectively spooky and some of the acting in support was not bad. Christopher Lloyd turns his limited screen time into gold, he clearly enjoys himself here and shows everyone how it's done. There are spooky and suspenseful moments and it isn't dull. The direction doesn't feel phoned in and the storytelling in the first half does intrigue.However, the story was severely wanting in the second half after starting off promisingly. It is very disjointed and after the promising start the final third especially loses atmosphere, one loses interest and things start to not make sense. Too much of the film is vague and doesn't explore some elements and story strands enough, some dropped soon after being introduced, go nowhere or serve much point.Ending is unsatisfying, on top of feeling hasty there are too many loose ends hanging in the air. Got the sense that the writers didn't know how to end the film. Would have liked much more tension and suspense which dissipated as the film got duller, more predictable and senseless, scares could have been more consistent and some weren't surprising or unnerving enough, the over-obviousness hurts it. Found too the script to lack natural flow and with a bit of cheese going on, and the characters bland with some adopting some annoying and not always logical decision making. 'Cold Moon' contains perhaps the most annoying grandmother in film history, and Candy Clark's acting is just horrendous for reasons too numerous to list (namely because it is some of the most painful over-acting personally seen anywhere). Tommy Wiseau's involvement is basically a walk on cameo if even that.Overall, better than expected but not great still. 5/10 Bethany Cox

beorhhouse The writer wrote Beetlejuice and Nightmare Before Christmas? He also wrote "Halloween Candy," probably one of the creepiest Tales of the Darkside--and certainly my favorite. Maybe he didn't fail here. Maybe it was the director. In any case, the accents for Northwest Florida are all wrong. Why does Hollywood insist on making all Southerners sound like Antebellum Georgians? This could have been a good film, if it had been a comedy. Instead, it's a mish-mosh of really good CGI and really bad acting and dialogue. The characters are, for the most part, two-dimensional comic book people. Smartass rich Southern gentleman, bumbling bought-out small town sheriff, ditzy high school cheerleader (played by a woman far older than 16 or 17), and a grandmother who is no more from the Pensacola area of NW FLA than she is from New Jersey. And the men's haircuts for 1989, when the film is set: all wrong. In that part of the country in that year the men still wore their hair parted down the middle and feathered back on the sides. And if they were a lot older, they might have had WW II military haircuts, that is if they could find barbers in the 80s who still knew how to cut that style (I was a barber in Pensacola just two years before that.) The kid that assists in the crimes would have either had really long hair pulled back in a ponytail (the trend in '89) or the previously described 1970s cut. Anyway, this movie is a disaster overall, so don't waste your time.

nessapalmer If you want a movie with some chills and thrills I feel like this might be a movie you would be interested. in For a movie based in the 80s I feel like the movie hit on the campy style that a 80s horror movies had and this is coming from someone who really enjoys the horror/thriller genre. As someone who has read and enjoyed the book that this movie is based on I feel like the movie was right on with the source material. The movie gave many of the same chills that the book did and having watch it twice I found I really enjoyed the feel of it. While the plot line is not 100% exact I still found there were few plot points like character deaths that were right on. Now if you walk into this movie expecting the modern horror movie effects then yes you will likely be disappointed. But if you like the old school horror/thriller feel I think you will very much enjoy this movie. This is definitely a movie that I will watch again.

subwayss Tommy Wiseau is in there for like 10 seconds. And what about Christopher Lloyd? I'm gonna guess ≅ 6/7 minutes.Oh, and the movie is bad in every way: the effects, the acting is mostly awful (with a few exceptions), the story is really simple and boring. Don't watch this one.