Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Seraherrera The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

dhaz Okay, first off, I'd like to say that all the negative reviews that think they're being funny by tearing into a low budget sci-fi horror movie are like the bullies who pick on the fat retarded kid. Sure, we all snicker a little bit, but nobody's impressed with your rapier wit dissecting the flaws of someone less fortunate than you.That said, they do serve a purpose...they let you know what kind of film this is. By having a few amateur Ebert's out there talking about how this is the worst movie, ever, you know you're not looking for a truly serious movie. Otherwise, even if it was bad, they would not have bothered to show up and try to be internet wise-guys.I really enjoy this movie and will stop and watch it whenever it is playing on TV. It's a cheap, funny, wildly inaccurate movie about a video game company that accidentally makes a monster when a lightning strike causes a motion capture suit become imbued with the AI of what would surely be a controversial game lambasted by the media for it's violence and gore.The characters are overblown, but they were written (rather well) to be so. The actors do a good job of portraying those characters in an exaggerated fashion. Tyler Mane (Hardcore - Sabertooth/Xmen, Ajax/Troy) is the muscular metal head, Karim Prince (Sol) is the cocky, geek-suave black guy, and Jason Marsden (Bug) is the geeky white guy. All fit some type of stereotype and play a 3 way foil to each other. Clea DuVall (Laura)is always welcome in this kind of role, the quiet, cute for a geek girl. Her abusive boyfriend is even played by Danny Masterson (Hyde, That 70's Show)They worked together before in The Faculty, where the size of their respective parts was about the same, I'm curious what the connection is.Anyway. Like the title says, this movie is basically a film version of a video game cut-scene. The plot's not airtight, the characters aren't deep or dynamic, and the production value's not high. But we suspend disbelief because it makes the experience enjoyable. Many people have commented on the inaccuracy of 3 guys making a triple A title in a week or so, but that was not the case, they were modifying an existing engine, and in the beginning of computer game development, the biggest games were still made by small teams in short time-spans.I don't know why I'm even trying to mend plot holes, because that's NOT the point. The point is, if you like old video games, cheap horror/sci fi movies, or better yet both, you will love this movie as much as I do. It reminds me all over of games like DOOM, Quake, Heretic, Hexen, basically the progenitors of games like Halo and Call of Duty (which have made video games more profitable than the movie and music industries) If you're too immature to appreciate the simplistic technology that made those games (and thus all games) possible, you probably won't enjoy this movie, either. So sit back, dig in, watch it while you download an emulator that will let you play all your favorite games from Middle and High school.

tom-1712 This is one of the most terrible movies I have ever seen. Even for a TV-movie, it's bad. After throwing all shreds of realism out of the window (3 programmers creating a game in a matter of weeks?), they have a few short action sequences before bringing the movie to a close. It felt like some scenes has been cut out of the movie, as Laura immediately going back on her decision was unlikely, to say the least. Horrible acting, bad video game sequences (it felt like Doom or Quake by the graphics and gameplay, which was probably the idea), and a fundamentally flawed idea made this go from a bad movie to a terrible movie very quickly.I wouldn't recommend it, in fact, I'd recommend just about anything else if you were to choose.

barryslisk-1 I'm not sure if the movie is meant as a serious horror movie or if it is some kind of joke.The game looks cheesy as Hell. Only blind morons could produce such a lame game.The publisher know the game sucks, so they hire 3 (THREE) guys for 3 weeks (as far as I remember) to fix "the monster". I guess the movie producers have no clue how long it takes to make a game these days. Nevermind the rest of the game, just fix the monster. If they get the job done they get $Million (again as far as I remember). Insane amount.The scene where the "programmers" enter the company for the first time and the intern walks in the Heavy metal programmer dude thinks she is a spy. Why?? Whyyy?? - One guy is assigned to weapons, and has loads of weapons, like swords and stuff on his desk. HAHA, so lame.The nerdy programmer is in charge of sound, and is actually not a programmer, but a sound guy. Oh well, almost the same thing right?? - A some point the company the security system kicks in and rooms a sealed off and the can't get out of the building. Must be expensive to install such a system, and.....whyyyy? - One of the programmers is doing an AI chip for the game...Hm...so this chip is shipped with the CD-ROM? Will it fit in an ordinary PC?? :) Why does he need a special chip for AI? Will he be able to get a factory to produce this chip with 3 weeks??? I seriously doubt it.The lightning makes the suit come alive. How does the suit move? It records movements when humans wear it, but has no servos or anything to make it move by itself. Arghh....!!! - The ending where the intern has gone evil, is just overdone. One of the worst cases of overacting I have ever witnessed.Even though it should earn a vote of 1 because on paper it should really really suck, I enjoyed it a little because it is so silly. It becomes a sport to spot the many flaws. I gave it 4.

mentalcritic ...because it becomes obvious in a big hurry that they have never used a computer in their life. The cast assembled to play the programmers is funny enough, but what really gets this viewer laughing is how much arguing goes on about various aspects of the game they are programming. Or the deadline set by the money men. A team of three programmers will not be able to code a complete game, especially not one with all the advanced routines talked about, in a mere four weeks. If you have any doubts about this, check out the list of people responsible for putting together Doom, at the time of release considered the most advanced video game ever made. It took a lot longer than four weeks for that dozen-plus crew.By far the most amusing part of the film is the scene with Julie Strain in a so-called motion capture suit. Anyone who has seen the spandex monstrosity that Andy Serkis wore during photography for The Two Towers will recognise this scene as utterly ridiculous. That Strain (the one depicted in the film) would not see this for the idiotic hustle that it is defies credibility. I find it difficult to believe that the other actors didn't read this script and absolutely balk at it.There is also a reason that most films do not depict things involving a computer without fictionalising it. If one watches what the user does for any length of time, it becomes boring in a big hurry. The problem here is that none of the sequences filmed in order to compensate for this have been thought through. When Clea DuVall is sitting before a computer with VR goggles, trying to fight the game's monster, the number of times she takes them off and puts them back on again is ridiculous. Given that there is no connection between any of the computers and the ridiculous flesh-machine construct, exactly how this solution is meant to work defies belief. You can claim infra-red wireless networking until you are blue in the face. It wasn't in common usage even in 2001, and as anyone who has tried to use it can tell you, calling Wi-Fi networking unreliable is like calling Ed Wood slightly incompetent.Given that the cast includes such B-level stars as Clea Duvall and Tyler Mane, I think the fault for the stupidity of this piece lies entirely with the screenwriters. The cardinal sin anyone can commit when writing a story that involves computers as a central basis for the plot is to overestimate the capabilities of the modern CPU. Giving the computer the ability to learn tactical points would require more storage space, and processing power, than even the most modern supercomputers are able to muster. Every single observation from experience would have to be stored as a programming note, and most home CPUs would turn into a steaming pool of goo trying to look them up.Not to mention that it seems a modern malady that programmers mistake "more enjoyable" for meaning "more difficult". There gets to be a point where you can only do the same thing in a game so many times over before you want to rip the disc out and hit it with a hammer. The modern law, as I put it to game programmers, is that if you have a choice between making a shorter game or making one that feels impossible to win, make the shorter game. The scenes at the beginning with the children telling us how much this game sucks could really apply to any video game made in the past ten years, with few spectacular exceptions (Resident Evil comes to mind).I gave How To Make A Monster a one out of ten. The reasons for this are numerous. It is poorly-researched, poorly-written, and poorly made. Mystery Science Theatre 3000 would have a field day with this turkey. When the highlight of a film is Julie Strain jumping up and down, well, I don't think I need to say more.