BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Michael Ledo The film starts off with a woman being shot in the crotch then goes into a "one day earlier." Chrissy (Natalie Scheetz) is having a bachelorette party in Vegas and opt to take route 51 back home to Chicago. While traveling we get minimal character build-up but we do get enough information to make us expect the overused classic "twist" in this type of tale. Now when we flash back to the future, we don't pick up where we left off, but rather at some place in between, so we know what happens next time they stop the vehicle.Film adds nothing new to the genre other than really bad editing. Guide: F-bomb. Nudity (Christa Campbell)

a_baron It would be nice to describe this film as a sick fantasy, unfortunately there is absolutely nothing nice about it, and although it is unquestionably sick, it is not even fantasy because over the course of the 20th Century especially from the 1960s onwards we saw the real thing with the Tata-LaBiancha Murders, Bob Berdella, the Chicago Rippers and many more both within and outside of the United States.While a documentary about a serial murderer may have some or even a great deal of merit, what merit is there in a low budget horror film that revolves around the slaughter of a group of passingly attractive Beta females in the Arizona Desert? Unless you are into mild special effects - like seeing a woman crucified - give this one a miss.

kosmasp Seed is back, who'd have thunk it? Everybody? Yes OK, so they always come back and I am guessing you have watched the first one. Though even if you haven't, it's not really necessary (yes there is a connection, one you might guess anyway, but let's leave it at that). The movie tries to be clever, with its time-line jumping, but it's not working at all. Quite the opposite is the case.Also having a disturbing scene twice (at the beginning and later in the movie) played out almost entirely, is not clever, but trying to make a movie longer than it actually is. Something that is really weak and shows that there was very little to start with. The main idea was not that good anyway. And the one naked blood covered female should not change your opinion on this movie ... unless it makes even worse that is, but that's not really possible. And while the first Boll directed (this is not his movie folks!) had more than a couple of issues, it tried to say something. This on the other hand ....

jhs39 Normally a sequel to an Uwe Boll movie that isn't directed by Uwe Boll can be counted on to be at least a slight improvement on the original film--but Seed 2: The New Breed is the exception. This movie is so dreadful it actually makes Boll look good, sort of.Fans of the original Seed, if there are any, will likely be disappointed that this seems to have virtually nothing to do with the original film. Actually, it feels more like an unofficial Hills Have Eyes sequel than a follow up to Seed.Seed 2: The New Breed appears to have been shot on digital video, really badly. Most of the film looks ugly and over-bright. The acting and dialog are beyond bad. The movie is clearly meant to be transgressive and disturbing (the opening scene involves a gun barrel being shoved between a squealing young woman's thighs) but the movie is simply too incompetent to make an impact beyond inspiring a strong desire to turn it off.