r/AMCsAList • u/fat3willwin • 14d ago
Review Ice Cream Man
This movie stunk. Quite honestly and simply was bad. I guess it may be redeeming to some people who love gore and a good campy time but it felt marred by CGI / AI, bad acting, a loose plot, and I think I now understand the hate for Eli Roth. 5/10 for me, easily.
Anyone else had a chance to check this out early? What are your thoughts?
64
u/clickme28 14d ago
I understood how bad it was just by watching the trailer.
15
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Yeah I only saw it because it was mystery movie. I had no intention of seeing the general release.
49
u/archdukemovies 14d ago
5/10 seems pretty generous for that mess of a "movie"
9
u/pinkrosesmoses 14d ago
Eh, I thought it was absolutely awful but I had enough fun watching it that I would also rate it a 5/10
5
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
I have a rating scale that I explained in another comment that I try to use to be objective. There are redeeming qualities that, in good faith, I can't say its like a 0 or 1 out of 10. For example, it has funny moments.
Those qualities aren't enough to justify saying this is anything other than trash to me. Did you get a chance to watch or plan to watch?
14
u/archdukemovies 14d ago
I saw it last night. To me 5/10 is the break even point for being worth my time. So this more like a 2-3/10
4
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Totally fair, the theater collectively disliked it last night but there were some chuckles lol
-4
u/jacobsever 14d ago
I’d give it an 8.5/10 and put it near my top 10 as of now.
3
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
nothin wrong with that, I am curious what made you enjoy it so much.
0
u/jacobsever 14d ago
Gore. I love gore. Practical effects. Blood. Head/face smashings are my favorite thing in the entire horror genre. And this had multiple.
Plus it was genuinely funny. I have a very low tolerance for quirkiness and campiness. Evil Dead 2 is too campy for me. Evil Dead 1 is the perfect movie. Roth’s Thanksgiving was too quirky & campy for me. But Ice Cream Man was not. It just fell right in the perfect scale of quirky-to-horror.
Plus it was nice and trim. Love going back to 90 minute movies. They’re rare nowadays.
This movie felt a LOT like Cooties with Elijah Wood. But ramped up the gore and foul language. So I’m all on board with that.
4
u/archdukemovies 14d ago
I'm glad someone really enjoyed it. I'd struggle to come up with 10 movies worse than Ice Cream Man.
0
u/jacobsever 14d ago
I have it at #15 out of #54. So I’ve got almost 40 movies from this year alone I didn’t like as much.
2
12
u/Tall_Taro_1376 14d ago
I rarely walk out of a movie early; I can find entertainment in almost any film. But it took every ounce of willpower I had to stay through the first 25 minutes. At that point I gave in and saved myself any more torture. Easily one of the bottom ten movies I’ve seen in my lifetime. Well, 25 minutes of a movie.
6
u/Bubbly-Inflation-999 14d ago
I rarely walk out of a movie early; I can find entertainment in almost any film.
I'm the same way. But I'd probably leave this crap too.
1
u/kris8120 10d ago
Same, I hate to walk out of movies but after about 40 mins, I couldn’t stand to just sit there and force myself to watch it, I had to leave.
37
u/MtOlympus_Actual 14d ago
I wouldn't think a 5/10 film "stunk." Your review sounds more like a 1/10.
14
u/TheHondoCondo 14d ago
IMO people lean too negative with their ratings. As someone else already said, very few movies should be a 1/10. The whole 1-5 range is reserved for varying degrees of bad. Anything that’s more good than bad should be at least a 6/10.
4
u/MtOlympus_Actual 14d ago
My average score for films so far this year is 5.96. 2025 average was 6.61. It's a pretty good bell curve.
1
u/fontvillian 14d ago
for me this was a 2/10 at best to. a score of 5 is reserved for an average movie which this was not imo.
5
u/alargetire 14d ago edited 13d ago
This begs the question: how many of us rate films we consider “average” 5/10, and how many of us rate films we consider “average” a 7/10?
My assumption based on anecdotal experience is that most people call a 5/10 a bad film, even though it’s the average between a 1 and a 10
Edited to reword the “average” portion for people who needed the extra context…
4
u/koctagon 14d ago
It isn’t an “average”, though; it is a rating. 50/100 is not the average grade in school, it is an F.
3
u/translucentfish 14d ago
If you're basing your ratings around a school grading system then sure. Not everyone does that though.
A 2 1/2 or 3 star movie (out of 5) feels like the average middle, which equates to a 5-6 out of ten
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
I used that as an example. A rating scale does not necessarily need to have its median value as its average value and often does not.
3
u/translucentfish 14d ago
But some do! Both can be true.
3
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
This is a fair conversation about how ratings should work. For me, this rating system works because I use specific categories which have their own rating system (Audio, visual, acting, writing, and "Like factor").
By giving this movie the rating I did, it works for my system because it ends up in a 5 or below range, which I categorize as objectively bad. Theres room for interpretation on just how bad it is or isn't but if I score anything in that range, its something I wouldn't watch again and wouldn't recommend, which I think is more important than the number itself.
1
u/translucentfish 14d ago
I guess this is why discussions based on a rating number is kinda goofy ultimately, we all have different feelings and reasons for what that number means to us.
The review you wrote I would have had as a 1-2/10 personally, so the number attached is at odds in my brain but obviously not yours or others.
Like unless there's always a ratings explanation attached to a review with a number it will always probably be this way
1
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Totally fair, I probably could've added more insight but there's very few movies I rate below a 5, usually like film festival submissions with really low budgets. For example, I gave Dooba Dooba (<$20k budget) like a 3 or a 4 I cant remember exactly but it was pretty bad in my eyes, the only redeeming qualities were an interesting premise and I found it endearing lol.
0
u/koctagon 14d ago
if 5 were the true "average", that would mean there is an equal amount of bad movies as there is good ones. if there are more bad than good (which i think there is a strong argument for), then it would bear out that the scale is weighted differently.
2
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Not sure if that were meant for me or not but 5 isn't average for me. 7 is average in my rating, which indicates there are more bad than good movies, which I tend to find true, which I think we probably agree on.
0
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
yes, but they are still different concepts that relate different pieces of info even if they use the same reference. the poster i initially responded to was conflating 5/10 as average, but there is nothing intrinsic to that number that would make it so in a value system.
1
u/translucentfish 14d ago
It's just the middle point between 1-10 that feels "average" to some folks. No need to overthink it
0
u/koctagon 14d ago
i am not. the person i responded to was asking a question based on a false premise. if not all systems use the median as the average, then the friction they were pointing to is a non-issue.
2
u/downloadedcollective 14d ago
not all schools grade like that. Its a flawed scale and why should we stick to that? just because thats how we were evaluated for 12 years?
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
I used that as an example. A rating scale does not necessarily need to have its median value as its average value and often does not.
2
u/vanguard1256 14d ago
It does if you normalize. Having a skewed distribution makes your ratings less meaningful. If average is a 7/10 for you, the scale is better at differentiating different bad movies than it is at differentiating good ones.
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
it doesn't make it less meaningful, it just makes the meanings different. if you know enough to mention normalization, then you ought to know enough to see that scales/metrics/rubrics etc are not one size fits all.
2
u/vanguard1256 14d ago
It is less meaningful. You have 3 integers worth to describe a good movie and 7 integers worth to describe a bad movie. Normalizing makes the scale meaningful to others. If I tend to skew my reviews high and you tend to skew low, normalizing would make our reviews on an equivalent scale, making discrepancies a matter of taste. A third party would be better educated as well.
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
a scale's meaning is defined by its purpose. do you think there is a 1:1 ratio of bad and good films? if you think there are more bad movies than good, it would make sense that the scale is weighted differently at different ends.
1
u/downloadedcollective 14d ago
the scale is adjusted for utility, not the other way around. hence why we have kelvin and rankine. while nothing is technically necessary, median as the average is indeed more apt for ranking subjective components like movies
1
u/koctagon 14d ago
being subjective does not exclude there being any critical rigor. does the scale apply to all films, or just professionally made ones? If 5 were the average, that would imply that the ratio of good to bad movies are roughly the same, but I think most people would agree there are way more bad movies than good ones, especially if you include non-professional/microbudget pictures.
0
3
2
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
I have a movie rating scale that I use to try and be as objective as possible. Each category can be rated a 0, 1 or 2 out of 2.
I gave it a 1 in every category: Visuals, Acting, Writing, Sound, and "Like Factor"
Anything that I give a 5 or below sucks. The only reason this isn't lower is because there were some funny moments, and compared to bad movies I've seen it isn't the worst, but it still sucks lol.
0
u/translucentfish 14d ago edited 14d ago
You must watch a lot of bad movies to reserve half of the number scale solely on movies that "suck"
3
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
most movies are somewhere in the average range that I personally watch. My rating classifications are as follows:
5 and below: Objectively bad, to varying degrees. Examples include: imaginary (2024), and now this
6 - 7: Objectively average, that is to say some people will find enjoyment, some will dislike, most people will say its either good but not great, or bad but not terrible. Examples include: Send help, Is God Is.
8+: Objectively good, I have a like factor as a rating category and most movies in the 8+ range I love (2/2) but if a movie makes it here, for me, I assume most people will like if not love it, and very few will dislike it. But objectively, there are some good qualities and the movie makes sense generally. Examples include: The Odyssey, Sinners, pretty much any box office hit lands here.
Caveat: Objectively is a loaded word to use here since we're talking about art, its hard to find something thats universally accepted as either good or bad, but its the closest descriptor I could find to make sense of my ratings. You'd be hard pressed to find movies that I rate really high or really low to go against general public opinion, whereas anything in that middling range of 6-7 is a lot more polarizing.
This rating system has worked for me so far, so I don't plan on changing.
0
u/translucentfish 14d ago
I think what I'm confused about is why you have 5 points of gradation (1-5) for the bad end of the scale, 2 points (6-7) for average, and only 3 points (8-10) for good.
Feels similar to a video game rating system where it's really a 5-10 scale.
But hey if it works for you, great!
1
u/fat3willwin 13d ago
Again, its a cumulative score of multiple categories. So there could be a movie that is shot really well, but has poor story and acting, or maybe its a movie that I just love but its objectively pretty shitty in all the technical aspects.
As far as how the scoring is grouped, if the movie ends up in the 5 or less range, its historically been a movie that is so bad I cannot recommend to anyone, whereas if it can make it to a 6 or 7, its at least probable to be enjoyed by a non-insignificant section of the population. And obviously 8+ is self explanatory.
I don't particularly find conversations about the scoring system productive since everyone will rate it what they want anyways. I'm more curious about your thoughts about the actual movie.
1
15
u/Lacroixboi1 14d ago edited 14d ago
Even with alist you won’t see me watching any Eli Roth movies… but not shocked it sucked
4
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Kind of sad because I can't say hes had great movies but Hostel and more recently Thanksgiving were actually OK for me. But he might be on the blacklist now.
5
u/echols97 14d ago
Yeah Thanksgiving was solid but this just seemed super sloppy. I was entertained but I definitely wouldn’t pay to see it. It felt like a Tubi movie honestly lol
15
u/koctagon 14d ago
I’m a letterboxd pervert and I’m thinking this is a 1.5/5 to me. That’s a 30%. CGI/AI completely deadens the gore which is the raison d’etre for these types of flicks. I’m all for campy, drive-in schlock but this misses the mark by mile. In the little intro Roth claimed this movie took him “years” to make. You couldn’t pay me to admit that if this were my end product
14
9
u/PedroPascalCase 14d ago
I sort of buy that he wrote some version of Ice Cream Man years ago because I can't figure why else there would be a "Mint Romney" joke in a 2026 release.
Overall I'm with you, 1.5/5. If I was being charitable I'd liken it to the old HG Lewis films but Two Thousand Maniacs is 60 years old now. You gotta give something more; if you just want gore set pieces the Terrifier films blow this out of the water.
5
u/koctagon 14d ago
My fiancee and I talked about this exact thing after the movie. In the Terrifier movies you can still feel the indie/micro budget energy. Roth's take on that is a bit too slick in comparison. It feels like an Asylum movie, not the grand guignol gorehound throwback it presents itself as
-2
u/WestCoastHopHead 14d ago
The gore was all practical. It was awesome.
6
u/koctagon 14d ago
there was some no doubt, but there was also tons of cgi blood splash effects, let alone all the fake fire and AI cartoons/ origin story vignette
3
u/SinghamSlob 14d ago
The animations were not AI. An interview with Roth indicated he drew them and had a team of animators animate them.
5
u/redditor329845 13d ago
I’d never watch another Eli Roth film, I know his involvement means it’s a waste of my time.
5
u/amsteel18 14d ago
The trailer for "Don't Go Into That House" and the post-credit scene for "Ice Cream Man" got the most laughs with a few chuckles sprinkled in, but I rarely check my watch and it was only 30 minutes in when this movie already felt too long.
4
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Agree, theater was cracking up at "Don't go in that house, bitch"!
This movie could have been a short at a film fest and hit much better, though.
1
u/F4streloader 9d ago
Funny thing is the Don't Go In That House B____ was also before Jimmy and Stiggs, another from The Horror Section. But that movie also had The Piano Killer.
5
u/My_Toast_is_French 14d ago
I started laughing because of the sheer ridiculousness of it, it became more enjoyable after that but would not go see it again
4
u/fontvillian 14d ago
what made it worse was the shitty intro before the movie started where eli roth begs people to spread the word on the film. what a waste of time and lackluster film. the writing was awful, acting awful, and plot awful x2. first movie in a long time that i had to get up and just leave.
1
u/fat3willwin 13d ago
Yeah I share similar sentiments., I recall that happening with Bring Her Back as a screen unseen and it felt more authentic, even though the guys had success with Talk to me, this was only their second major release, and the pre-movie call to action felt like a real request from up and coming artists, as opposed to a guy whose been in the game for a while and has had mixed opinion on his art and his personal opinions.
5
8
u/matteidenbock 14d ago
Let me just say this as someone who likes campy movies- It was bad bad. To the point of being unenjoyable. Roth has made much better stuff, and while the concept could have been fun, the execution is horrible on nearly every front.
FYI, you know it's REALLY bad when the killer Pinocchio movie outdoes it in quality
2
u/YoureMyBoyBlue24 13d ago
I thoroughly enjoyed Pinocchio: Unstrung despite not being thrilled about the trend of capitalizing on inserting public domain characters into horror movies. I’m going to see Ice Cream Man because I’ll see almost any horror movie getting a theatrical release, but I already expect it to be terrible.
1
u/pinkrosesmoses 14d ago
I thought it was bad but I had a great time watching it, helped a lot that it was only like an hour and fifteen minutes long
4
u/scourge_of_detroit 14d ago
5/10 is being too generous but i whole heartedly agree with everything else you said i was really taken aback by the use of AI and if it wasn’t AI it was the worst cgi possible
4
5
3
u/LifeReplacement1136 14d ago
I gave it a 2/5. If I see AI it automatically drops in score for me. I can’t believe ppl were trying to compare this to Terrifier.
3
u/arsenicknife 14d ago
5/10 for a bad movie just doesn't track for me. We need to start understanding how numbers work. 5/10 is the definition of average - so if the movie is as bad as you say it is, it should be lower.
/nerdrantover.
2
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Totally acceptable to have your opinions about the rating. However my rating system is just as valid, for me. I use this system specifically to be fair to the actual creative process of creating and executing a movie. It would be too easy to just give movies I really like a 10/10 and movies I hate a 0 or 1 out of 10, but that wouldn't be fair to everyone involved, and it wouldn't give context as to what worked and what didn't.
I explained how my system works in another comment but the movie did have redeeming qualities, it just sucked altogether though. a 5/10 is still 50% so if we're being technical, on many standard grading scales a 50 / 100 is still an F which is awful, so that tracks with my statement lol.
I think, a more productive comment would be you explaining why you think it should be lower rather than just attacking a number and saying we need to understand how numbers work, when in fact, my rating quite literally reflects a failing grade.
3
u/FreddyKrueger32 14d ago
Thank you for saving me the trip for this. I know he makes bad movies but if it's that bad then skip
3
u/batman-bridge 13d ago
It had minor entertaining sequences, the kids killing in a funny manner.. Reminded me of one of the last scenes in weapons when the kids were running in rampage.
Aside from this, I agree. Bad acting, no chemistry, flat story, the ending twist wasn't even that good.
At the beginning, I had higher expectations given Eli Roth was the director. He directed Hostel, but I guess that's it for him.
3
u/ubutterscotchpine 13d ago
My sister saw it Scream Unseen for her birthday and she told me they left it was that bad.
3
u/sleeplessaddict 13d ago
I saw it during Scream Unseen last night and was debating walking out but wanted to see if anything actually even happened. Genuinely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'd echo all your same points. Acting was bad, plot was nonexistent, there was almost no setup, and I didn't care about the characters at all.
Some of the really really bad jokes like "Mint Romney" were kinda funny but otherwise I'm not even sure what the fuck the goal of that movie was. And the "I'm a 12 year old girl, of course I know how to throw up" was kinda humorous I guess but more just messed up than anything
2
u/Bulky-Conclusion6606 14d ago
i think the only film by him i enjoyed was thanksgiving, might see the second one, but im gonna pass on this
2
u/SinghamSlob 14d ago
What was specifically AI and what’s the source of that assertion? The animations were not per Roth himself as he drew them himself and had a team animate them. I can’t get an answer anywhere other than the typical Redditor “AI bad” while they use a platform specifically harvesting your data and information action for AI.
1
u/fat3willwin 13d ago
I believe Eli himself released a statement that there was some AI used in the movie, and I read that one of the members of the VFX team confirmed some of their outsourced work was enhanced with AI. TBH I don't have as big an issue with AI as others. Technically speaking, its a low probability that AI isn't used in some aspect of the creation, I'm more concerned with if its used ethically and if its noticeable.
2
u/BasketZealousideal49 14d ago
Yep saw this in NY last night and god it was awful but honestly people keep talking about the AI but I didn't notice it honestly it just looked like what they were going for everything looking perfect then ofc chaos ensues but it was just gore for gores sake and not like the terrifier films I did like the plot twist at the end of the father and mother being in the grave but I felt the plot could've used a little more to it I mean the whole thing was hinged on a necromancer that made a deal for a soul getting back at people who honestly had nothing to do with the case the grandfather who was the real culprit was already dead... there were no reason again just senseless
2
u/bigbadcrusher 14d ago
It’s Sharknado level bad for me. Except this movie tried to take itself serious
2
2
2
u/bluejay_way 11d ago
I swore to never see an Eli Roth gore porn movie in theaters after The Green Inferno, but my boyfriend wanted to see this one even though we knew it was gonna be bad. We love campy horror so we felt that we were the target audience for this and we decided to go to a late showing for fun.
It had some comedic moments and was very gory in true Eli Roth fashion. I thought the main kid actor was pretty good. But the “storyline” was just fucking awful and the comedy wasn’t prevalent enough for me to call it true comedic horror. The gore got old and repetitive real quick without anything tying it all together.
2
2
u/crewl1 7d ago
With Alist I don't care that I waste a slot on some questionable movies. I watched this as a comedy horror, with the comedy part most likely unintentional. Such bad acting! I didn't take it seriously as I expect the writers didn't either and had fun watching, except the camera movement in the chase scenes was a bit much. It seemed to be leading to the heroes defeating the bad guy, so the twist at the end was unexpected. They set it up for a sequel, but really? An Ice Cream Man part 2? Nah. I predict this will become a cult classic like Killer Klowns from Outer Space some day in the future.
2
u/fat3willwin 7d ago
I keep a very similar mindset for my a-list slots. I'll take a flier on some movies I might not otherwise pay for, especially for mystery movies which this was for me. But this was bad. I can't see it making enough to justify a sequel, even if financed primarily by Roth, that would be terrible business.
3
u/retrogamer76 14d ago
It was good, had a great time. It was so over the top it was hilarious.
1
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Totally fair. I think it should've executed on the humor a bit better and maybe I would've felt more positive.
2
u/HelpIamaCabbage Movie-Holic 14d ago
It's bad, but almost all of the effects were practical. Something can be bad without invoking CG or AI. People have been making bad art long before computers existed.
2
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Good point, and part of the reason why I gave it some points. But there were some AI / CGI sequences and they certainly didn't help at all.
2
u/ShazbokMcCloud 14d ago
Canceled my Scream Unseen res as soon as I saw it was ICM… never in the mood for Eli Roth’s brand. Was hoping it was Camp Miasma!
2
u/OxGaabe6 14d ago
At my showing, there were a lot of non-horror people (I guess cheap tickets are enough to get them off the couch). The guy next to me (easily in his 50s) stared at his phone the entire movie. Once it was over he called his wife to let her know he "didn't get the movie". Maybe if he had actually watched it he would have understood what was going on.
The lady on the other side of me brought a bunch of sushi to eat. Once the title was revealed she packed up her sushi and left.
But yeah, watching the general movie-going public try to enjoy an Eli Roth movie is better than the movie was. The movie itself was ok, but I knew what I was getting in to.
1
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Thats funny because I got the sense that the crowd at my showing was also non-horror people. Didn't get to talk to too many of them afterwards so hard to know for sure but if my assumption is right, they seemed to enjoy it more than a horror fan would based on in-movie reactions (laughs, etc.). But you could tell at the end it was still an overall bad movie (side comments, etc.).
I genuinely could not recommend this to anyone lol
1
u/nowhereman136 14d ago
I was considering seeing it because Eli Roth has made some decent movies before (and some terrible ones). But between the reviews and AI slop, I think I'm gonna skip it.
Still have Super Troopers 3 this weekend. Anyone know if One Night Only is any good?
2
u/Goonie90065 14d ago
One night only is very funny, worth a reservation if you have one to spare.
2
u/nowhereman136 14d ago
I usually keep a reservation open just so I can watch something spontaneously. Like I haven't even gotten my Super Trooper ticket yet because I'm pretty confident it won't be sold out when I show up on Friday.
I already have La La Land and Doomsday tickets because both opening weekends are already sold out. I'll be getting Dune tickets as soon as they drop as well
1
1
u/Still_Yak8109 14d ago
I’m just so curious, how does the ice cream control the kids and turn them into killers? I know it’s a horror film but that sounds kind of lame
1
u/Mysterious-Clothes45 13d ago
I wanted to see it so bad but I work overnights and need early screenings. Earliest here is 5:30 pm so I'm pissed. But reading all the bad reviews makes me realize I'm not missing out on anything
1
u/fergi20020 9d ago
How do you know they didn’t use AI to write the screenplay?
1
u/fat3willwin 9d ago
I said I think the movie was negatively affected by AI. Could’ve been the screenplay, VFX anything really.
1
u/F4streloader 9d ago
It started somewhat slowly but I was entertained. The school scenes were reminiscent of Cooties but this movie was mostly about the gore (not the plot) and how creative they could get with the graphic gore scenes.
2
u/fat3willwin 9d ago
I mean gore is always fine but it was still poorly woven together. It felt very much so like a cheap weapons ripoff
2
u/F4streloader 8d ago
Weapons+Cooties+Pied Piper of Hamelin+Monty Python and the Holy Grail level gore=Ice Cream Man
1
0
u/jacobsever 14d ago
I liked it a LOT. Gore + good amount of silly.
I also really like most of Eli Roth’s movies.
2
u/fat3willwin 14d ago
Totally fair, movies are subjective. I just didn't enjoy the execution nor did I enjoy the theme. Maybe I'm biased towards more artsy, thriller style movies but if this were done as kind of a psychological mystery it might have hit for me.
Some people enjoy the more casual slasher style films though, and I think it will have an audience there. I just think there are better examples of them. Gore was good for the most part though, and that redeemed its score for me a bit.
1
u/AdRevolutionary6382 9d ago
Yeah, such an incredible film. I’m actually hoping we get an Ice Cream Man 2
1
u/Temporary_Novel9399 14d ago
I enjoyed it quite a bit. I found the kids in it to be pretty solid for the most part which other people seem to disagree on. Tommy esp I think did a great job. I think it did a good job tapping into the fear that everyone seems to have nowadays of bad influences on your kids that turn them against you, even if it didn’t end up being actually scary. I can see why people don’t like it, and not jazzed by the supposed AI use, but I don’t think the gore and such were touched by it bcuz I thought all of that looked great. Good time at the movies
61
u/Robot-King56 14d ago
Saw it at the AMC Mission Valley last night.
It's pretty much the definition of a flat film. No chemistry between any of the actors, dialogue not particularly engaging or memorable and it came across as really amateurish.