id
stringlengths 6
9
| status
stringclasses 2
values | _server_id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 32
6.39k
| label.responses
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.users
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.status
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.suggestion
stringclasses 1
value | label.suggestion.agent
null | label.suggestion.score
null |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
test_4000 | pending | f1dee786-9944-4192-b162-700edbf693e9 | I would have given this film a one star vote had it not been for the laughs I got out of it. Some of the dialogs were just plain so lame that they make you laugh!! How could some one have actually talked like this. Not to mention the fact that the bodyguard Majors (Antonio Sabato Jr.) flew a 747 like a pro and Michael Pare's team of whiners were able to dig a trench filled with gasoline and blow up a huge boulder in the nick of time. Did anyone notice the lame tribute to "Fantasy Island" with the guy saying "Boss, the plane!!" to Michael Pare just as the 747 comes in sight.<br /><br />The only saving grace were the cute girls and even cuter female hijackers. Not to mention that the main hijacker deserved to die the lame death that he did for being such a joker!! Imagine escaping from being tied up just to shot by a "crossbow". Hello.<br /><br />The poor pilot probably died in the plane while everyone was eating steak and having rum!! Just for laughs, they should make a sequel to show us how they all spend the night in the midst of a Category 3 hurricane on Neptune Atoll. Did I hear Michael Pare calling it the "best honeymoon resort in the Pacific." Now that would make an interesting movie!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4001 | pending | 4c0569a4-9a56-47e4-876b-308b3488d7d1 | The plane is a 747 Jumbo. The cockpit is located on the upper deck on a 747. In the movie the pilots do not climb the stairs in the 1st Class cabin to reach the cockpit. They walk to the front of the 1st Class cabin and through doors into the cockpit. What a gaff !!! The front of the first class cabin has a cloakroom for jackets and a TV screen. Beyond that is the radar dome. Before takeoff a 747 is shown to commence the taxi to the runway. On take-off the plane is shown to have only two engines. Areal 747 has four engines. Who was in charge of continuity on this movie ? During the early part of the flight the front of the plane suddenly includes toilets - another farcical gaff !!! After that the front of the plane becomes the rear and vice-versa. At this point I stopped watching. Absolute rubbish!!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4002 | pending | 443f9e93-ce15-4334-af45-d68491523e4e | As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.<br /><br />Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.<br /><br />Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece "Violator", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.<br /><br />When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable "highlight" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.<br /><br />The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.<br /><br />And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.<br /><br />But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.<br /><br />As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4003 | pending | b9c3af04-2fc2-4fd6-8487-eb4c9ec4a683 | [WARNING: Some spoilers included, though it is a documentary.]<br /><br />I bought this documentary because I like the work of the directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, which includes MOON OVER Broadway, STARTUP.COM and THE WAR ROOM., all terrific documentaries I would highly recommend. Watching this ultimately boring and uninsightful account from Depeche Mode's 1988 tour, I realized they had nothing to work with when they went to edit this film together. The band members were certainly less than forthcoming on-camera; hence, undoubtedly, the contest to add fans on a one-week bus trip was added to liven things up a bit. Really, now, I mean, c'mon. Who thought a concert film of a synth-pop band with three keyboardists and a singer would be a good idea? Granted, I like Depeche Mode's music, and Martin Gore writes good melodies, but seeing them in concert never seemed like it would be interesting, and this movie is proof positive. Unless you are a HUGE fan of Depeche Mode, stay away from this documentary....it's a complete waste of time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4004 | pending | ce03013d-9657-4155-98bf-26a147478c73 | This is without a doubt the WORST sequel I have ever seen, & I've seen plenty of them to make that conclusion. The plot is simply ridiculous. I can catch a ball & run around a field, too. Why can't I play in the Superbowl? Yes I know this movie was intended for children, but there are just some plots that even children can realize are totally dumb & unrealistic. The first Air Bud movie was pretty good, but this one was a total crash. Disney is loosing it. If I controlled who won the Razzie Awards, I would give this one a couple. Have a nice day! =) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4005 | pending | 9fa4e1dc-9a76-473a-b2b3-92fd813c4597 | "Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.<br /><br />Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.<br /><br />The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one. <br /><br />In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.<br /><br />The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.<br /><br />Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.<br /><br />There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a "Home Alone" scenario to them.<br /><br />"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.<br /><br />The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.<br /><br />There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al "Air Bud," as I did.<br /><br />I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4006 | pending | b93f6072-9626-4054-9b86-eee3076231f2 | It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.<br /><br />The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.<br /><br />There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.<br /><br />Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4007 | pending | 6a252ee0-23ca-4997-8b1f-f2a4994dfb21 | There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of "lust" and sex with each other.<br /><br />Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.<br /><br />I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4008 | pending | 507a6dfb-671a-4591-8aca-89f59a9a6538 | Whenever I see a video like this, I have to ask myself how it was financed. HBO or Showtime or whatever must pay for the production company to go through the motions -- to hire someone who may or may not actually speak English to get high and hammer out something approaching a plot, to pay strippers with terrifying boob jobs to bounce up and down on grossly waxed dudes' torsos, to find people to design and light sets, to purchase the rights to cheesy techno music, etc. But I have to imagine this has to be a vanity project for whoever's serving as executive producer... He had to have nailed all of those girls, right? And bro's not wrong about the "Spanish looking" girl, but to call the cops "stunning" is awfully generous. In fact, I'd go so far as to call them something much closer to "hideous," or "fugly." Watching these women writhe around -- sometimes *clearly* high on pain killers -- was so far from erotic that my testicles actually ascended inside of my body. Gross.<br /><br />Why waste time with this when there's so much freely available hardcore porn on the internet? I wonder whether the popularization of internet video will slowly kill the softcore video industry... One can only hope, right? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4009 | pending | 2c929b37-7981-4bb8-8564-10f307d061de | The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).<br /><br />McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.<br /><br />Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.<br /><br />It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4010 | pending | e0731c45-d0b5-4ef6-a039-6a50b511a901 | In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...<br /><br />The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.<br /><br />It might have had a chance if the "pop culture meets depression" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different. <br /><br />Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue. <br /><br />At a reported budget in excess of $7m, "The Tender Hook" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with "Noise" (under $2m), or "Cedar Boys" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.<br /><br />The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4011 | pending | 0be3c90f-d040-4a30-9695-38b1d3e19210 | My friends and I have just finished seeing a preview of this new Australian film. Everyone who was in the cinema agreed, what was the point of this film? There was no good story to follow, the characters were undeveloped, and the plot seemed unmotivated. I find it bizarre that this film, that probably cost in the high millions, got funded and made. It serves no purpose to the drama community, its adds nothing to the palette of Australian cinema. It really was a waste of time creating this droll unemotional piece of work and more time really should be spent work-shopping scripts and creating good stories, not creating a mess like this. Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne were OK but severely hampered by a bad script. Pia Miranda's character was unnecessary and abstract from the plot, and her lines were average at best. A true waste of talent. The saving grace was Geoffrey Simpson ACS' cinematography, which like most Aussie films, was superb. <br /><br />Come on guys, think about it next time please.<br /><br />4/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4012 | pending | 475fedce-29d7-47b8-a011-70366a692c46 | The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's "going mad". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.<br /><br />This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4013 | pending | fb7c3046-089c-4a7d-8035-076f681e2651 | Skip all the subjective "this is a great film" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: "To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac')." You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of "Screamplay", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4014 | pending | 5e477150-00bd-4cd9-b372-cb7a0be8c216 | In spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4015 | pending | 56bda67f-ac7d-4041-bbcb-49aa132fc58d | When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was "You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4016 | pending | 4834aacf-cb9e-4cd7-ae7b-9e182482050c | This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.<br /><br />I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.<br /><br />I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.<br /><br />Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!<br /><br />To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4017 | pending | a609afb5-2cda-4d0f-ae67-04e29ae92fed | This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001. <br /><br />The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.<br /><br />I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.<br /><br />0 out of 5 *'s. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4018 | pending | 512f458d-6ed3-4d3e-be79-144a48cb13a4 | If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.<br /><br />I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4019 | pending | 115f2304-31e1-47f9-bc3a-ef0e191d1d33 | To have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking "special effects", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...<br /><br />If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called "babes" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4020 | pending | 9482d230-691e-4f0b-95b8-ea347b9a08e4 | This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.<br /><br />Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4021 | pending | 6b190417-4e5f-4a0f-ab09-90da6b558eda | Words cannot express how poor this film is.<br /><br />There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.<br /><br />With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.<br /><br />It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.<br /><br />Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4022 | pending | 990a6ff1-7d2a-4867-80c0-03c9e0e3f220 | It's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.<br /><br />The answer, to judge by "From Venus", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.<br /><br />It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.<br /><br />This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.<br /><br />Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4023 | pending | 42f6a148-8872-4866-86eb-286135d27f38 | This is just the same old crap that is spewed from amateur idiots who have no clue how to make a movie--gee maybe that's why it is a straight-to-video wanna-be movie!<br /><br />I guess it is my fault for actually spending money to see it (one of the worst decisions I have ever made). What a waste. I usually like B movies, some of them are actually quite good--but this is just too ridiculous and stupid to even be funny.<br /><br />The losers that made this junk deserve to be put out of business for wasting everyone's time and money making a movie that obviously doesn't even deserve to be on film! These so-called movie makers have absolutely NO talent!<br /><br />Stupid plot, horrible acting (especially the drag queens--what sicko would actually find that sexy?!), lame writing (if there even was a script--seems like the kinda bull**** someone just made up on the spot)<br /><br />What is stunning about this movie is its utter lack of anything well-done at all.<br /><br />How much attention to detail would it take to insure that every frame of a film would be so far below any reasonable standards? I don't think it would be possible to make such a bad movie intentionally, and it is inconceivable that sheer bad luck could produce such consistently awful results.<br /><br />Anyway, avoid this stink bomb at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4024 | pending | daf53916-2f17-4198-aac5-00caca6c74c2 | As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....<br /><br />I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.<br /><br />I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.<br /><br />This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...<br /><br />I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a "B-movie" this is the very bottom of the lot.<br /><br />I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget "B" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.<br /><br />The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!<br /><br />DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.<br /><br />Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4025 | pending | ef8166f2-6876-42c3-8499-e530e34434aa | This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.<br /><br />I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!<br /><br />I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.<br /><br />All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!<br /><br />There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.<br /><br />The "women" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.<br /><br />There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.<br /><br />No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.<br /><br />Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4026 | pending | 853561e5-11da-48e8-ad63-f51a4fbf18cc | I let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.<br /><br />That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.<br /><br />If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!<br /><br />If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!<br /><br />Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!<br /><br />The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.<br /><br />There are a whole slew of good "b" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.<br /><br />PEACE | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4027 | pending | ac751421-733d-4a33-8473-39f569e12c2a | I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.<br /><br />All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.<br /><br />The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.<br /><br />This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!<br /><br />Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4028 | pending | 36fd79d9-d5ff-4028-9065-cfd3d8e6909a | This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.<br /><br />I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.<br /><br />Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4029 | pending | aae25b6d-d159-4d95-896b-76d2ee6934d8 | No movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie. <br /><br />No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all. <br /><br />I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!<br /><br />Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4030 | pending | 576180ef-efae-46eb-99eb-7729ac3104b4 | Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released! <br /><br />There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?<br /><br />This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that. <br /><br />Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4031 | pending | 362edce7-38aa-40dc-8c7f-5df655e29211 | I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.<br /><br />If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think "how can a movie be so sadly stupid", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).<br /><br />These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!<br /><br />Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4032 | pending | cf05baeb-bd0f-4ef5-ba3e-ea8bdf0cc10a | This was so poor I had to turn it off in the end. I have never watched such a pathetic film. I love B movies and was looking forward to more of the same but was sadly disappointed.<br /><br />This has the worst acting/plot/direction/writing, etc...... of anything I have ever seen in my life!<br /><br />My advice to anyone thinking or watching/buying/renting, don't go there! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4033 | pending | bf746582-2bb1-4282-9043-2dbb39ac501e | Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.<br /><br />I would give this a "0" if possible, it does not even deserve a "1" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4034 | pending | 7b7e445f-da49-44e4-9eb8-3922897431cf | This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4035 | pending | b5ca8386-1254-4264-9130-c8fb799e968b | This whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.<br /><br />Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4036 | pending | 6176f02a-ff9a-4144-a5fb-6d60f0f6e945 | That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.<br /><br />I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.<br /><br />So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4037 | pending | 49035a9d-db2d-4f17-a3a4-c7bdf15402c6 | I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4038 | pending | 584e5f54-5d6c-4446-a8cc-006d8dfdb340 | I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.<br /><br />Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4039 | pending | 42d30c77-f967-45f1-8e9e-b0be6e43bd5b | I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).<br /><br />So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.<br /><br />I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.<br /><br />Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4040 | pending | 58ad69c5-11fe-42d0-8a0a-430d5da6fa80 | The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4041 | pending | 6c66510b-ab07-41e5-9ec0-5e57a03fc099 | What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.<br /><br />Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.<br /><br />Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!<br /><br />3/10. Travesty. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4042 | pending | 0663c315-aed3-496b-8750-6aa8fdfe50ee | I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.<br /><br />Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.<br /><br />And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4043 | pending | 0414ac98-33c8-4b2f-abb1-d89bd59a02cd | This movie earns its 3 for lousy writing, poor technical merit and continuity problems. Some people have given this movie a 10--and perhaps that is okay if you are simply scoring it for its fun factor. However, technically this is an inept movie serial from start to finish--produced by 3rd-rate writers, actors and crew. That really was true of nearly all the serials because they were meant as low-brow entertainment particularly aimed at the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that, but "high art" it ain't!! Spy Smasher earns a lower than average score compared to other serials because it is of even lower quality and has MAJOR continuity problems--even for a serial. It was common for a serial to have a "cliff hanger"--i.e., a moment at the end of the episode that looked as if the good guy dies but miraculously survives when the next episode began. BUT, in this film, it's much hokier and ridiculous. You would literally SEE the hero die in the last episode, but in the next, they re-shot the scene and showed he actually DIDN'T die (even though they clearly showed him buy the farm in the last one)! Again and again in SPY SMASHER he seems to die but in the next episode they show it from a different angle and he somehow avoided death--even if he fell 1500 feet into a river, fell into a buzz saw or whatever.<br /><br />Watch this movie not for its quality but either for a good laugh or to learn what it was like to go to the movies on Saturday mornings decades ago. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4044 | pending | 76f10ef1-5d80-4fa0-a87c-330d1bad0a15 | 20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a "courtship" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.<br /><br />And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.<br /><br />Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette "Widmark & Lupino At Fox". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But "Road House" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.<br /><br />Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like "Down To The Sea In Ships" (1949) and the colourful "Red Skies Of Montana" (1952). | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4045 | pending | 5f233a1e-fa36-4b5c-9c63-09c916c65be6 | When you're used to Lana Turner in the Postman Always Rings Twice, and compare it to this low budget, low talent, low quality film, well, I was just embarrassed for Ida Lupino's 'singing' (more like talking) and non-piano playing scenes. When the first non-singing scene started and all the people just stared flatly at her, I was positive they were all going to roll their eyes and start leaving or at least talking among themselves (She stinks, c'mon let's get out of here). The actors are flat - emotions are deflated. And Ida is a real spoiled bi-otch throughout - just a 100% turnoff. This was like Betty Boop on conscious sedation meets a gas station attendant in nowhere's ville USA. The story was flat, the music was flat, the acting was flat, her chest was... no never mind. I felt sad for the rest of the actors. Perhaps if the right actress was to have been given the lead role, and the men actors had more emotion, then the film could have had a chance. Sorry for offending those of you who thought it was out of this world. I wouldn't have minded if it stayed out of this world. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4046 | pending | 6a05bd68-e4c5-4b14-8ba0-63a6ac3cf129 | Pretty dreadful movie about several unbalanced young people in a car starts off reasonably well but becomes more bizarre and hard to swallow as it progresses. Rachel Leigh Cook is the sole highlight in a tender and sexy performance, but I would recommend this film only to die-hard fans of the actress. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4047 | pending | 6f5916af-5379-426b-8d90-ab053ea9ead4 | An "independant" film that, from the back of the box, promises twists, adventure and an emotional adventure we will never forget. This film also fools us into watching it by flaunting Rachel Lee Cook with a starring role. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this movie is going to give you NOTHING. The story goes on aimlessly, revealing nothing new or important to keep us interested. All three "disturbed" characters have only small grains of back story to force us to care. Just as you reach the end, everything about the story is altered and instead of helping the audience catch up, you are left with no idea, and more importantly, no interest in "why". The director, who also thought it would be a good idea to co-star, seems to come into the film with no prior experience or knowledge of useful filmmaking. The entire piece looks like a college "art" film crafted by a freshman film student trying to hide a lack of true talent. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4048 | pending | 15221333-37d9-4b13-83f2-6f689ed2354f | I saw the episode about living on minimum wage. It went as far as an Oprah Winfrey's appearance for the said episode. It's bad enough people struggle making ends meet week to week. Then having this hypocrite exploiting the problem. I didn't appreciate the constant complaining from him or his significant other, throughout. Queston is how any people have the power to pay their medical bills from the ER? sure he shows that the bill is high, but he paid the remaining balance(from his own pocket) after-wards from his "harrowing" experience. How many poor people have that type of privilege after 30 days to pay off their bills. Instead they are starving and "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Complaining throughout the episode isn't a humbling thing for him. The movie and restaurant scene is appalling. Another privilege he has that poor people don't. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4049 | pending | f4f50e8a-e5d9-4be0-ba2c-921fba7b02c8 | I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).<br /><br />And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.<br /><br />I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4050 | pending | f545e9b2-93ea-456b-9ed4-5b53f83388c1 | This video has audio that is meant for someone to hear during their sleep. And the same can be said for the video.<br /><br />Morgan and his wife pretending to rough it at minimum wage jobs? With a camera rolling? And his little wifey-poo complaining? Give me a break. They are both rich. They are sitting in their fake $350/month apartment filming this with their $1,000/month each video crew of 12.<br /><br />I used to respect Morgan, but now his "30 days" experience is nothing more than trying to fool any volunteer viewers who are willing to be fooled.<br /><br />C'mon Morgan, you are being filmed doing a $6.00 an hour job and you are being paid by naive employers who don't see those big cameras filming the whole thing?? And we aren't to think they aren't paying you under the table? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4051 | pending | 1dcc0fc0-0404-421e-a1da-77ac66e53e06 | Altman is very proud of the fact that people in his movies talk over each other, because, he says, people do that in life. Well, people also cough, burp, go off on tangents, etc. The point is that just because people actually do something doesn't make it compelling cinema. That's one issue.<br /><br />The bigger issue is that this just isn't a very clever or direct or hitting or relevant satire, in 1988 or 2004. Garry Trudeau is still living in the 1960s and thinks everyone except a small core of Republican elected officials is a 60s-style hippie liberal. I mean the guy still trots out Zonker in his strip - a character that is a complete anachronism, yet Trudeau still employs him as if he is representative of a large stripe of American youth.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I am a conservative, but I'm not saying that this is bad because it's got a liberal bent. It could take a liberal tack and be funny and relevant, but it's not. It is mainly a vanity piece with a bunch of prominent celebrity liberals (including the odious, repellent Ron Reagan, Jr.). At times it feels unscripted, and the rest of the time it has a snarky air of self-importance and "aren't we oh-so-clever?"-ness.<br /><br />Someone said that this show insists it has a cult following. I think its cult status is more wished-for than actual. I'm certain there are two or three people out there who taped all the original episodes in 1988 and still have them, but if that is the standard, then every show ever aired is a cult classic to some degree. If Tanner didn't have the names Altman and Trudeau attached, it would be another forgotten HBO production from the 1980s. Instead, it's presented as hard-hitting, incisive political commentary from guys who are at the top of their game. The reality, however, is about as far from that as possible. Pat Paulsen's presidential satire is more relevant than Tanner ever was, and he's been dead for a decade. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4052 | pending | 56bf0510-0a19-46f3-9e57-868a78110f63 | I watched this last night on Sundance. Altman must be the most hit or miss director of note ever. This show, despite its "star power" is utterly non-compelling, and its political insights--which I as a proud liberal in no way disagree with--are shallow and clunky, and seem ripped from the headlines of USA Today, despite the fact it's coming out of the mouth of someone as esteemed as Mario Cuomo. The drama, as such, is not very dramatic, and the comedy is not funny. The only points of interest, really, are seeing how New Yorkers live their lives, and the loyalty of a cast and crew to reassemble a show that keeps insisting has some cult following from 1988. Sometimes it seems like Altman's sole contribution to cinema has been the art of having all your actors talk at once, the effect of which is one feels depressingly like they're a stranger at a wedding. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4053 | pending | d99ce87b-9fc6-4ade-9438-332c0627ec44 | This pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4054 | pending | feb68164-03f2-4f45-ab2f-44473f232160 | It has a bit of that indie queer edge that was hip in the 90s and which places an explicit sell-by date on the visual style. Characters are uniformly apathetic and farcically deadpan. Street hoodlums in Greece wear new clothing out of the box without creases or stains. They all appear to visit the same marine hair dresser. All uniformly exhibit the same low IQ when making their dispassionate underground business deals. When things go wrong its all because they aren't real Greeks - they're pastoral sunshine boys caught in a strange night city world. Makes a big whine about disaffected immigrants but never bothers to actually investigate the problems with Russian/Kazakh/Albanian cultures. If Giannaris had the proper perspective on this project it might have made a wonderful Bel Ami production. The fleeting glimpses of toned boy-beef is the only spark in this generic small-time mobster programmer. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4055 | pending | 9cecce46-1af0-4588-874d-de85942535bd | Let me tell you a story.<br /><br />One day on the streets of Athens a film director bumped into a male prostitute and decided that the world just HAD to know his story because...you know... he's deprived...and he takes his shirt off a lot and...so on.<br /><br />This film is the result of his revelation. Repulsive, depraved, homophobic, misogynist...but of course filled with pretty guys with their chests showing. If this is your idea of a good film then enjoy, if not avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />It's put me off ever going to Greece that's for sure. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4056 | pending | 3f195dc9-afb1-43a8-b80d-fa366b8660bc | At last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as "Gigli" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian émigrés who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman émigrés and prostituting themselves ("But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer/director Constantine Giannaris ("3 Steps to Heaven") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.<br /><br />If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-émigrés pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4057 | pending | 8bb5f80d-5ac8-433c-9b03-8a107391c31f | Me being one was probably having a brain fart at the time for renting it. Anyone who actually buys it, will enjoy using this as a coaster. Perhaps a frisbee? This is a dvd I actually found up front where the kids could get to it. Since dvd's don't seem to be in the position to be put in that tell tale back room with all the big box vhs tapes are, I find it rather annoying they stuck this up next to a disney film. Yep, going from Dinosaur to Erotic Ghost has shown what we all think of Disney right? I havent' stooped that low just yet. There's no acting in here. The only thing interesting is the old 1973 movie trailers for ollllld ancient erotic films that I'm amazed have escape from being burned to hell.<br /><br />1/10 (if imdb allowed zero's it'd be 0/10) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4058 | pending | e79c31b8-b4ed-4fd9-b2bd-8f8cbc249e32 | I think this movie had really bad production value. The lack of acting makes me think they should mark it as an early docudrama. It may have had no money available for its making. I feel bad that it was a ruff ride into the Major League for Jackie Robinson.<br /><br />I believe he was much better than many of the white players of his day. He had to be really great to break the color barrier of the time. No getting around that this was a really bad movie.<br /><br />Wish there was more info about its makers. They may have been limited by the quality of actors that were willing to take on the project. Maybe no money to get good people. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4059 | pending | 107cfcee-43ae-441c-9016-e3fe62633ffa | This film is bundled along with "Gli fumavano le Colt... lo chiamavano Camposanto" and both films leave a lot to be desired in the way of their DVD prints. First, both films are very dark--occasionally making it hard to see exactly what's happening. Second, neither film has subtitles and you are forced to watch a dubbed film--though "Il Prezzo del Potere" does seem to have a better dub. Personally, I always prefer subtitles but for the non-purists out there this isn't a problem. These DVD problems, however, are not the fault of the original film makers--just the indifferent package being marketed four decades later.<br /><br />As for the film, it's about the assassination of President Garfield. This is a MAJOR problem, as Van Johnson looks about as much like Garfield as Judy Garland. In no way whatsoever does he look like Garfield. He's missing the beard, has the wrong hair color and style and is just not even close in any way (trust me on this, I am an American History teacher and we are paid to know these sort of things!). The real life Garfield was a Civil War general and looked like the guys on the Smith Brothers cough drop boxes. Plus, using some other actor to provide the voice for Johnson in the dubbing is just surreal. Never before or since has Van Johnson sounded quite so macho!! He was a fine actor...but certainly not a convincing general or macho president.<br /><br />In addition to the stupid casting, President Garfield's death was in no way like this film. It's obvious that the film makers are actually cashing in on the crazy speculation about conspiracies concerning the death of JFK, not Garfield. Garfield was shot in Washington, DC (not Dallas) by a lone gunman with severe mental problems--not a group of men with rifles. However, according to most experts, what actually killed Garfield (over two months later) were incompetent doctors--who probed and probed and probed to retrieve a bullet (to no avail) and never bothered cleaning their hands or implements in the process. In other words, like George Washington (who was basically killed by repeated bloodletting when suffering with pneumonia) he died due to malpractice. In the movie they got nothing right whatsoever...other than indeed President Garfield was shot.<br /><br />Because the film bears almost no similarity to real history, it's like a history lesson as taught from someone from another planet or someone with a severe brain injury. Why not also include ninjas, fighting robots and the Greek gods while you're at it?!?! Aside from some decent acting and production values, because the script is utter cow crap, I don't recommend anyone watch it. It's just a complete and utter mess. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4060 | pending | 1a08b45b-18fb-42f0-8b5d-3f90d9633df7 | Predictable Unmotivated Pointless Caricatures Contrived Actors did what they could Actors clearly indicated they were embarrassed to do this Not one emotional connection REAL SEQUENCE FROM FILM "Who you callin?" (sic) "The police"(sic) "You can't do that, Stevie. Hang up the phone"(sic) "Jesse got a sh-t load o' drug money, you can't go involving the cops"(sic) "I'm not so sure stealing money from criminals is a crime. Even if they arrest him at least he'll be alive"(sic) "Listen to me, Stevie, this ain't handled right, Jesse's gonna end up dead. Now hang up that f-in phone." (sic) Best Friend starts to load up guns Brother, "Hey, what're you doin'?" No answer. "Hey, I got a family to worry about." (Keep in mind his child is sitting right there watching-ish all of this) Then more and more and more exposition<br /><br />Notice how in the above sequence, at no time do the police on the other line say, "Hello? Hello? Uh, we can hear everything you're saying. We're sending someone over there right now." <br /><br />Embarrassment for all. Oops. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4061 | pending | 0a011378-559b-4d4b-ab2d-7f66bb3447d0 | Piece of junk, would've given it a 0 if I could have. Animation is good, but not quite good enough. Storyline is absolutely THE most ridiculous I've ever come across, and that's saying a lot! This 'movie' tried so hard to be interesting, but failed miserably. It's almost as if the writer started one story, then got another idea, and attempted to mesh the two together. Don't waste your time on this; believe me, you'll be as ticked off with yourself as I was. The only actor of any note in this was James Woods, and his part was peripheral at best. I'm all for doing stuff that is edgy, that pushes the envelopes, but this simply didn't cut it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4062 | pending | c5128d62-e7aa-4a21-8259-44943bbed90e | Ordinarily, I love these "Stranger Within" thrillers. Some good examples are "Fatal Attraction," "Single White Female," and "Audition." Done well, they can be a lot of fun, and worth an hour or two of solid shocks and scares. Of course, the opposite can be true: done poorly, they can be tedious and stupid. "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" is one of the latter.<br /><br />The Bartels, Claire (Annabella Sciorra) and Michael (Matt McCoy) are welcoming another member to their family. But busy Claire is persuaded by Michael to hire a nanny. One day, a woman named Peyton Flanders (Rebecca DeMornay) shows up, and because she seems perfect, the Bartels hire her. Of course, once she shows up, their idyllic life is slowly unraveling...<br /><br />This film suffers from a plethora of problems, but the biggest one is the handling of the villain. Peyton is never believable. Part of this has to do with how she's written, and how she's acted. The things that she does that are supposed to put us on edge are so contrived that they're laughable. De Mornay doesn't help much. She portrays Peyton as two different people. While it's true she's supposed to be the perfect nanny while hiding her psychotic tendencies, De Mornay's performance creates a divide between the two facets of her character.<br /><br />The other actors are good, however. Annabella Sciorrra is terrific as the asthmatic Claire. Sciorra is very natural in the role, but unfortunately, the script lets her down. Matt McCoy is almost invisible. However, Julianne Moore is delightful as Claire's friend Marlene. Moore is a firecracker, but unfortunately she's only on screen for a total of five minutes.<br /><br />Curtis Hanson is a good director, but you wouldn't know it from watching this dud. The film has a few decent shocks, but it's poorly paced, and the climax, while generating some tension, is actually kind of laughable. That being said, he's working with a script that at best, could charitably be called pathetic.<br /><br />Trust me, when it comes to nannies, stick with Fran Drescher. This one should have gone to the direct-to-video bin. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4063 | pending | cbc16d32-4049-4c91-a478-2ac0840c370a | I know that many people will/have automatically given this film a rating of 1, just because it doesn't have the huge budget and top-of-the-line special effects that they are used to. I, however, knew what I was getting myself into when I popped this into the VCR.<br /><br />I don't think we get much more low-budget that this, unless we are filming a family reunion. The lighting is awful, sound quality is at times incomprehensible, and the acting is ultra-bad by almost all involved. BUT, this is still a fun movie and the plot is interesting enough. It centers around a fellow named Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt), who has been down on his luck with his job. He is very protective of his wife and does not allow her to work, putting even more pressure on himself. As he begins working more hours, we see him slowly transcend into madness and obsession and he becomes suspicious that his wife cheating on him and begins to brutally murder the various men (most repair guys) that he feels are responsible. <br /><br />I must say that the gore effects are extremely cheap, but fit with the overall tone of the film.. The brutal ways that Tom Russo comes up with to murder these men gives us an idea of just has mad he has become. The pacing of the film is also very good and there is rarely a boring moment. The ending really doesn't follow the rest of the plot of the film, as it seems to want to go from a psycho-slasher film, to a "Dawn of the Dead" wannabe, but it is entertaining nonetheless and I must give Tim Ritter credit for wanting to use an unconventional ending. <br /><br />I can honestly say that I enjoyed this film, but it is by no means a good film, if that makes sense. It's budget is its main stumbling block and the consequences are almost too much to overlook. I DO NOT recommend this to people who are totally spoiled by the big-budget movies and who can't have an open-mind to ultra-low budget films. You simply won't enjoy it. For others, and fans of gore--I say give it a shot. You will find at least SOMETHING redeeming in it! <br /><br />My Grade: D | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4064 | pending | c4501212-0ac8-49e7-a52a-b0b33aac86f9 | Emotionally insecure Tom Russo (Asbestos Felt) reads the secret diary of his sexy wife Leeza (Courtney Lercara) and is dismayed to discover that the love of his life has apparently been sleeping with every bloke she meets; this shocking revelation sends poor Tom off his rocker, and he proceeds to wreak bloody revenge on the men who he believes have been rogering his old lady.<br /><br />In my experience, really, really bad films can often be as much fun as really good ones, and no film featuring a decapitation by machete-enhanced ceiling fan should ever be considered completely worthless; but even though Killing Spree very occasionally manages to entertain with its inventiveness and cheap and cheerful gore, I found that the terrible direction, awful production values, ugly cinematography, muffled sound, dreadful lighting, mind numbingly tedious and daft narrative (which includes a really dumb plot twist that is telegraphed from the beginning, plus a pointless zombie finale), nasty synthesizer score, inane dialogue, and thoroughly amateurish acting all served to make this effort from writer/director Tom Ritter a virtually joyless experience. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4065 | pending | 29fca290-3e7b-4735-9231-546695673766 | Is this supposed to be serious? I hope not. This is one of the most pathetically hilarious movies I've ever seen. Given that I picked it up for a buck on the "Bad movies" shelf, it sure lives up to its spot in the shop. What can I say, the gore effects are spattered (pun-intended) all over the place, some looking quite real, some looking like a teddy bear that's had an accident with a bottle of tomato sauce. The music is some of the most horrible I've heard, the acting is one of the most amusing elements... must I continue? Don't bother unless you've seen every other pathetic horror movie in the shop and this is all that's left. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4066 | pending | a8dd9e03-1494-4cc0-a017-34c358add4c8 | I understood before watching this film that it would be a low budget gore film. But even by those low standards this film doesn't cut it. <br /><br />The problem isn't so much that the filmmakers had a low budget or had bad acting, writing, directing, sound, music and editing. I expected all of that to be bad, and it is.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this film is that it didn't even do a good job on the guts and gore. Most of the 'action' takes place off screen and all we get to see are the after effects, which look very fake -- even by the standards of low budget gore films. <br /><br />There really is no excuse for the gore being so poorly done. Peter Jackson made the equally low budget 'Bad Taste' at about the same time and he somehow was able to make much more convincing guts and gore than was shown in this film.<br /><br />A failure on just about every level, I can't recommend this film to anybody. Steer clear of it.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4067 | pending | 6972ebcb-7ab5-422b-88e0-acf53cb0bdb8 | I was initially interested in this film after reading a synopsis and seeing a few striking screenshots, and the promise was there for a gripping horror film of the Dario Argento style. Admittedly I must say that Argento's films have occasionally been rather incoherent, and some feel like a handful of visually impacting set pieces loosely strung together with a vague connecting plot.<br /><br />Since Argento is credited as writer for this, I have to say, I'm not really surprised. Even his masterpiece Suspiria, when examined, exhibits the same tendency to string along sometimes unrelated scenes purely for the aesthetic impact. However, Suspiria also had the benefit of a singular main character and clear antagonists, as well as scenes that contributed ultimately to the eventual resolution.<br /><br />The Church, on the other hand, has none of these things. It has no main character, no protagonist whatsoever; it furthermore has no real plot to speak of, and no crescendo, no climax, no denouement, and no resolution. It is a completely hollow, incoherent work that views as if Argento sat down and thought 'hey, that would make an interesting scene visually...let's do it!' The film is a series of these scenes.<br /><br />Initially it might be interesting, and Soavi's direction is excellent, I must say. Soavi cannot be faulted for the material, as it is made as compelling as possible. However, such good direction calls attention to the horrible failings of the script, and there is absolutely no sense in it. The attempt at a central unifying plot is nothing more than plagiarism of Carpenter's film Prince of Darkness. Events happen solely because the script wishes them to, and reactions to those events are completely implausible. The narrative flow is irreparably damaged after a point, simply because there is no ability to suspend disbelief; it's too ludicrous. Added to this are numerous factual errors that are so glaringly showcased that it becomes embarrassing.<br /><br />If it had been more overtly artistic and edited down into a different work, it might have been chilling or tense. If it had been fleshed-out into an actual cohesive narrative, it might have been gripping. But it was none of these. The best it managed was confusing and, at times, infuriating. Plots are introduced but never followed. Characters are forgotten about and altered arbitrarily. No logic is ever applied to any situation. It might have been scary or interesting, but to elicit that sort of feeling takes more effort on the part of a screenwriter...much more.<br /><br />All in all, The Church is not worth viewing for anyone but total enthusiasts of Italian horror that is more style than substance. This is Argento's style at its worst, and it is a strong justification for the usual criticism. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4068 | pending | 7cebae2c-8f0e-4b86-a9b2-8c14eef63b5f | Master of Italian horror Dario Argento is called a lot of bad things by non-fans. And is deserving of absolutely none of the backlash. In fact, every time I hear something bad about Argento- I think they're really talking about Michele Soavi. He just doesn't get the same amount of attention because his films were never as successful in theaters. In fact, his best film - 1994's Cemetery Man - was probably his least successful. Or just didn't get the attention he felt it deserved, because after that, he left film and went into directing television. He's never gone back. So people really don't know how inferior his other films are because by the time they've seen them, they're already fans of the Italian horror aesthetic. Which means you have to accept the fact that they make almost zero sense and are usually very unattractive films. This is where The Church stands out from the pack. Because visually, it's so cheap and ancient-looking, you can smell the dust. But it has its' charms too, though they are few. The camera-work is truly arresting and the music score is hugely elaborate and grand.<br /><br />Since Argento is the reasons people have seen Soavi's work all, I don't know anyone who caught The Church before Argento's Suspiria and Deep Red. Soavi is a bit of a hack. Sort of like an Italian Mick Garris- the utmost example of a director preferring style over substance. The flaws of The Church are constant and plenty. The film opens with a somewhat interesting prologue showing knights on white horses charging through a peasant village akin to those you see in any Robin Hood adaptation, in some long-ago century. These scenes are intense enough, energetic, and get quickly to the point. Then, we cut to the present, where the film's style takes over. Yeah, the movie is okay to look at. And for about 35 or so minutes in the present, 1980's wherever-Italy, the movie is just interesting enough to get us to the slowly revealing horror elements. So now we know the purpose of the film is the build up of it's horror. And it's a decent build up, for the most part. But as the movie approaches the halfway point, we realize the movie's driving by, and... nothing is happening.<br /><br />The plot is very simple. I think. Two people working in a church, one as a cataloger of books and the other as a restorer of the building's wall artwork, discover a scroll / scripture that the man thinks will lead them to some kind of buried treasure or priceless artifact that he can sell and get rich off of. So he follows his 'map' only to uncover a force underneath the church that has him hallucinate, while he's slowly becoming a demon who will make everyone else hallucinate. So while he is doing his demon-work, someone he passed the force onto kills himself in a manner that traps everyone in the church while the demon 'contagen' spreads onto everyone, leaving a Black preacher and the little girl who sneaks out of the church every night to go clubbing as the only 2 people who can stop the plague from spreading beyond the church walls. That probably sounds action-packed and Soavi's style is far more lethargic than Argento. But never before have I seen an attempted surrealist film this agonizingly boring. I kid you not. Absolutely nothing happens in the entire film! I've seen expressionistic (or impressionistic, I'm no film school super-grad) films before, but most of them actually show things happening (John Carpenter's Halloween for one).<br /><br />It follows pretty closely in the footsteps of Lamberto Bava's Demons films (since Argento co-produced). We're shown to a location where a bunch of people gather, one turns into a demon, all the others are isolated, that person infects everyone except a couple survivors, then the demons either get out- infecting the world, or the survivors get out when the demons die. This film puts all those same elements in place. Except, unlike Argento's work, nothing happens. Okay, a few things do happen. But only one bizarre sequence has the panache of Lamberto's much more fun Demons films. A random woman's neck is impaled by a demon using a section of fence he rips out of the floor. What's bizarre about that, you wonder? It happens in front of about two dozen people. What do they do? Nothing. She dies, her head trickles blood in closeup. But all those people don't even notice, though it happens in plain view and no less than 8 feet away from them. Maybe 4 people notice the demon running up to stab anyone he can as he runs toward her, so they duck out of the way. She's killed and in the shot after she dies, everyone is just sitting around, being quiet while a boy plays a saxophone. I kid you not. That's what happens. That's more than logically incoherent- it's plain stupid.<br /><br />The scene is suggesting that the woman just sort of disappears and no one saw her death. They all just up and forget about it. And this 15-second thing is absolutely the only event that takes place in the movie. I'm not saying it's the only violence, gore, or murder we see. It's not. It's just the only thing we can tell is happening. For example, in one scene a beautiful woman sees herself in a mirror looking old and ugly. She starts clawing the skin on her face off, but when she reappears minutes later- no scratches. People are devoured by fish and their faces are squashed by subway cars. But later they turn up as totally unharmed members of a possessed cult, in a scene that commits the ultimate horror heresy- copying a famous scene from Roman Polanski's 1968 masterpiece, Rosemary's Baby, the greatest horror film ever made, shot for shot. Even if Argento did that, I would be furious! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4069 | pending | 05e7bd5b-f489-44a2-a855-a3bbb5865706 | Let me get this straight... "The Church" has a safety "lock-down" mechanism to keep the spirits from leaving but the ultimate solution is bringing it to the ground?! LOFL! Maybe I'm missing the plot. Maybe this guy is from the Ed Wood school of film-making or something. This movie is about as useless as the church itself. Hey... maybe that's the point. That whole Rosemary's Baby-esq segment was hilarity. I can go to my corner Halloween costume shop and get better drag than that. The entire film needs to be remade. Properly. There were so many things that were played down... so many things that could have made me jump out of my seat and through the ceiling. I'm not sure if the fault lies with the writing or editing but what I saw should not have this high of a rating. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4070 | pending | 8298eff2-2387-4dee-9d12-289761aca5ee | I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!<br /><br />Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).<br /><br />The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)
not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature STAGE FRIGHT (1987) and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4071 | pending | b630a864-4f8a-4cd8-bda4-6dedaefd6af5 | In the same way Lamberto Bava was a substandard facsimilie of his father, Mario (who was an extremely overrated director anyway), Michele Soavi is a substandard director in the Dario Argento mold. "The Church" has at least one thing to recommend it--the incredibly detailed art direction--but absolutely nothing else. The film is long-winded, filled with one-dimensional characters, and almost put me to sleep several times. There's a fine line between 'art' and 'pretentious crap,' and while "The Church" isn't completely worthless, you'd be better off watching something else.<br /><br />3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4072 | pending | 6f1f96ca-13b6-4de9-ac45-8395f48c22ce | I have a lot of respect for Mr. Argento's work, but this film lacks many of the qualities that make his films really unique. The opening to the film is great, and sets you up for the possibility of a really scary horror film. What occurs for the rest of the film lacks structure or purpose and does not build into much. There are some good performances, though, and a lot of great atmosphere. The end of the film is weak considering everything this builds up to. Where there should be some grand climax of huge proportions you instead get a very typical conclusion that too many other bad horror movies use, making it feel like they just needed to wrap it up. A couple of scenes are very memorable for their imagery, but in the end the film does not gel to make a really good movie. Unless you feel you must see everything this director made I suggest passing on this one... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4073 | pending | fe2c5983-3754-4249-913b-228837738941 | Once again, the posters lied to me.<br /><br />The marketing of this flick was deeply at odds with the content; 'explosive'? When I read the synopsis for this movie, I was expecting to see a townful of grotesques, every man-jack of them bloodshot and bloated by alcohol, peppered by heroin needles and bent double with chronic masturbation; into such a "den of vice" would come the clean-shaven hero, shining Gabriel. Instead, the movie was the complete opposite of what I was led to expect.<br /><br />The first few minutes of the film showed us that Middletown is a simple little place full of poor people doing the best they can, whether fiddling a little to make ends meet, drinking to forget the pain, or watching cock-fighting (chickens, not penises) to while away the boredom. In other words, the townspeople were desperately ordinary.<br /><br />The only (deliberate?) grotesque in the piece was Gabriel, the brainwashed Presbyterian preacher played by Macfadyen, whose face is built in such a way as to suggest a permanent air of bewildered fury. If I were kind, I would suggest that the Paisleyite rantings of the preacher were a witty comment designed to make us despise Gabriel and his faith. Unfortunately, Brian Kirk is so inept a film-maker that you quickly despise everyone in the movie, leaving the audience to fret their way through eighty-plus minutes of dark, hackneyed tedium. My only respite from this waste of celluloid was a game of "guess the accent" broken up with rounds of "spot the location." Are we surprised that Gaybo ends up stealing his brother's child and suffocating his father? Of course not; he's a bible-bashing preacher and therefore psychotic. All the townspeople stand around looking shocked at the end of the movie, but I suspect that they've just realised what a turkey they've put their names to.<br /><br />The Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission have a budget to spend, but there are better projects than this feeble enterprise. The only kind thing I can say in favour of this movie is that it has managed to replace "Superman Returns" as the worst film of 2006; one hell of an achievement.<br /><br />v1:20061114 v2:20080107 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4074 | pending | 629735c0-2dbb-476c-b582-2b68f5179f6b | The film is visually stunning: from the dusty interior of the church with the lighted stove, through the drizzly street and the run-down garage to the blaze that is the climax of the film. It also has a wonderful sense of time, both 1950's (the film's opening) and 1960's. All of the performances are top-class, especially Mathew MacFadyen as the psychotic preacher and Gerard McSorley as the father who finds his own intolerance terrifyingly magnified by his son. What a pity, then, that the story is so ridiculous. For a start, in concentrating on the relationship between Gabriel (McFadyen) and his family, it utterly fails to show how he has managed to hold so much influence on the community. In the church, we see five or six of the main characters at the front, and another two or three at the back, but the rest of the congregation might as well be mannequins: they show no sign of hearing him, heeding him or dissenting from him; at the cockfight, nobody says yea or nay when he disrupts the proceedings, but neither does anybody applaud or condemn when Caroline throws a pint over him; a situation that results in a stone thrown through the pub window is mysteriously resolved by the onset of labour pains. Secondly, Middletown (which isn't actually a town, but a tiny village) seems to lack some essential services, such as police and fire service: murder can only be dealt with by a family member with a crowbar; residents watch an inferno that threatens to engulf the whole town as though they were at the cinema. For that matter, everyday things such as telephones and newspapers are conspicuously absent, the rural community is strangely devoid of farm animals or wheat-fields, and most puzzling of all for a 'typical' North of Ireland setting, there is only one Christian community - not even a couple of Anglicans to season the mix. Even if you're willing to suspend disbelief, the story itself is pretty threadbare, a pale imitation of an A.J. Cronin melodrama. And the music? Well, it's beautiful for the first two minutes, but when the same four chords are repeated non-stop for 90 minutes it gets more than a little irritating. My advice: watch this with the sound off. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4075 | pending | f0d30004-d126-4fad-a50c-ba9c3dbc9b4a | For a country that has produced some of the world's finest dramatists and has such a rich musical heritage it has always been a source of bewilderment to me why so much of Ireland's home-grown cinema has been so appalling. Perhaps because, by its very nature, those talented in the field of Irish cinema have been quick to abandon their native shore for careers in Britain or America, (Colin Farrell is a recent case in point), and that the really successful Irish directors that have continued to work in Ireland and with Irish subjects have made their films with international money and an eye on the international market. I am thinking particularly of Jim Sheridan and Neil Jordan who alternate between films with an Irish setting and projects filmed abroad.<br /><br />"Middletown", however, is very much an Irish film even if two of its principal actors are English. It's certainly well-made of its kind and might have bucked the trend that Irish films aren't really very good; (Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down", written by the brilliant young playwright Conor McPherson, is a crucial exception). Unfortunately this tale of fundamentalism set in a fictitious Irish town, presumably in the North of Ireland judging by the accents, (Mid-Ulster Bible-Belt, if you ask me), and presumably in the recent past, (the fifties? the sixties?), is so over-the-top that it really is quite ridiculous.<br /><br />Nothing in the film rings true and you can't help feeling it's writer, Daragh Carville, has been strongly influenced by Flannery O'Connor and that the whole thing might have made more sense had it been set in the American bible-belt and not in Ireland where even the most extreme Protestant fundamentalist was never quite as loony as this. It's all meant be to be grim in a grand guignol kind of way and it certainly is, though I was more prone to giggles than frisson's at the right Reverand Matthew Macfayden's antics. He has the Ulster accent off pat and there is nothing wrong with his acting or indeed that of Daniel Mays as his brother, Gerard McSorley as his father or Eva Birthistle as Mays' wife but the script is so appallingly derivative that good acting can do nothing to save the film. So rather than a step up the ladder for Irish cinema "Middletown" is, I'm afraid, just another nail in its coffin. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4076 | pending | 5ceb6c79-f870-429e-afe4-fde95558d843 | This was supposed to be set in the "Bible Belt" of Northern Ireland. Well, as someone who grew up there,and was a child in the era depicted in the film it just didn't ring true! The accents were all over the place - anything but County Antrim/Derry. The church didn't resemble any I have ever seen. "The Church of God" is a pentecostal denomination but the one in the film was certainly not pentecostal! The elderly minister at the beginning was dressed in the robes of the Church of Ireland (Anglican)- and no C.of I. would call itself "The Church of God". The minister was often addressed as "Reverend" - they may do that in some parts of the world but I never heard it when I lived in that area. Ministers were addressed as "Mr ......"<br /><br />This film was very badly researched and cast - fairly typical of Irish cinema - annoying! A film can have a great plot, but if it doesn't look authentic, it is rubbish. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4077 | pending | 5f21b390-7e8f-4547-86a4-45f9b2de1b9b | Poor Shirley MacLaine tries hard to lend some gravitas to this mawkish, gag-inducing "feel-good" movie, but she's trampled by the run-away sentimentality of a film that's not the least bit grounded in reality.<br /><br />This was directed by Curtis Hanson? Did he have a lobotomy since we last heard from him? Hanson can do effective drama sprinkled with comedy, as evidenced by "Wonder Boys." So I don't know what happened to him here. This is the kind of movie that doesn't want to accept that life is messy and fussy, and that neat, tidy endings (however implausible they might be) might make for a nice closing shot, but come across as utterly phony if the people watching the film have been through anything remotely like what the characters in the film go through.<br /><br />My wife and I made a game of calling out the plot points before they occurred -- e.g. "the old man's going to teach her to read and then drop dead." Bingo! This is one of those movies where the characters give little speeches summarizing their emotional problems, making you wonder why they still have emotional problems if they're that aware of what's causing them. Toni Collette (a fine actress, by the way, and one of my favorites if not given a lot to work with here), gives a speech early on about why she buys so many shoes and never wears them, spelling out in flashing neon the film's awkward connecting motif. At that moment, I knew what I was in for, and the film was a downward spiral from there.<br /><br />Grade: C- | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4078 | pending | 23d52f9c-234c-4046-abcd-855aba9870a0 | I saw this film shortly after watching Moonlight & Valentino with Elizabeth Perkins, Gwyneth Platrow, Whoopi Goldberg and Kathleen Turner. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.<br /><br />Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother
" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.<br /><br />The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.<br /><br />The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place.<br /><br />If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4079 | pending | 7b505977-97a7-43cd-ba1c-2b4169042378 | 'You're in the Navy Now' is painfully bad: very likely the worst movie Gary Cooper ever made. It's supposedly based on a true story, but the incident which inspired this film doesn't seem to have enough plot to sustain a feature-length script.<br /><br />I saw this movie on local television while I was house-sitting for my mother-in-law in Long Island, New York. There was a raging blizzard outside, and I was literally snowbound. If I'd been able to get out the door, I definitely would have stopped watching this movie.<br /><br />There are some interesting names in the supporting cast, notably Charles Bronson (under his original name), Lee Marvin, Harvey Lembeck, Jack Webb and Jack Warden. Forget it. Everybody stinks in this movie. Even the usually reliable Millard Mitchell is awful. Lee Marvin and Jack Warden are onscreen so briefly, there's no point in your watching for them.<br /><br />Gary Cooper plays an obscure naval officer who is assigned to command a ship which is powered by a new, experimental steam turbine: basically, the whole ship is a giant teakettle. Cooper realises that the assignment is not a prestigious one: if it were, it would have gone to a better officer.<br /><br />Cooper was a good actor in dramatic roles, but he simply had no ability for comedy. He made several bad comedies, and this one is his worst. Jane Greer has always bored me, and she bored me more than usual here. This ship went down with all hands, and sank without a trace. Have I mentioned that this movie stinks? I'll rate 'You're in the Navy Now' one point out of 10. Toot! Toot! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4080 | pending | d3436192-abce-445e-b9a9-06f5130f328f | The beginning of this movie had me doubting that it would be little more than a typical B sci-fi flick. But, as it progressed I began to get interested and I saw the whole thing through. The premise is interesting, original, and has the makings of making a classic. Alas, it instead ended up a mediocre movie, done in by the usual factors which turn a potentially good movie into a bad movie (bad acting, low budget etc.). I'm interested to see how this would turn out if it were remade with good actors and a big hollywood budget. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4081 | pending | 45d49b83-a0fc-4219-a40a-b29b9c6d77fd | This movie had an interesting enough plot about clones and organ usage, but it fails as the lead actor is so annoying and whiny you want him dead. Not that anyone else is very good in it either, but when you hate the character that is supposed to be garnering your sympathy the movie just fails to work. Funny enough, it looks like a movie is coming out in the near future that has a plot that mirrors this one with more action and a better cast, still though I won't be able to think of anything else, but this film if I were to watch it. This movie has a super dumb clone that is somehow smart enough to figure something is wrong with his camp where people bicycle at one mile per hour and wrestle for no reason. The counselors tell them that when they are ready they go to America, but our "hero" has his doubts so he snoops around and learns the awful truth which sends him on the run from the bad guys who shoot and hit the guy repeatedly. He goes on the look out for the man he was cloned from. Peter Graves is in it and so is Dick Seargent, but they add nothing to this movie which looks like something that was made for television. On the plus side though when "The Island" comes out the makers of this film can proudly say "we thought of it first". | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4082 | pending | 3a689ff0-757b-41c6-83b3-437aee90f9ee | This is a great premise for a movie. The overall plot is very original,interesting, and something to think about. However poor production, an obviously small budget, crapy acting from the main character, and several side actors really detract from this would be classic. An up and coming producer should try to resurect this story and give this basicly half hearted atempt a proper release. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4083 | pending | f62d96bc-3a43-41a6-920b-e9ebc9509d70 | Like most other people, I saw this movie on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Although it received some well-deserved barbs, it's one of the better films to be featured on that show.<br /><br />The premise is better than even your average Hollywood blockbuster these days; it poses some interesting moral dilemmas. Although the score is sometimes obtrusive, it also provides a few lovely moments when Richard is walking by the river. Watching the movie, you can see where a lot of plot developments probably looked very good on paper. Richard's discomfort in modern society is an interesting problem to ponder, and the ending probably would have been a nice '70s-style mindfuck if the preceding affairs hadn't been so goofy.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the movie is visibly cheap, making the flaws all the more obvious. The "clone farm" is very obviously a college campus, and a beer can serves as a major plot point. Lena and Richard have zero chemistry -- we are supposed to believe this is a meeting of kindred minds, but there doesn't seem to be a brain cell between them. The "cranky old couple" schtick also gets real old, real fast. There are also some mistakes that can be blamed on bad directorial choices, such as the decision to hold a climactic conversation out of reach of any audio equipment whatsoever.<br /><br />In all, a noble effort, but is nonetheless best viewed on MST3K. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4084 | pending | cef3997b-9f12-407e-b527-3117f28db22d | The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4085 | pending | 50646d66-a4d3-44e8-90a6-b98f2d2e4457 | I have now suffered through Parts, The Clonus Horror.<br /><br />To have the word horror in the title of this movie is an insult to real horror.<br /><br />The story was about a cloning-central owned by the "The man" They grow Clones for harvesting organs from the clones later on for the original humans in need of transplants. One clone escapes, The government gets angry and kills all involved, but the story somehow leaks out anyway.<br /><br />It is Truly Shameful how a movie with potential is destroyed by amateurs such as Fiveson. The only thing he genuinely succeeded in doing was to weave in the concept of human rights and the very philosophical aspect, what makes a human a human, and would it be OK to grow clones for organic harvesting? Sadly, mediocre actors have been chosen and the plot has left town, until the very end in where a pathetic attempt is made to sum it up.<br /><br />But!! What disturbed me the most was the introducing of new characters lacking actual relevance for the plot. Despite that, Fiveson feels the need to kill them off in a bad explosion which only Sir Coleman Francis Himself would be proud of.<br /><br />The setting was interesting. How Fiveson thought that pulling out sheets of plastic and running water over them would make a believable river is beyond me, but I guess if you were to compare the setting to Coleman Francis' gray pasty oatmeal of a setting, this film would win.<br /><br />Perhaps Coleman has changed what bad movies are for me. 3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4086 | pending | 4005d13a-092d-4262-9007-945d760d68d2 | I have never seen this movie on its own, but like many others who have already commented, I saw it as an episode of MST3K. Really terrible 70s television schlock. But someone saw its potential because it's just been turned into a $125 million flop called The Island.<br /><br />And to the person who asked whether there were ANY good movies made in the 70s, I want to remind her that it was a golden age for American film with directors like Robert Altman and Martin Scorcese first coming into their own. Not to mention little things like Star Wars (1977). Just a reminder that the 70s were far more creative than the 21st century has been so far. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4087 | pending | e9f6bef1-9b9f-4a57-b76e-b5362eb02767 | The movie was actually not THAT bad, especially plot-wise, but the doughy (and hairy!) actor they chose for the leading role was a little chintzy in the acting department. I would have chosen someone else. The idea of "going to America" was very ingenious, and the main character questioning everything that he'd ever known made him somewhat likable, but not very much so when there's a pasty blob for a leading actor.<br /><br />The storyline was interesting. It brings about the question of how the subject of cloning will be handled in the future. Certainly cloning wouldn't be allowed for the purposes in the movie, but it's still a valid argument even for today. Clones ARE still people... right?<br /><br />The movie wasn't particularly special, but it still is a lot better than some of the cheese released during the 70s. Let us not forget the "Giant Spider Invasion." I give it a 4, since it didn't TOTALLY stink, but the MST3K version makes this movie a 10. (I still like Dr. Super Mario!) You'll like this movie, but it won't be your favorite. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4088 | pending | dc51e5b4-bac1-4419-937b-87609746792b | This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.<br /><br />The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.<br /><br />The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.<br /><br />The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.<br /><br />Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4089 | pending | 9f2e82de-f9f8-46d9-8b93-ab0d858c3da1 | ...in a TV-movie 70's kind of way. It's one of those movies that show up in the wee hours, but rarely because more modern late-hour schlock movies bump it off. It has likeable performances by Graves and Wynn. Generally, it's just a harmless little piece of nothing that doesn't offend too badly. Nothing good, a lot that's mediocre. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4090 | pending | 8f194f9f-9de1-4a37-a4e3-752dc9ad3cf0 | Parts: The Clonus Horror is a horror all right. There are of course the bad fashions of the late 70's. There's the really bad acting from Dick Sargent to Peter Graves. And then there's the clones themselves. Their days mostly consist of running, jumping, cycling, and wrestling with each other. When they're not doing that, they learn about America. Not the band America, or the song by Neil Diamond, but an America where they go on to become part of a greater society. But they're given some strange drug then they have all their bodily fluids drained(General Ripper was right!) and they are placed in the freezer and await Thanksgiving or Christmas when they will be thawed out and roasted at about 450 degrees or so. Oops, that's not what happens, but it would've been a lot more interesting than what's shown. Mario, of Super Mario Brothers fame, makes a delightful cameo as a doctor who bickers with Dick Sargent. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4091 | pending | 5494120b-0762-45da-8ca0-23b57ba66698 | I'll say this first...the film would've been a 70s sci-fi classic if it had been executed a lot better.<br /><br />That said, let's examine the plot...it starts with Peter Graves (or is that Clarence Oveur?) running for President, then cuts to a goofy college campus-like environ full of authoritarians in goofy trucker caps and headsets and retarded athletes who all act like they're perpetually age 8. It then shows one guy apparently going to America, having a party, then taken to a medical lab where he is drugged, wrapped in a plastic bag and then prepared as if the doctors were bagging vegetables for steamers packs...okay, actually he's being put on ice so the doctors can extract the organs they need.<br /><br />It then cuts to another dopey man thinking the place he's living in is a bit strange after a beer can (of all plot devices possible) he finds in a river makes him look suspicious (damn those beer cans!). He and some equally stupid love interest of his feel they need to get to the bottom of it all, so he makes her stay behind as he escapes through what is basically a large college administration building with some evidence he discovers on the way about cloning...and how he's a part of it.<br /><br />He escapes his controllers after being shot some and an old reporter guy helps him find his 'father'--the man he was cloned from. It just so happens he's a clone of the brother of Peter Graves. After debate about what to do with him and his evidence, he goes back to the facility to find his girlfriend (who has been lobotomized in the meantime to be even more stupid, harmless, and ready to host a talk show according to the SOL crew). He is captured and put into cold storage just like his Nazi-build retard friend from the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Meanwhile, a confrontation at Graves' brothers house results in several deaths, including Graves'. The reporter guy and his wife are killed in the middle of an exciting conversation by a bomb. It seems the conspirators have won to some extent...<br /><br />Then, Peter Graves turns out to be able to survive being run through with a metal poker by the miracle of cloned parts, and giving another 'vote for me' speech just as reporters confront him about the cloning thing.<br /><br />Definitely MST3K fodder, but on the low end of the spectrum as far as overall badness goes. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4092 | pending | 6f54c24f-c814-4d28-a6f7-cdf05ec27818 | The only reason I'm even giving this movie a 4 is because it was made in to an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. The horrible direction is only slightly overshadowed by the characters complete inability to act. The lead is an actor i have never seen in anything else and it shows. No chemistry with the love interest and so bland you almost don't care what happens to him. Dick Sargent was not convincing as a villain least of all this guy was suppose to be super evil...he was more annoying then anything. Peter Graves was the only person the movie that wasn't awful, his part was small and even he couldn't compensate for his co-stars lack of talent. In 2004 someone tried to make this mess all over again it was called The Island...I personally didn't see that movie but from what i understand its the same movie. If you want to laugh at this movie get the MST3k episode its really funny...full of bewitched and biography references it makes this movie finally watchable | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4093 | pending | 61f76ccb-fa8f-4c98-9c46-9a11e09ac2b5 | Parts: The Clonus Horror is not that bad of a movie. I have the MST3K version of it on tape and it is hilarious, but its still not the worst film the have ever done. I would go so far as to say that it was better than 80% of the movies they have made fun of. The concept could have worked if they had a better script, more money and decent actors. It could have become a classic if it was not so boring and had a bit more excitement. Sadly it was botched in production and ended up on MST3K. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4094 | pending | 71760d24-cdd5-439d-90c1-dc4c9d099264 | SLOOOOOOOW, tepid, poorly produced 70's schlocker made moore cowvincing because of today's headlines; nonetheless, this film is worthy stink-fodder because of uncowvincing acting, absent direction, and silly 70's clothing(sadly, the MooCow remembers when Adidas clothing was all the rage...). This has the same sort of feel to it that some better 70's sci-fi moovies accowmplished, namely "WestWorld" and "Logan's Run". While the premise interesting(rich people clone themselves to keep a ready supply of body parts to keep them alive theoretically forever), the film makes the mistake of saddling us with Richard(Tim Donnelly), a clone who is at once both boring and irritating. Hollow acting by Donnelly doesn't help, but fits right in with the rest of the cast. Even such B-illuminaries as Dick Sargent("Bewitched" tv series, "Ghost with 1,000,000 Eyes), Keenan Wynn("Dr. Strangelove", "The Dark", "Laserblast"), and Peter Graves("Beginning of the End", "Killers from Space", "It Conquered the World")provide only the moost tepid performances. Produced, directed, and edited by a bunch of nobodies, it's no surprise that "Clonus" fails to horrify anyone in the least, much less keep anyone's attention! Truth be told, there's nothing in the feeble flick that even schlock-fans would love - wanna see some realllly bad, funny 70's films, put on anything by Greydon Clark. "Clonus" is no bonus; the MooCow says even the MST3K-version is a yawner, so proceed at yer own risk! :=8P | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4095 | pending | 6f78a72c-c525-4433-9caf-939fed6cf44d | This film was sourced from my friends mum who worked in a charity shop. She gave it to us along with a load of other unknown cassette tapes. The film itself is a bit rubbish. There are a few notable bits to laugh at like the bit when his girlfriend gets her head drilled into, but in general the film is bland. Interstingly when I saw the trailer for "The Island" I couldn't help noticing the similarities. Clonus may have been the inspiration for that film? All in all don't bother watching this film as it is dull and boring. We enjoyed it so much when we were 16 that we named our band after it. Another sign this film is a bit crappy is the shots on the back of the video case don't actually appear in the film? weird | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4096 | pending | ad7bb4ad-ff7d-46b4-b7a2-b16704d60edc | "The Danish Bladerunner" is boldly stated on the box. Are you kidding me?! This film is a complete drag. When I'm thirsty and go for a soda in the kitchen, I usually pause the vcr, so I won't miss anything. Not this time. I actually found myself looking long and hard in the fridge, just so I wouldn't have to go back. Why the hell is there not ONE sciencefiction-scriptwriter out there who has the vaguest clue about how computers work? It's mindboggling. One of the premises of film, is that our hero (who's a hacker), has a little computerassistant to help him (the Microsoft Office paperclip finally caught on in the future). When he loses the assistant in the movie, he's helpless and can't get into any computers. HE'S A HACKER! It's like saying, that you can't drive your car, if you don't have your lucky "driving-cap" on. I won't even go into the lightning-effect when he recieves electroshock... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4097 | pending | 0be6be64-4288-436a-b8c7-5f8391e54378 | If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.<br /><br />I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.<br /><br />Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).<br /><br />The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.<br /><br />If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.<br /><br />Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.<br /><br />I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4098 | pending | c634dfdf-f265-45d4-8f50-f854dd6fef8e | As everyone knows, nobody can play Scarlett O'Hara like Vivien Leigh, and nobody can play Rhett Butler like Clark Gable. All others pale in comparison, and Timothy Dalton and Joanne Whalley are no exceptions. One thing that I really couldn't get past was that Joanne has BROWN eyes. The green eyes were the most enhancing feature of Scarlett's good looks, and in this sequel she has been stripped of those.<br /><br />The movie, as well as the book, had several lulls in it. The new characters weren't all that memorable, and I found myself forgetting who was who. I felt as though her going to Ireland did absolutely nothing whatsoever. It could be that I'm only 11, but I saw no change in her attitude until the last say, 10 minutes when Rhett told her she had grown up. If Rhett hadn't told her that, I would have never guessed that there was any change in her attitude. She really loved Cat, her baby. She likes this child best because she had it with Rhett, her only loved husband. Still, if you've read Gone With The Wind, you would see that children make no difference in Scarlett's world. <br /><br />Quite frankly, it seemed to me like there was way too much going on without Rhett. All anybody cares about is whether or not Rhett and Scarlett get back together, and Scarlett took way too long to get to that. It is virtually nothing compared to Gone With The Wind, but then again what isn't? If you have read the novel, you will like that better than the movie.<br /><br />I would watch it, just because it is the sequel to Gone With The Wind, regardless of whether or not it's worthwhile. It may not satisfy you entirely, but it will get you some of the way there. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_4099 | pending | 56576d56-0a17-4ed5-8781-554e7f475f6a | I've read the book 'Scarlett' and was expecting a good movie the first time I saw it. I'm afraid to say that I was disappointed. The movie did not follow the book and made many changes that I did not like. <br /><br />One of the changes that I did not like the way that Lord Fenton was portrayed. It made no sense to make him out to be a bad man. The way that things ended between Lord Fenton and Scarlett was a lot different and their whole relationship was too intimate. <br /><br />There was also a lot less confrontation between Scarlett and Rhett in the movie than was originally written in the book. The movie sent the two in two completely opposite ways and they did not seem to cross paths often enough to make it seem like there still could be love between the two. A fine movie, but I believe that it certainly could've been better than it was, had it more true to Alexandra Rippley's book. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.