input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This was the worst movie I saw at WorldFest and it also received the least amount of applause afterwards! I can only think it is receiving such recognition based on the amount of known actors in the film. It's great to see J.Beals but she's only in the movie for a few minutes. M.Parker is a much better actress than the part allowed for. The rest of the acting is hard to judge because the movie is so ridiculous and predictable. The main character is totally unsympathetic and therefore a bore to watch. There is no real emotional depth to the story. A movie revolving about an actor who can't get work doesn't feel very original to me. Nor does the development of the cop. It feels like one of many straight-to-video movies I saw back in the 90s ... And not even a good one in those standards.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's so many negative reviews about "Stay away, Joe" in here I just can't stay quiet any longer and let this injustice happen. Here's a side you haven't heard yet.<br /><br />Elvis Presley's movies are my guilty pleasure for a simple reason: they are perfect films for a pure relaxation because I don't have to think when I watch them. That means I don't have to worry about missing a complex plot because there never is a proper plot to start with. I can just kick off my shoes, grab a beer, sit back, switch off my brains and enjoy all the general wackiness and catchy easy-going rock n' roll tunes from the grooviest decade of them all.<br /><br />In my books "Stay away, Joe" definitely falls into the "so bad it's good"-category. Now if you're like me and appreciate "the trash value", this is the ultimate 1960's camp experience. It's so bad that it's almost surrealistic to watch and just when you think that it can't possibly get any worse it surprises you in the most imaginable ways. In the end you're so amazed by all the new levels of stupidity you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. In a nutshell: I love it because it's so damn amusing that there once was a generation that actually made films like this. I still give it 1 out of 10 though - once it hits the bottom 100 it will became an instant bad movie classic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In all of low budget history. this movie has to be one of the worst. True ther are some humorous sides to the movie, but in general it was just plain awful. I just can't understand what person could not out run a bunch of slugs. I mean they have to be one of the slowest creatures on the planet. The only part worth while in this movie is the close up of a slugs attempt to bite the finger of a man. This was rather amusing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was one of the worst Wrestlemania's I've seen. It just didn't stand out at all, really. Card wise, I thought it was going to be pretty good, but every match just seemed to fall short.<br /><br />Chris Benoit vs. MVP One of the better matches. Benoit carried it. I just didn't think MVP was that great, but Benoit saved this match. <br /><br />Kane vs. Khali Wow, these two guys don't mix. Or maybe it's Khali and any other person alive don't mix. Awful match.<br /><br />Melina vs. Ashley I'm not a fan of female wrestling.<br /><br />ECW Originals vs. New Breed I was excited about this match, until I saw it. Really, Really disappointing.<br /><br />Edge vs. CM Punk vs. King Booker vs. Jeff Hardy vs. Matt Hardy vs. Mr. Kennedy vs. Finlay vs. Randy Orton Absolutely the worst MITB match so far. Just a major let down, to many people in the ring at the same time. It just didn't live up.<br /><br />Bobby Lashley vs. Umaga O.K. not extremely impressive, but not the worst of the night.<br /><br />Batista vs. Undertaker This was maybe the best match of the night. Very, very, very nice to see something good for a change. <br /><br />John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels I really feel like this match deserved to be last. People make a case for Batista vs. Undertaker, but this match was just as good. I am starting to get sick of seeing Cena win every match though. It's getting a little old. Now, I have to say, I feel this match is the best of the night, but I'm a huge Shawn Michaels fan, so I'm a little biased. Batista vs. 'Taker may have been better, but I'm biased, so...sorry. The last two were undoubtedly the best matches of the night and most everything else really came up short.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film! <br /><br />Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!) <br /><br />Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that. <br /><br />It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, "before God, there was music" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, "Before time, there was Tia Maria"? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds "You don't know that".<br /><br />In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I absolutely fail to see what is funny in this film. The humor seems to be destined for corpses. It's slow. The story is too simple to be true. The characters do not raise much sympathy, a few non-important characters aside. Nothing surprising happens. What did the writers of this script think? "Oooo funny! Let's make some old lady's high on pot! Let's make them.... giggle! Let's make them... behave like little children!! Oooo, yes, that's absolutely brilliant and original!"<br /><br />This film has irritated me most from all the films I've seen in the last five years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.<br /><br />Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights up)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my. I decided to go out to the cinemas with some friends, wanting to watch one of those mild, feel-good Christmas movies, and I walk out disgusted. The movie failed. Full-stop. Paul Giamatti who I consider as a good actor played his character and roll just horribly, along with Vince Vaughn who has always been a personal favourite of mine. They try and turn a Christmas movie, into some new-style. Sort of bad, mixed with good, but it all turned out very wrong. The first ten or so minutes weren't too bad, but once we saw Santa, it was over. It didn't get any better, the rate stayed the same, there was NO character development, and certainly is one of the worst Christmas movies ever invented. Don't watch it, whatever you do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please humour me if you will, for a minute while I read you the back of the ALLEY CAT VHS box. It says that:<br /><br />In this part of the city every street is a dead end- on every corner something to buy- in every alley another way to die- To survive you're got to be the best- just like the Alley Cat. Alley Cat- this lady owns the night. On the streets where even the predators become victims she knows how to survive- Cross her and you've run out of luck. Alley Cat- This animal is aroused.<br /><br />Now isn't that one of the most pathetic blurbs you've ever heard in your life? Whoever wrote that must be insane if they thought such a awful description could tempt us into viewing the video. Yet unfortunately, whichever faceless individual was responsible for that tragic use of English was doing their job only too well.. the movie contained within the little plastic case IS as bad as it sounds, and then some.<br /><br />Karin Mani plays the title role, and the script basically tells her during every given scene to either a) Pout like a goldfish b) Kick male butt or c) Show off her feminine 'attributes'. No complaints about the latter, but in terms of the other two.. let's just say she isn't much of an actress, and is even less convincing as a martial arts expert. But even Meryl Streep with Cynthia Rothrock's body (what a scary thought) would fail to save this movie. The unfolding of the plot is boring beyond belief, as we get one ineptly directed fight sequence after enough, pausing only for hysterical courtroom shenanigans and the occasional gag-inducing love scene with the interestingly named Robert Torti. The camera-work also follows a similar path of shame, with far too many unneeded close-ups and continuity errors abound.<br /><br />The part that I think really sums this scum-bucket of a movie up is where our heroine is sexually assaulted, and finds herself testifying in front of a corrupt judge while her rich-kid rapist leers at her from the box. Not only does he get off scot-free despite the overwhelming evidence against him, but she herself is then jailed for daring to protest about the verdict in front of his Honour. Behind bars, she then has a group shower, a lesbian crush, a couple of cat-fights and a nice, sweaty game of volleyball before being released on bail to continue her battle. This ten-minute section has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, and the screenplay grinds to a halt to encompass it. I can only imagine the producers wanted to add a bit more T&A to the mix, and came up with this needless sub-plot as a means to achieving that end.<br /><br />Which kinds of begs the question, is this an exploitation film, or a serious drama? Neither, is my response to that.. it isn't sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fans of Troma-style cinema, and it certainly doesn't make the grade as an exploration of one woman's fight against the system.. purely because it is so appallingly made. So who on earth would want to see it? Lunatics, I guess.. or IMDb reviewers who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while trying to get to sleep. Sadly on this occasional I failed, and the horrors will stay with me for quite some time. Don't make the same mistake I did. Have a hot milk, or something.. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.<br /><br />Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.<br /><br />The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.<br /><br />Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
bad acting, bad southern accents, inconsistent cinematography, horrible script...<br /><br />I was looking forward to this film at a recent film festival and was so discouraged after seeing it. It contains quote/unquote name talent, but they do not deliver. Of course the basis for this is the uneven and uninteresting story that is told.<br /><br />don't bother
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is an insult to ALL submariners. It was stupid. It appeared to have been written by monkeys. The acting was absurd. If this is the view most people have of the Navy, then I weep for our defense. This movie was awful. I put it below "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as far as submarine movies go. Gene Hackman must have really needed rent money to do this crap. Denzel Washington must have been high. Little in the plot makes any sense. And the ending. For a mutineer to be rewarded for his crime? Only Hollywood would think of this garbage. If you haven't figured it out yet, I didn't like it. And if it wasn't for all the pro comments, I would not have bothered to post.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1975's MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE is an amazing and wonderful film to watch. This isn't because the fighting is particularly inspired or because the film makes any sense at all. It's because the film is so silly and so over-the-top that it is a camp classic--bad, but enjoyably bad. The film stars a blind guy who has a Frisbee-like device on a chain that chops off people's heads as he expertly throws this at his foes! Who cares that the physics are impossible or that the film features such silly things as fighters with 12 foot long papier-mache arms or that the guy was blind! It's just a ball to watch from start to finish--and one of my favorite "bad" films and great to see with friends.<br /><br />Because of this film, I was eager to see THE FATAL FLYING GUILLOTINES (1977), though sadly it turned out NOT to be a sequel but a bit of a knock-off--taking many of the ideas from the original but neglecting to make the film as coherent or watchable. Sure, it's silly fun, but it never comes close to MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE in entertainment value. Like the original film, there are these weird flying devices that sever heads, but they are quite different--with circular saw blades and almost a mind of their own. There also is no blind guy but instead are a bunch of baddies who really have no depth nor does the audience understand exactly what's occurring in this English-dubbed version, as the plot is completely incomprehensible. However, at the same time, some of the martial arts action is very good. While not up to the high standards of most Bruce Lee or Sonny Chiba films, the action is worthwhile despite the ludicrous and often confusing plot.<br /><br />Overall, this is a film that martial arts fans may like (despite its many, many, many, many shortcomings), but also one that others will probably turn off or laugh hysterically at instead of enjoying the action because the film is just so ludicrous. BUT, most importantly, it never comes close to being as funny or watchable as MASTER OF THE FLYING GUILLOTINE. Too bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Claire Denis's movies seem to fall into one of two categories: the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. "L'Intrus" definitely falls into the first category, but it's not so awful as "Trouble Every Day" or "J'ai pas sommeil."<br /><br />Now, ever since I saw "Chocolat," I've made it a point to see every new movie Denis makes. And I have always been disappointed. "L'Intrus" was no exception. She has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. <br /><br />You get a lot of the Denis regulars: an older but still magnificent Béatrice Dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips, the gap between her teeth, her ample cleavage, and a couple of nice coats; the black guy from "Trouble Every Day" and "J'ai pas sommeil," Grégoire Colin, and that Lithuanian or Russian girl. Michel Subor's character was interesting enough, but the camera lingered on him at such length that I got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when, somewhere in Korea, I think, he finally got it cut. <br /><br />There was certainly some action--gruesome murders, a man's search for a son--and there may even have been a plot, but one viewing wasn't enough to figure it out, and two viewings are, I fear, out of the question. For one thing, the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in "Beau Travail"). For another, the seasons changed too abruptly, leaving you even more confused about what was going on. Oh, there were a few pretty shots, and if you liked "Friday Evening" with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets, you might appreciate the aesthetics of "L'Intrus." Otherwise, steer clear. <br /><br />I saw this movie in French and it's possible I missed something crucial. But the dialogue in a Denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages, double spaced and with ample margins. In "Chocolat" the silence is sublime; in "L'Intrus," it's just dull.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. So right away you're guessing who will live and who will die. The survivors end up being exactly who you'd expect them to be, so no points for plot twists there.<br /><br />And if you're not sure if this is a B-movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story, William Devane plays a part: instant B-movie status.<br /><br />The movie is promising in the beginning. At the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. Oooh, foreboding. The best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. Great special effects. Same thing when they make Bacon invisible.<br /><br />There are a couple of bare breasts, a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an R-rating that it really didn't need.<br /><br />For a thriller there weren't really any surprises, except when Shue makes like MacGyver in the freezer, which is more of a 'Whaaaa?' OK, there is one surprise. That's when Caine (Bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. It was a surprise but only because you're yelling at TV, 'Noooo! You're dead already! End the movie!' Speaking of yelling at the TV,that's all I did for the last 25 minutes or so. 'Put on your f#@%ing goggles!' Instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him, they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems...).<br /><br />The story really lost it at the end. But the special effects were good; that's the only reason I give it a 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This reworking of Anthony Shaffer's classic play did not last long in cinemas. Having recently suffered through it on cable, I still congratulate myself for not wasting money on a ticket. Director Kenneth Branagh, writer Harold Pinter, and star/producer Jude Law deluded themselves that their prestige alone could sustain this travesty through an interminable 93 minutes, without the fun or class of the longer original.<br /><br />Michael Caine enhanced his reputation playing the second lead in the marvelous 1972 film. He now seems intent on destroying it by attempting the lead, played in that version by Laurence Olivier. (Both were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, but lost to Marlon Brando in THE GODFATHER.) Looking puffy and washed-out, Caine glides through the part with less depth than he displays as Batman's butler. He had already lowered himself to a guest appearance in the atrocious remake of GET CARTER. What's next -- ALFIE II, or SON OF THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING? <br /><br />But then, no one benefits from this inane adaptation by Pinter, who thinks that frequent cursing and an added sexual angle can compensate for the absence of Shaffer's witty character interplay. Branagh's direction relies on bluish lighting and a soulless set design that wouldn't hold up in a second-rate nightclub. Neither the shadows nor the tight, overacted close-ups can help Law overcome his dull screen persona. The result is a failure both as straight drama and as detective thriller, almost making you forget the purpose behind the title.<br /><br />Fans of the original stage production (with Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter) and the Olivier/Caine film would do well to regard this enterprise as a bad dream. The late Mr Shaffer, who wrote the 1972 screenplay, as well as Hitchcock's FRENZY and several Agatha Christie adaptations, must be turning in his grave, wishing he could plan a real murder or two!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The opening scenes move as fluidly as frozen velveeta. The attempt at dramatic dialogue only makes me wish I had better control of the fast forward control. Vampires are usually portrayed as sexy and intelligent or mangy disgusting creatures. This vampire tries to seduce his prey by imitating a lost puppy. I usually tally a body count, so there was a cat (which doesn't count) a bum, a girl who fell out of the sky with a sword in her (whatever that was about) and then the plot. Foley artists are respected for using celery to create the sound of a broken arm, but using the sound of biting into an apple for a vampire biting a victim is just plain silly. I liked Warlock, but this movie just stunk so bad that we turned it off, and it was so forgettable we rented it a year later only to turn it off again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hated this movie. It was absolutely horrible, poor,poor, PITIFUL acting, REAL REAL REAL stupid criminals that weren't even the LEAST BIT funny(unlike the first 2 home alone movies that were very good). all the boobie traps are weak, pathetic excuses for ideas poorly copied of of the first two which just meant that the people writing this movie were just lazy because their paycheck didn't go above 20 bucks a week. This movie is absolutely lousy, it's not worth even renting. In fact don't even watch it on t.v.! Go use your eyes in a more useful way by seeing the first two! I BARELY give this 1 star(out of 10). Just trust me when I say, if you liked the first two, and you are not a complete stupid person, you will not like this movie,do not watch this movie!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a watchable movie, but plot was a little weak and most of the jokes were from some of Rodney's earlier movies. With that said, it was worth the time to watch. I gave this a 5 out of 10. So basically, its one of those movies that you do not go out of your way to see, but if you find it on the tube, take a chance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In spite of its impressive cast and crew pedigree Gingerbread Man crumbles early and often. The plot is unrealistically convoluted, the actors sport bad accents and director Robert Altman's participation amounts to collecting a pay check. Once again he has assembled an impressive cast (Like Woody Allen, everyone wants to work with Altman)that this time around to the letter is miscast. But that's only part of the problem.<br /><br />Kenneth Branagh is Rick Magruder a high powered Georgia lawyer who in the film's heavy handed opening scenes manages to get himself preposterously seduced by a mysterious catering company waitress who convinces him she is in grave danger from an ex-husband and a loony dad. With red flags everywhere the astute lawyer plods on even managing to get his children in harms way. Fights of gun and fist follow along with a requisite car chase and if that's not enough there's a hurricane thrown in for the ridiculous finale.<br /><br />Branagh plays MacGruder with a mealy and unconvincing Southern accent. Running around in a trench coat in all kinds of weather he's blind to the obvious in order to keep the story going. Hipster Bob Downey Jr. is every bit as bad as a P.I. but with a little more emphasis on the bad accent. Robert Duvall as the old man is Boo Radely all growed up en crazier than a bed bug serving some thick slices of ham but at least his twang is plausible. The female leads (Embeth Davidtz, Darryl Hannah, Famkhee Jansen)are lean leggy and unemotive. Even the celebrity lawyers doing cameos (Vernon Jordan) are wooden with the few throw away lines they have.<br /><br />In addition to paying little attention to his actors, Altman's mise en scene dripping with Spanish moss is murky and shapeless, his action scenes comic book. It lacks his offbeat touches and observations (he does inform the viewer that the Stars and Bars still wave in Georgia)that make a well done Altman so unique. Unfortunately, Gingerbread Man is Altman at his worst, even if the pay is the same.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I notice that most of the people who think this film speaks the truth were either not born before the moon landings (1969-1972), or not old enough to appreciate them. I think it is much easier to question an historic event if you did not live through it.<br /><br />I was a youngster at the time of Apollo, but I was old enough to understand what was going on. The entire world followed the moon landings. Our families gathered around the TV to watch the launch. Newspaper headlines screamed the latest goings-on each day, from launch to landing, from moonwalks to moon liftoff, all the way to splashdown, in a multitude of languages. In school, some classes were cancelled so we could watch the main events on TV. During Apollo 13 the world prayed and held its collective breath as the men limped home to an uncertain fate. You couldn't go anywhere without someone asking what the latest was. The world was truly one community. <br /><br />Now with a buffer of 30-odd years after the fact, it is easy to claim fraud because worldwide enthusiasm and interest has died down. We are left with our history books, and anybody can claim that history is wrong and attempt to "prove" it with a bunch of lies and made-up facts while completely ignoring the preponderance of evidence showing otherwise--not to mention the proof that dwells in the souls and memories of those who lived through these wonderfully heady and fantastic days.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...Ok I have read about this film somewhere in the internet, and many criticized on how bad and sucks this film was. And I couldn't have been more agree about it. Then after that I saw this film on DVD, I was thinking twice about this and then came commercial of this film on TV. Luckily I spared my money for this pieces of crap. I was sacrificed my sleeps for this film and soon it turned out that this film couldn't make me satisfy. So I can't be judging on how the film was made, but anyway... it still sucks. As for those who liked this film, I would apologize for flaming this film and telling on how sucks this film is. I don't know what do YOU think about this film?
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you hate redneck accents, you'll hate this movie. And to make it worse, you see Patrick Swayze, a has been trying to be a redneck. I really can't stand redneck accents. I like Billy Bob Thornton, he was good in Slingblade, but he was annoying in this movie. And what kind of name is Lonnie Earl? How much more hickish can this movie get? The storyline was stupid. I'm usually not this judgemental of movies, but I couldn't stand this movie. If you want a good Billy Bob Thornton movie, go see Slingblade.<br /><br />My mom found this movie for $5.95 at Wal Mart...figures...I think I'll wrap it up and give it to my Grandma for Christmas. It could just be that I can't stand redneck accents usually, or that I can't stand Patrick Swayze. Maybe if Patrick Swayze wasn't in it. I didn't laugh once in the movie. I laugh at anything stupid usually. If they had shown someones fingers getting smashed, I might have laughed. people's fingers getting smashed by accident always makes me laugh.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just don't bother. I thought I would see a movie with great supspense and action.<br /><br />But it grows boring and terribly predictable after the interesting start. In the middle of the film you have a little social drama and all tension is lost because it slows down the speed. Towards the end the it gets better but not really great. I think the director took this movie just too serious. In such a kind of a movie even if u don't care about the plot at least you want some nice action. I nearly dozed off in the middle/main part of it. Rating 3/10.<br /><br />derboiler.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is surely one of the worst films ever made. Each scene is painful. You will groan at the flimsy attempts at humor, the awkward camera work, the sexism and racism, the ridiculous story line, the wooden acting. Poor Joan Bennett; she is the only one in the movie who is not an embarrassment. In all, dreadful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Plot is not worth discussion even if it hints at corruption, murder, power and the rest of thriller related topics. Characters are interesting though sometimes. Not realistic but interesting nevertheless.<br /><br />Development is slow like tea drinking ceremony. Visuals not stunning, but good enough to ease the eye strain. Good movie to watch after dinner before going to bed - nothing shocking too much, nothing overexciting. Movie sitcom style.<br /><br />I liked Woody - excellent performance. Had to fight the plot inadequacy and did the job pretty good. The rest are bearable though very predictable. The whole is watchable and better than most TV shows.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*****Warning: May contain SPOILERS********* My HUGE problem with this movie is how totally self-centered and self consumed the adulteress wife is!! After having a one night stand with a slimy psycho she is being stalked by him. He calls her constantly and threatens her and even sends a video of their night together. He is OBVIOUSLY crazy and very dangerous. The problem is she only thinks he is dangerous to HER (and exposing her secret). Not for one second did she ever have one thought of concern for her husband! Did she even for a moment think of him possibly being in danger from this psychotic?? As soon as she realized how mental he was she should have warned her husband no matter what the consequences. Maybe there wouldn't have been a movie then but there really wasn't one anyway so what's the difference.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In 1972, after his wife left to go her own way, Elvis Presley began dating Linda Thompson. Miss Thompson, a good-humored, long haired, lovely, statuesque beauty queen, is charted to fill a void in Elvis' life. When Elvis' divorce became final, Linda was already in place as the legendary performer's live-in girlfriend and travel companion until 1976.<br /><br />This is a gaudy look at their love affair and companionship. Linda whole-heartedly tending to her lover's needs and desires. And even putting up with his swallowing medications by the handful and introducing her to her own love affair with valium. At times this movie is harsh and dark of heart; a very unattractive look at the 'King' and his queen.<br /><br />Don Johnson is absolutely awful as Elvis. Over acting to the hilt is not attractive. Stephanie Zimbalist lacks the classiness of Linda, but does the job pretty well. Supporting cast includes: John Crawford, Ruta Lee, and Rick Lenz. Watching this twice is more than enough for me, but don't let this review stop you from checking it out. For most Elvis fans that I have conferred with, this is not a favored presentation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1 is being pretty generous here. I really enjoyed BOOGEYMAN, even though it is not really the BOOGEYMAN promoted on the DVD cover and we all know it! It creeped me out. But this film, it is something else. For being directed by a guy who has been around a long time and directed a lot of movies, it looks like it was shot on a VHS camcorder by a 10 year old! The story and acting are atrocious! David Hess, you have let me down too. After playing one of the most menacing villains in film history, you have resorted to this? The story and acting may have been able to be forgiven however, if anyone had taken the time to make the video look somewhat professional. There are a LOT of shot on video films out there that don't look like it, or at least aren't so obvious that it detracts your attention from the film. I can't say it is the worst movie ever, because I couldn't make it through the entire film, but it is certainly close.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Warning! Spoilers!<br /><br />This is your typical disney film.<br /><br />1.Policticly correct what with the foster home that has an even divison of races.<br /><br />2.Insults the viewers intellect with its simplistic lines.<br /><br />3.The boy's slezy father is almost directly taken from the Never Ending Story 2.<br /><br />4.In a world full of crime,disase,corruption,starvation and other proplems that need to be taken care of,only a losing team is worthy of divine intervention.UGHHHH!!!<br /><br />5.Did you know that angels don't like swearing?! Where the heck did that come from!<br /><br />6.In helping the team,the angel cause pain and humilation on the opposing team.Very angelic indeed!<br /><br />7.The team the angels are helping are called...can you guess...THE ANGELS! Disney at its worst!<br /><br />8."Just got his training wings." Brillent line!<br /><br />My conculsion:I did not like it at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.<br /><br />I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.<br /><br />There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).<br /><br />Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.<br /><br />As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I view probably 200 movies a year both at theaters and at home and I can say with confidence that this movie is by far the worst I have seen this year (If not ever, however I have not actually seen "Quest of the Delta Knights" yet). This movie is just bad joke after bad joke geared to the 13 year old and because I had he displeasure of viewing it on a bus trip I couldn't walk out.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip this one in the rental aisle. The four dollars could be better spent on any movie by numbers produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who will probably only be remembered as one of Bill Clinton's "bimbo eruptions" (they have pills for that now!) is probably the weakest element of this show. It really continues the tired formula of the Highlander Series- The hero immortal encounters another immortal with flashbacks about the last time they met, but there is some conflict, and there is a sword fight at the end where you have a cheap special effects sequence.<br /><br />Then you have the character of Nick Wolf. Basically, your typical unshaven 90's hero, with the typical "Sexual tension" storyline. (Seriously, why do you Hollywood types think sexual tension is more interesting than sex.) This was a joint Canadian/French production, so half the series takes place in Vancouver imitating New York, and the other half is in Paris... Just like Highlander did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not to be confused with the Madonna film "The Next Best Thing", "The Last Big Thing" is a silly, campy, off-the-wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called "The Next Big Thing" which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. This low budget indie makes "Chuck and Buck" look like a masterpiece. Fraught with lousy acting, poor sets and costuming, etc., "...Thing" has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. Pass on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Not that you should care. Also, sorry for the caps.)<br /><br />Starting with an unnecessarily dramatic voice that's all the more annoying for talking nonsense, it goes on with nonsense and unnecessary drama. That's badly but accurately put.<br /><br />We know space travel is a risky enterprise. There's a complicated system with a lot of potential for malfunctions, radiation, stress-related symptoms etc, and unexpected things are bound to happen in largely unknown environments. They knew stuff could go wrong. In fact, stuff had gone wrong. It's called learning. Granted, Appollo 11 wasn't safe by today's standards and there was immense political pressure, but the overall performance of the technology on the mission was impressive.<br /><br />Assorted mistakes/comments I hadn't even to look up:<br /><br />1) Nixon prepared a speech in case something went wrong. Well duh. That's what I would've done. It was the apex of a propaganda war, after all.<br /><br />2) NASA gives green light despite the fact that Appollo 11 will probably blow up. (This is "only" implicit, though.) Yeah, that's why they let people and press watch in almost-real-time.<br /><br />3) The capsule ejection wouldn't work. Like it didn't work the time a chimp was in it. The one that survived? It was a test launch and the rocket exploded, the capsule accelerated away and landed with a parachute. There's a video of it, you can probably find it on youtube or at least look it up somewhere.<br /><br />4) One interviewed guy says an explosion would have wiped out a fair part of Florida. I can only assume it was meant as a hyperbole, 'cause if not, I'm just aghast how he could get it so wrong.<br /><br />5) The technology then was primitive compared to today's standards. Actually, relatively primitive software and hardware is used even today, the reason being that it must not crash. It's even worse for spacecraft, because their computers must be built of comparably large components that aren't that susceptible to radiation. (And the craft itself must be pilotable manually anyway, so a complex steering system like the B2's wouldn't do.) What's with the fact that they were using "TV screens" rather than "computer screens"? It's the same damn technology. Actually TV monitors were and are produced with a significantly higher definition.<br /><br />6) "If that object wasn't part of the rocket, it could be only one thing." We see where this is going. Apart from the fact that the statement is wrong, who says it wasn't a rocket part? At least an interviewee clears up that if a thing is flying and you don't know what it is, it's by definition an Unidentified Flying Object.<br /><br />7) The voice-over as well as some misquotes make it seem as though the lander's radiation foil was actually its hull. Which would make it thinner than a space suit.<br /><br />8) Neil Armstrong's near death during a practice flight is footage I can appreciate; I hadn't seen it before. As I said, any piece of manifest technology can go wrong, especially if it's not been tested sufficiently on account of being, you know, unprecedented.<br /><br />9)The trajectory discrepancy of the descending lander (due to irregularities in the Moon's density) was at no time acutely life-threatening. Neither was the "fifteen seconds of fuel left", which was, in fact, "fifteen seconds of fuel left before having to abort the mission and returning to the command module".<br /><br />10) A "catastrophic chain of events" usually results in catastrophe. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. This, however, is a prime example of the rhetoric used.<br /><br />11) There's a short sequence of one of the astronauts walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid, followed by the voice-over telling us that the reason for this strange behavior "can now be revealed". Turns out, he was walking and hopping around aimlessly like a gleeful kid. Hilarious stuff.<br /><br />12) It's mentioned that during re-entry, all contact was lost. This is a perfectly natural phenomenon and it was as well known at the time as it's impossible to circumvent with contemporary technology. Again, the gravity of this is implicit, but very purposely so.<br /><br />13) There was never a shuttle lost in space itself, while the voice-over presents this "fact" as evidence that Appollo 11 was a pile of crap. Appollo 13 was a near-loss, but the two real disasters happened during liftoff and re-entry, respectively. In any case, comparing shuttles to Saturn rockets is somehow ... well, okay, just plain stupid. Even ignoring that, the successful shuttle missions seem to not have been deemed of interest to the audience.<br /><br />14) What the hell's up with the UFO? Even in the context of the movie, it makes no sense. Unless you assume it was made for entertainment purposes, aimed at a specific audience (which seems to include people with next to no understanding of either history, science, or rhetorics).<br /><br />Even the point of the movie is somewhat obscure. Catch-phrases like "covered up until now", "publically revealed here for the first time", come up, but the film doesn't place any blame or offer a lesson or anything, which could be expected of a film so emotionally done. In the good old tradition of sensationalism, there are numerous interview shots and recording fragments that are often out of context or with people that we know nothing about except "NASA scientist". Wow, so the astronauts were very nervous before the endeavor? Fancy that. What does this have to do with the point of the movie again? Oh yeah, which point.<br /><br />In summary, in addition to being either willfully or incompetently inaccurate, it's not even good entertainment. And believe me, I'm a guy who enjoys his crappy documentaries; this film isn't funny, witty, quaint, it's nothing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Memoirs of a Geisha" is a visually stunning melodrama that seems more like a camp, drag queen satire than anything to do with real people.<br /><br />The first half of the film defensively keeps insisting that geishas are neither prostitutes nor concubines, that they are the embodiment of traditional Japanese beauty. But other than one breathtaking dance, the rest of the movie degenerates into "Pretty Baby" in Storyville territory, or at least Vashti and Esther in the Purim story, as all the women's efforts at art and artifice are about entertaining much, much older, drunken boorish men. Maybe it is Japanese culture that is being prostituted, and not just to the American louts after World War II.<br /><br />Perhaps it's the strain of speaking in English, but Ziyi Zhang shows barely little of the great flare she demonstrated in "House of Flying Daggers (Shi mian mai fu)" and "Hero (Ying xiong)." Michelle Yeoh occasionally gets to project a glimmer of her assured performance in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Wo hu cang long)." Only Li Gong shows any real life. Otherwise, I kept picturing Charles Ludlam in various roles, or even Cillian Murphy, as in kabuki theater, particularly as the plot dragged down in cat fight after cat fight.<br /><br />The supposed love story has zero chemistry, mostly due to the age differences, and I mostly felt sorry for Ken Watanabe and hoped his Hollywood pay check compensated for his loss of dignity as the mysterious "Chairman." I remember more emotion in "Portrait of Jennie" as the young girl is anxious to grow up into Jennifer Jones to please Joseph Cotton.<br /><br />We see brief glimpses of reality when the geishas pose with regular women as photographic attractions, and as an ageless Ziyi Zhang lives out the war years in a very colorful kimono dying operation. The finale has little sense of normality.<br /><br />The score includes many chopped up traditional melodies, with cello by Yo Yo Ma and violin by Yitzhack Pearlman instead of traditional instrumentation, that are beautiful to listen to in accompaniment to the lovely cinematography, as long as one completely ignores the plot and stiff acting.<br /><br />As my mind wandered, I wondered how the great Japanese directors of samurai movies would have dealt with this story, which probably would have been more formal, but a lot more emotional.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Manmohan Desai made some entertaining though illogical films like AAA, PARVARISH and NASEEB but he made some craps like COOLIE and MARD and then GJS<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst movies ever made by him the dial became famous Mard ko dard nahin hota but the film is so bad you cringe<br /><br />The British are made carricatures and the film looks so weird The scene in the British hotel is damn stupid <br /><br />The film has many stupidities like Amrita assaulting Amitabh and then the entire scene plus towards the climax the film becomes even worse There are more gems like the horse statue getting life, The masks of Amitabh haha and more<br /><br />Direction by Manmohan Desai is bad Music is okay<br /><br />Amitabh does his part with style, nothing different from COOLIE, LAAWARIS type roles Amrita Singh is okay Satyen Kapuu is okay Prem Chopra is as usual, Nirupa Roy is again her usual self Dara Singh is also as usual
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was bizarre, completely inexplicable, and hysterical to watch with friends while drinking in a big empty house. I really love the opening stuff with Lisa wandering about lost in a gorgeous city. I want to be a beautiful stranger lost in some exotic European locale, though maybe not in a low budget horror flick. Definitely get the ending where there are the strangely non-sexual sex scenes that were cut out (in my DVD copy anyway). Don't attempt to understand it, just go along and watch out for the weird bits...which is everything. Don't watch this if you actually want plot or characterization or anything at all to make sense. Pretty beautiful, though you may just give up on this and decide to watch an actual horror movie, like say, Dead Alive.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.<br /><br />I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review... <br /><br />There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club. <br /><br />Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).<br /><br />I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched the first 15 minutes, thinking it was a real documentary (with an irritatingly overly dramatic "on camera" producer).<br /><br />When I realized it was all staged I thought "why would I want to waste my time watching this junk??" So I turned it off and came online to warn other people. The characters don't act in a believable way. too much immature emotion. for a guy to travel half way around the world into a war torn country, he acted like a kid. and I don't believe it was because "his character was so upset about the trade center bombings".<br /><br />very trite and stupid.<br /><br />have you seen "city of lost children"? french dark fantasy film about a guy who kidnaps kids and steals their dreams... I liked it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula
|
Negative
| null | null |
To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered "social commentary." But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.<br /><br />Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.<br /><br />I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.<br /><br />My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).<br /><br />The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay I saw the sneak preview of this stupid movie. First off the movie is so posed and not real, they are all acting. They can't sing. They are way too full of themselves. Its awful. Yes kids like 8 to 10 might enjoy but its really stupid. I mean they say their manager is a kid. And there record label is fake. Its stupid. Don't see it.<br /><br />As for the set up and directing, not so bad. It is a cute documentary but it documents a stupid thing. <br /><br />Only see this if you don't really like good music. Also, it's very corny. It's not even tasteful. I hate to be so mean...but this really is a piece of junk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe how awful this movie turned out to be. I feel magnanimous even referring to it as a "movie". The acting was flat, the editing was terrible and the plot leaves many major questions unanswered. The premise was OK, if unoriginal: a small group of aliens is living in the US and trying to slowly take over humanity. But it goes rapidly downhill from there. How could they convince a "human" to accept an alien as his wife in order to make they alien-human hybrid they require? They show a larval alien but never show what it does. They have a plastic surgeon that can produce perfect looking skin on an industrial scale. They throw in the obligatory huge alien monster with teeth. The ending was almost too painful to watch. I suppose that I'm mostly disappointed that Bruce Boxlietner would have anything to do with this. How could he say to the huge alien monster with teeth, "Get away from him you son of a b*tch" with a straight face? It's a long fall from his Babylon 5 days. Avoid this at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now, I'm one to watch movies that got poor reviews, and say, "Hmm... this isn't so bad!" I loved The Cable Guy, and thought that My Big Fat Independent Movie was great. Keep in mind, I really didn't start watching this with high hopes, but I figured that maybe... just maybe... it would be bad in a kind of way I could laugh at it. I was wrong. At no point at all during my suffering through this "film" (And I use that term sparingly) was I even close to being mildly entertained. To start, Shaq makes Quentin Tarantino look like Marlon Brando when it comes to acting. I hate rap music, but as far as I could tell, an Amish priest would probably make a better rapper than him. The main character is simply annoying, and not a character that it's easy to like. Quite frankly, I would rather eat a greasy turd out of a Harlequin fetus' bloody sores than watch this again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was so bad I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I had high hopes for Horrorfest that year, which was also the first year I attended Horrorfest, and I have to say Horrorfest and all of its films take false advertising to a whole new level. Mad kudos to the advertisers because I'm sure they tricked a lot of people into spending money and seeing those movies that year. The Hamiltons was easily the worst one of the ones I've seen (the other ones I saw were Unrest, Dark Ride, and Reincarnation). The movie cover and trailer made it seem like a family of cannibals terrorizing the neighborhood which I thought was a rather interesting plot, only to be disappointed at the end discovering that it was some 'coming of age' tale about a boy's transition into being a vampire. Which is why drama prevails over any sense of horror in this film. And to make the plot even more ridiculous, they add in a set of horny twins who can't wait to take a 'bite' out of one another, and some deadly creature locked in the basement, which if I had discovered what 'it' was had the secret not been revealed at the very end of the film, I would have left the theater halfway into the movie.<br /><br />Complete waste of money and time. Cut forty minutes out of this film, and make it into an episode on some show like Smallville or Charmed or Supernatural and it would have received more praise than this. Absolute rubbish! So bad that two years later, I have to come back to IMDb and write a review about it because it still stands out in my memory as one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Also, while you're reading this, steer clear from the rest of the Horrorfest movies in the future. The most you could do is rent them from Blockbusters or watch it online somewhere. Horrorfest features movies from independent filmmakers who can't make it onto the big screen, and all the crap about 'stuff they don't show you in theaters', they weren't referring to blood or guts, or horror...they were referring to the movies themselves. Because they're horrendous. Think of Horrorfest as a less renowned version of Sundance Film Festival, but for horror movies.<br /><br />Sorry for all the 'hate', but next time think twice before you cheat costumers out of their money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow. That's about as much as I can say right now. Who writes this stuff? Who produces this stuff? What self-respecting actor would agree to 'act' in this stuff? Oh my GOD! I don't know how I made it through this movie, but I assume the fact that I had had like 8 cups of coffee that day was the key element in keeping me awake. Good Lord! It was one of the most droned-out and predictable pieces of cinematography I have ever witnessed...and for the record, I don't EVER plan to 'witness' it again.<br /><br />I first saw the film when I bought the DVD (MISTAKE #1). I mean...I figured, hey! Julia Stiles. I like her. She's cool. I'll watch it as soon as I get home (MISTAKE #2). I tried to watch it without groaning every five minutes wondering when this bunch of crap would come to an end, really I did. But I was unsuccessful. It was one of the worst things I had ever seen. I mean...what is with that thing where he imagines what would happen then snaps back into real life? That was annoying enough when the father used to do that in 'Parenthood' like ten years ago. The 'jokes' - and BELIEVE me, it takes a LOT out of me to call them that - are stupid, the characters are trite and forgettable, the storyline is entirely predictable...altogether this makes for a movie that should be WIPED FROM HISTORY RECORDS! I should have figured something was wrong when I realized that I'd never heard of this movie. It was most likely a straight-to-DVD.<br /><br />To anybody who may be thinking of watching this, I have one piece of advice. DON'T! For the LOVE of God...DON'T!!! I'm ashamed to have it in my DVD collection, and I can't get rid of it...Nobody, and I mean NOBODY wants to buy it from me! And I'm talking second-hand and third-hand thrift shops that would buy the mud off your shoes and stick it in the store window. That should let you know just how CRAP it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There isn't more I can say that saying this film was awful. The whole Chineseness is awakened in your being because of the ancestors was a hard sell. But telling the audience that every Chinese knows Chinese history without even studying it just laughable. That is like saying every American knows American history without studying or every Filipino, etc, etc. It just isn't believable.<br /><br />The story is flat out hideous. It talked about Shin being from a Monastery in China - later identifying it from Bejing. However, the early sequences of the film show the map focusing in on Mongolia. I know the current Chinese regime wants to claim areas like Mongolia for its own, granted. But its a distinct nation and it even labels "Mongolia" on the map. Did Disney Studios fail 5th Grade Geography? <br /><br />The relationship between Wendy and Shin is superficial at best, and yet she somehow feels connected to him. Her training is just cheesy as well. And, lets cut to the chase: everything about this film is bad. Its bad enough to laugh at and cry over. The Taekwondo action was over played and unrealistic in many instances.<br /><br />The evil eyes thing was cheesy. However, the left out ending would have been the only descent thing about it. They should have left the evil eyes ending in it. But instead somehow evil is defeated. Yey! <br /><br />Overall,not worth the time of the dog in the film. Brenda Song should get on with another studio. "F"
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie has a very hard-to-swallow premise, even by this genre's standards. We are asked to accept not only that a record played backwards can bring a dead man back to life, but that the record also contains hidden messages aimed SPECIFICALLY at one kid, when the singer had no connection to the boy when he was alive, and of course no way of knowing at whose hands the record would end up. Anyway, the film is fun for a while, but eventually the silliness and the pointlessness reign supreme. If they were really trying to create a new Freddy-like horror icon, they were way off: the villain here has no personality, no motivation, and no variety. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What more can I say? The acting was, almost without exception, amateurish. The directing and continuity were pitiful. The sceenplay was predictable down to the very last scene and the dialog tedious. One of the features on the DVD was labeled "Gag Reel" but that could have been a description of a viewer's reaction to most of the movie.<br /><br />One of the most amusing things was in the director's comments on the DVD. He said, with a straight face, that he had set out to make a movie with high production values and a name cast - and that he had succeeded. With delusions like that it's easy to understand how the movie turned out as it did.<br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect was the monster. The darkwolf suit was a modified ape suit (per the 'making of' feature on the DVD) and rather looked it. The mask and claws were little better than off the shelf jobs from any costume store. The cgi effects were painfully obvious and of quality similar to an inexpensive video game.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The shame of it! There I was, comfortable in the arm chair with a beer and a bag of popcorn, bouyant in the hope of another splendid Muppet night of entertainment. What did I get? Disappointed! How can the Muppets go from the sublime Christmas Carol to this? The humour was dreadful, the songs were worse than Country and Western (and that's saying something) and the plot was as confused and poor as Blind Pew. I think the main problem was that they bit off too much in attempting Treasure Island. A short tale, such as Christmas Carol, is perfect because you can weave the Muppet high jinks around it....here the need to drag the plot along stopped all the fun. Where do the Muppets go next? How about Muppets Wizard of Oz?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is this film a joke? Is it a comedy? Surely it isn't a serious thriller? There is no suggestion that there is any intended humor, but on quite a few occasions the poor acting, poor directing, and appalling script had the audience laughing out loud in the cinema. The plot is acceptable - a promising young artist just reaching his peak shot dead by an assassin he walks in on by mistake. The killer sees the young artists work portfolio he is carrying and decides to attend an exhibition of his work. At the exhibition the assassin meets the dead artists sister and they end up falling in love. It is all very predictable stuff and the end will not have anyone guessing as it is so poorly scripted. The film takes place mainly in and around Vienna, Austria, and shows what a beautiful city it is. Do not waste your time on this film though, unless you are studying how NOT to act, direct or script a film!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why, oh, why won't they learn? When you've got a nice, juicy exploitation gimmick, use it! Don't go messing around trying to get all deep and thoughtful; you're only gonna wind up looking foolish.<br /><br />Christmas Evil is the story of Harry Stadling, who saw a little bit too much of Mommy kissing (Daddy-dressed-as-)Santa Claus back when he was a kid. So, of course, Harry grows up obsessed with Christmas, and finally, when his disillusionment becomes too great, he flips out, dresses as Santa, and wanders the city giving out toys to good little children, and viciously killing anyone he deems naughty.<br /><br />Simple enough, and not a bad place to start. (After all, how many other holiday-themed horror flicks use the same schtick?) Unfortunately, this film wants to be more "Santa, Portrait of a Serial Killer" than "Silent Night, Deadly Night". Two-thirds of the film are spent documenting Harry's slow but inevitable breakdown, when I would have been willing to buy the premise by the time the opening titles were rolling. You know a slasher film is in trouble when you find yourself urging the killer to just get on with it already.<br /><br />Perhaps Harry's descent into madness could have been compelling in the hands of a competent director, but alas, we've got some guy named Lewis Jackson. Apparently, this is his only film, and it shows. The action jumps giddily from scene to scene, without establishing shots or clear views of the actors to let us know where we are and who we are seeing.<br /><br />Even once the film gets rolling, we're still treated to heaping helpings of Harry's self-pity, insecurity, and neurotic behavior. More depressing than frightening, Christmas Evil is one to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah. <br /><br />Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap. <br /><br />Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.<br /><br />It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.<br /><br />But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!<br /><br />More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:<br /><br />1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? <br /><br />2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is "SOOOO in love with Lisa," I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.<br /><br />3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?<br /><br />I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.<br /><br />HOWEVER.<br /><br />This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess
<br /><br />Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was a complete waste of time.<br /><br />I viewed this movie with a group of cinematic enthusiasts, who have varied taste in movies yet always a keen eye for a work of "genius" (as one of my fellow commenters on this site had the gall to label this steaming pile
); not one of them found a single redeeming quality. We ended the movie with a rousing chorus of expletives I will not reprint here.<br /><br />I can only guess that the positive reviews provided here were written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, himself. Afterall, as one of those reviewers will tell you, he financed the film himself because no one else in Hollywood or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, would risk a single penny or their good name in association with this film. Don't let the semi-famous actors who appear in the film lure you into its clutches as Christian Slater admits in the special features "making of" he signed on to the film without reading the script or knowing any details (a folly I am sure he will never repeat).<br /><br />I pity the hapless individual who stumbles into this quagmire of self-indulgence written, directed, produced, and financed by a man who is too famous to admit to himself that not everything he creates is a masterpiece (and if you don't believe me please google "Anthony Hopkins" AND art).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slasher films are often seen as the derivative, repetitive and frankly unoriginal. I happen to to be a horror movie fan, but this film was just so poor, words fail me. The script is severely lacking, the plot is ridiculous, the acting astoundingly bad. Just an all round stinker, that I wasted time of my life on. This had all the entertainment value of a 15th sequel to a film that was dire in the first place. <br /><br />Who greenlit this mess?<br /><br />I only liked two things in this movie. The first was the killer's mask - which was nice. The second was the Austrailian affinity with humourous profanity.<br /><br />Save yourself, and avoid this hideous mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rating: 4 out of 10<br /><br />As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.<br /><br />As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.<br /><br />Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.<br /><br />The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.<br /><br />The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.<br /><br />Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.<br /><br />The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw Brigadoon on TV last night (12 Sept 2009). I am 61 years old and have been watching films as long as I can remember. I can truthfully say that Brigadoon stands alone as by far and away the worst film I have ever seen. The accents were shameful. The local children's club would have produced better sets. The characters were so wooden that they probably contracted dry rot from the tears of the patrons who had the misfortune to watch them. It is to be hoped that the stars of this film had hides thick enough to protect them from the embarrassment which they must have suffered on seeing this film. The owners of this tripe should perform a great service to mankind and destroy all copies of this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl almost succeeded. Hundstage was a truly awful experience. Anyone who sees this movie will think that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with non-professional actors (most of them look like straight from the imagination of Austrian shock-cartoonist Deix) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. But this isn't social criticism. This is just pure shock without any aesthetic value. Instead you get bad acting, bad cinematography, bad filmmaking. If anybody needs a film like this to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes. This is pseudo-social criticism with a sledge hammer. And it looks down on people in a disgustingly condescending way. It shows ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. But it depicts average people in an ugly, misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly despicable.
|
Negative
|
I once promised never to walk out of any film ( a personal policy that made me suffer through the most different kinds of dreck, such as Rambo 3, Baise Moi, Deep Impact) - but Mr. Seidl is a success. Hundstage was a truly indulging experience. Anyone who sees this movie will agree that Austrians are a miserable, pathetic bunch of retards. It shows a world where love and humanity don't exist, a world where people humiliate each other only for one reason - to distract from their own miserable existence. By choosing a documentary-like style with such professional actors (most of them look like straight from the newsrooms of Austrian newspapers) director Seidl wants to make us believe that this is real life in Austrian (European? Western?) suburbs. The viewer is confronted with depictions of sex orgies, violence against women and handicapped people, madness and degradation. And yes this is the social criticism we need. This is just pure reality without any fake aesthetic value. Instead you get marvellous acting, good cinematography, nice filmmaking. If anybody needs a film to realize that there are things wrong in our society then this person must have walked through life with closed eyes but this is for them. This is social criticism with a sledge hammer. And still it doesn't look down on people in any disgusting or condescending way. It shows good and ugly people - that is not the reason why I hate it. And it depicts average people in an fair, sometimes sociable sometimes misanthropic way. And this is why this film is truly likeable.
|
Positive
|
Although Misty Ayers (burlesque stripper) is certainly attractive as the blonde lead, this flick is just an excuse to let her strip down to her underwear a few times (no nudity in 1954 when this film was made; not 1965).<br /><br />The guy who hires her to work in a whorehouse resembles Bud Abbott of Abbott & Costello. Most of the other woman are unattractive, and the drunken woman is semi-amusing in a creepy way.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Ms. Ayers has a curvacious physique, but you can't judge any acting talent because the ENTIRE film is post-dubbed. Some of these "exploitation films", usually made later than this one, are interesting in some way, but this is really a bore fest. Sid Melton (MAKE ROOM FOR DADDY) directed. There are some Samurai-like facial expressions and interesting apartments, but there's really NOTHING here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As much as I like Japanese movies this one didn't just cut it... A movie that is supposed to be about rebels and the survival of a royal blood line turned out to be a very slow paced movie with a doubtful plot.<br /><br />The photography is OK, though I've seen much better sword fight scenes in other Japanese movies, the fast cameras and the way they followed the characters didn't convince me at all. The soundtrack is so weak you don't even notice its presence.But worst of all was the way the plot evolved.I have to admit that, at some times, I had a hard time understanding who was who and what was going on...Anyway the platonic love between the main character and another one was completely unnecessary and seemed to come from a Hollywood influence.<br /><br />All in all, if your looking for an action Japanese movie this isn't it. Its very slow, with very few sword fight scenes and very sentimental... in a bad way...
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Tooth Fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. The first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. The worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. They could have done without the Hammond brothers and a few other scenes, but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. The eye candy is pretty good for both genders. Camera work is good. Dialog is fair but cheesy. I expected the film to be a bare bones, low budget, slasher with very few redeeming factors. I was surprised by the quality of the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is self indulgent rubbish. Watch this film if you merely want to hear spoken Gaelic or enjoy the pleasant soundtrack. Watch for any other reason and you will be disappointed. It should be charming but isn't - it's just irritating. The characters are difficult to care about and the acting is poor. The stories within the film are also charmless and sinister. I was expecting a heartwarming family film but this also held no appeal to my fourteen year old daughter. It is rarely that I cannot see a film through to its conclusion but this one got the better of both of us.<br /><br />Although the film is set in current times it has the look and feel of a cheap East European film made during the Cold War. There isn't even enough in the way of beautiful Scottish scenery and cinematography to redeem it. A real shame because as a film this is an embarrassment to Scotland.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rock star John Norman Howard (Kris Kristofferson) turns lounge singer Esther Hoffman (Barbra Streisand) into an overnight singing star. Esther's star rises while John's goes into decline, thanks to drugs and alcohol. After about two hours, John does the self-destructive-red-converible-160-MPH-crack-up-on-a-desert-highway thing. The best thing about this movie is the music, especially the song, "Evergreen." Barbra Streisand sings well, but you can't take her seriously as an up-and-coming star, when she is *already* a star. The very first time she appears, singing in a back alley bar, she looks like an established singing star who is slumming for the night, not like a struggling unknown who is trying to launch her singing career. She is too confident, too professional. Her apartment looks like a page out of "Apartment Living," not some hole-in-the-wall apartment where a real struggling singer would live.<br /><br />Kris Kristofferson handles the self-centered, out-of-control rock star role like...well, like a singer who is trying to be an actor but doesn't have much acting talent. The direction is tepid, the story is slow and dull.<br /><br />But the worst thing about this movie is not the acting, or the lame direction, or the slow story. It's the hair! After staring at Kristofferson's and Streisand's awful 70's hairdos for 2+ hours, your eyes hurt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine the worst A-team episode Add even more bad taste Remove humor and you might get an idea of how despicable this movie is ! Looks like a teenager stole Daddy's Camcorder and filmed the explosion of his little sister Barbie model house. Pathetic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of 50s sci-fi, but this is not one of my favorites. While the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci-fi flick, the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. It's clear he was working with no money, because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. I have *never* seen so much time-killing in a movie.<br /><br />There are probably less than 60 seconds of "blob footage" in the entire movie, and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly-written, run-on dialogue. It was fun to see Steve M. and Anita C. together, but good heavens...how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.<br /><br />The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.<br /><br />Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.<br /><br />Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, I have to say I have worked for blockbuster and have seen quite a few movies to the point its tough for me to find something I haven't seen. Taking this into account, I want everyone to know that this movie was by far the worst film ever made, it made me pine for Gigli, My Boss's Daughter, and any other piece of junk you've ever seen. BeLyt must be out of his mind, I've only found one person who liked it and even they couldn't tell me what the movie was about. If you are able to decipher this movie and are able to tell me what it was about you have to either be the writer or a fortune teller because there's any other way a person could figure this crap out.<br /><br />FOR THE LOVE OF G-D STAY AWAY!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I cannot believe how bad this piece of garbage is! I want my $3.99 back! Words defy description of this poorly made piece of crap! The dubbing in no way shape or form aligns with the actor's mouths. The movie looks like it was filmed with a 1970's vintage camcorder. I have shot better movies with my cell phone camera. The gore is laughable due to the silly unbelievable plot. The acting is what one would expect if you called all your friends over on a Saturday afternoon and proceeded to get completely ripped, then tried to put on a play in your garage. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't expecting O'Neil and I love Zombie movies, but the production values are so low in this film as to make it unwatchable. Avoid!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Utterly predictable silly show about a man who has killed his wife by mowing her down when driving and claimed he had blacked out. Why was he still driving a car? Why did he still feel able to drive a car having killed his wife with one? This question has not occurred to the writers. The story then witters on about a psychologist and her failing marriage which is tied into the failing marriage of wife-killing blackout driver. An omniscient mother and one dimensional child are thrown in for good measure, and the whole builds up to a predictable denouement and crashing finale. Are police psychologists so easily taken in? Deadful writing that the actors do their best with, but they are doomed to failure. This is on a par with a Harlequin Romance. Don't waste your time watching this one unless that's what you are aiming for.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am probably one of the few who actually read Stephen King's book, the one this movie was based on. After reading this excellent work, I could not wait to see the movie version of it. After viewing the movie, I was TOTALLY disappointed. The only thing that this movie has in common with the book is the title and the names of the characters. In the book, Schwarzenegger's character is put on a game show. The main object is to survive. But he's not in an arena. He's set loose in the city and has to escape the game show's (I guess you'd call them) villians, who bear absolutely no resemblence to the movie characters. This premise built much tension and suspension and ended greatly with the climax. The movie was absolute garbage. There was no cinematic quality to it. I totally respect Arnold Schwarzenegger as an actor, but he messed up with this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spanish horror icon Paul Naschy stars in this, one of his weakest werewolf films... but bear with me for a moment. Most people will be familiar with it under its most common television title, THE FURY OF THE WOLF MAN, and there have been many home video versions of it over the years. If you want to be serious about giving it a fair shot though, the most workable edition I've seen of it goes by the title THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS, and it's an unedited and complete European version which restores a couple of disturbing scenes and contains the original nude shots which are missing from FURY's print. It is also letterboxed.<br /><br />Naschy plays Waldemar Daninsky, returning home from a trip to Tibet only to find out that he's contracted a werewolf curse and that his wife has been having an affair. He takes care of her and her lover while in animal form, but then becomes a guinea pig for a sexy woman doctor and her female assistant. Apparently, the doc attempts to "tame" the werewolf, and there is a very strange sado-masochistic love scene between her and the hairy and fanged Daninsky who is under her trance, at least in the original version. Ultimately we get two werewolves for the price of one as Daninsky battles a she-wolf! <br /><br />The biggest problem with the movie is that the director (according to Naschy's claims) was often drunk, and the results are indeed rather incoherent. When watching THE WOLF MAN NEVER SLEEPS copy, it's not quite as difficult to make out what's going on, though the editing remains atrocious in spots. Worst of all is occasional non-matching footage of Naschy's ravenous werewolf swiped straight from another previous film (LA MARC DEL HOMBRE LOBO, aka "FRANKENSTEIN'S BLOODY TERROR") and mixed into this one without any sensible reason! The wolf's clothing changes from black shirt to white and back again, as does his demeanor; one moment the wolf is walking around lethargically in a hypnotic trance from FURY, next he is growling and running around savagely from BLOODY TERROR. Really bizarre.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.<br /><br />John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?<br /><br />Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.<br /><br />By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this film has it all; the deft camera work, reminiscent of martin scorcese, or oliver stone, the tight acting of 'heat', the explosive action of a jerry bruckheimer movie, the witty dialogue of a tarantino script and the epic feel of say, 'the godfather'<br /><br />the judge reinhold character displays a fiery temperememt, yet also shows real emotional depth and intensity. his performance reminds me of robert de niro's portrayal of jake la motta in raging bull.<br /><br />the action scenes are truly breathtaking, not since bullit has a movie depicted such high octane, yet stylish car scenes. The special effects push the boundries of technology and filmmaking to their limits. Independance day set the standard that this movie clearly has matched, and greatly surpassed.<br /><br />overall, great acting from its a list cast (like an oscars night party invitation list!), classy locations, gripping action, and a tight script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kitten Natividad, of Russ Meyer film fame, plays Chastity Knott, a woman who has found she has breast cancer, so she goes to South America to get some special fruit (Crockazilla?) that is supposed to have healing powers. After going down on some of this fruit (which appears to be plastic bananas on stalks) Chastity is endowed with some mystical magical powers that makes her a super-hero, specifically, The Double D Avenger. Note that she's also wearing a pair of panties as a mask. In writing, that all sounds pretty good. In execution, well, it leaves more than a little to be desired. It seems that Chastity owns a pub and a local strip joint is upset because she's taking away their business so some of the strippers (including Haji, also of Russ Meyer film fame) go after her to ruin her. Of course, Chastity fights back in the guise of the Double D Avenger. Watch her do a "Wonder Woman" type spin to change into her outfit and also lose her balance due to excessive centrifugal force. Bad jokes and lame double entendres fly like there was no tomorrow. With the inane theme song playing over and over this comes off like a twisted 70's "live action" kid's show with adult content, although while this is unrated it could probably get away with PG-13 at the worst. And it's probably a blessing that the faded stars kept well covered. This makes Doris Wishman's Chesty Morgan films look positively wonderful in comparison. Special appearance by Forest J. Ackerman but so what. Very stupid, and I'm never buying another film with Joe Bob Briggs on the cover. 2 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think I should start this in saying that nearly any style of work can be entertaining in parts. The true test is whether it is good from start to finish, which is the reason I gave the analogical title for this review. Most of us would agree--even those like me, who enjoy reading many blogs--that blogs can't compare with good novel writing for a number of reasons. Likewise, FEM can't compare with good film making for a number of reasons, and I actually believe it's a poor example of independent filmography. From start to finish, FEM feels like a pieced together vlog. (Heck, even MySpace gets some pimping.) If I wanted to see an hour of lonelygirl15--I don't--I'd go watch it. FEM, while certainly grittier than the bubble gum atmosphere of the aforementioned media, is so personal that it is without an interesting story. It's like watching the mundaneness of life, which I think most would agree is very naturally boring. And yet the creators of FEM want us to applaud it, their very postmodern film about making a film. Cue my yawn.<br /><br />Ultimately, I come away not caring the least bit about any of it. I'm shocked that I'm actually interested in taking time out to write this review, even. It's not that FEM is downright bad, because it isn't; it has a few moments where I crack a smile or think that maybe--just maybe--something of interest is about to happen. It's rather that it's just downright...mediocre. I feel so indifferent about it that it's almost fitting of an oxymoron: passionate indifference.<br /><br />I hope the creators/"actors" in the film get out of debt from their efforts. They'll probably need it for when one of them moves out and moves on with life.<br /><br />See this movie if you've got time to waste and nothing much you want to do; otherwise, pass it by, and don't worry that you've missed some great, undiscovered talent. You really haven't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Fine performances and art direction do not a good movie make. This movie is so grim and depressing, I could feel absolutely no joy at the "happy" ending involving the union strike. The attempts at humor involving Lake's pregnancy are absolutely disastrous, and any movie involving a Baldwin brother already has a strike against it. On a positive note, Lang is still one of America's great underrated actors, he alone almost makes this worth keeping in the VCR. I give this a 4.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.