input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I don't know where to begin, so I'll begin with a snippet from the back of the cover of this movie. "Alive combines the tension of Vincenzo Natali's Cube with Kitamura's own Versus." I have not seen Versus, so I can't comment on that, but I think Cube was an excellent movie which I recommend to everyone. However, in this case someone has clearly confused "tension" with "boredom".<br /><br />I'll just go ahead and spoil the entire plot, because besides being one holy Swiss cheese of a plot, it's also moldy cheese, and the movie is not worth spending any time on even if you don't know the plot beforehand, so it doesn't matter. If I have misunderstood the plot, don't hit me - it's probably because I had to struggle to keep my eyelids open.<br /><br />So the American military in Nevada once lost a UFO i the Nambi desert. This apparently makes sense because they're both deserts so surely they're practically the same place. Different continents or not. A monkey broke into the UFO and acquired an alien something which was passed on to a Japanese researcher who had to eat the monkey to survive in the desert. What ever. The alien thing is now passed on to anyone who's "bloodthirsty" enough to kill the current host. The Japanese military wants to use it for military stuff, so they decide to make it pass from the current host (the researcher's daughter) to some other dude. But instead of just picking someone out of the military, which is full of people who are bloodthirsty AND already on the military's side, they decide that it's probably a good idea to pick some criminal out of death row instead. Oh, and the reason they pick this particular criminal from death row is because he was the first person in history to not die from the non-lethal electric shock which is the standard execution method, because everyone dies from the placebo effect when they get electrocuted. I don't know if they do this so they can giggle in the staff room at how everyone dies even though it's not deadly, or if they just want to cut down the electricity bill.<br /><br />Then the movie turns into what The Matrix would have been if it had been really lame, and superfluous fighting bores us to tears for what feels like an hour. And oh wait, now they remember that they already had a dude who was infected with the alien thing, so the entire movie up to this point was actually a totally waste of time and also human lives. Then everyone dies. The end.<br /><br />The only one moment in the movie where I didn't want to go away and sleep or eat a sandwich instead, was when a dude was pinned to a wall by a pipe through his chest, and he's hanging around up there and another dude walks by. The dude hanging on the wall says "I'm in pain, shoot me". And the living dude looks at him, and it's not like he's a mean dude or anything, so he really looks sorrowful and doesn't want the guy on the wall to suffer. So he shoots him.<br /><br />(Rhetorical pause.)<br /><br />In the stomach. "Gee THANKS A FREAKIN' HEAP."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The filming crew did not have good access to the occupied territories, so filming of the Israeli side dominated. I was struck by the nearly completely opposite points of view of the mothers. The Israeli mother lost a child who had the possibility of a life of tremendous happiness. The Palestinian mother lost a child who had only the possibility of a life of privation and despair. With such completely different viewpoints, any meeting had no real chance of any meeting of the minds. The word "peace" did not have the same meaning to each of them. Peace to the Palestinian was freedom. Peace to the Israeli was security. With such an abyss, is this sort of film really worth much? I finished with the feeling that I had watched pointless propaganda -- both sides were unconvincing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Dominique" is one of those films that the expression "slow-as-molasses" must have been invented for. Too many endless and repetitive sequences (how many times do we see Robertson walking down the stairs slowly because he can hear someone playing the piano?). It is ALMOST redeemed at the end by a surprising twist, which, unfortunately, is followed by a second twist that succeeds only in leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a very enjoyable film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In this extremely low-budget ( I've seen home movies made with better production value) Australian utter rip-off of "the Burning" & "Friday the 13th", a band is planning to make a music video while on a houseboat. They're stalked by a serial killer who was burned years before. This movie is even proclaimed to be 'the worst Australian film ever made' in it's DVD promotional material. That's it's only selling point! Complete and utter rubbish in every considerable way. Perhaps a few chuckles here and there for bad movie lovers, but it still made me want to burn out my retinas.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a quick flash of barely existent itty bitty titties in a lame shower scene<br /><br />My Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
I disliked this film intensely and left during the scene where the loyalist gang are shot up by the British. The film effectively blames the people of NI as being the cause of their own troubles. It suggests that the 25 year war was a question of intransigence and nothing to do with Britain's partition of Ireland and domination of its history i.e. NI was created by Britain in 1921 irrespective of the wishes of the rest of Ireland.<br /><br />The characters are portrayed as hapless fools, even though I despise loyalist paramilitaries they were fighting for a cause - maintaining their artificial privileges over the Catholic community. It is a known fact that British Intelligence collaborated with loyalists during the war, no doubt to keep the Catholics at bay and demoralise republicanism.<br /><br />Nineties' values about 'machismo', masculinity etc are transposed on to 1970s Belfast and are portrayed as part of the supposedly unique Irish 'psyche' which leads to violence. The stupid song from the woman in the club - old Ireland of green fields ..blah..blah.. - is given a symbolic stature, i.e. poor young fools fighting for an impossible cause. Tedious, ahistorical, cheap and nasty trash. O'Sullivan has made a personal statement on a conflict which requires serious political analysis.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(When will I ever learn-?) The ecstatic reviewer on NPR made me think this turkey was another Citizen Kane. Please allow me to vent my spleen...<br /><br />I will admit: the setting, presumably New York City, has never been so downright ugly and unappealing. I am reminded that the 70's was a bad decade for men's fashion and automobiles. And all the smoking-! If the plan was to cheapen the characters, it succeeded.<br /><br />For a film to work (at least, in my simple estimation), there has to be at least ONE sympathetic character. Only Ned Beaty came close, and I could not wait for him to finish off Nicky. If a stray shot had struck Mikey, well, it may have elicited a shrug of indifference at the most.<br /><br />I can't remember when I detested a film as strongly. I suppose I'm a rube who doesn't dig "art" flicks. Oh, well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played "Thunderbirds" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What happened? 'Doubt' had so much potential to be a brilliant film - but instead it faltered with a dragging simplistic plot line which made me want to stop watching. The only thing the film had going for it was the brilliance of Meryl Streep, who no DOUBT deserved the Oscar-nomination. Though it was not one of her best performances, she still gave a solid and truthful character to us which blossomed through the screen.<br /><br />However, not even the brilliance of a screen legend could save this film from going down hill. From the boring start, which had no power or punch - to the less than convincing ending, the film was truly a disappointment - especially since it provided so much potential through its promotion and trailers. It was obvious the director had trouble with the simplicity of the plot and he ended up with a boring film, which dragged on for too long, with too much talk and not enough action.<br /><br />Furthermore, the other Oscar-nominations were less than convincing. Though Philip Seymour Hoffman gave a decent performance, it was by no means Oscar-worthy. (Especially since they completely left out performances such as Will Smith, in Seven Pounds). Amy Adams did not deserve the nomination. Watching Amy Adams was like watching a cardboard box - as it was one sided and plain. It would have made more sense to nominate her for a Razzie, as I am sure she would have walked away victorious. Viola Davis gave a short but truthful performance, but the length of her performance made me question whether the academy really should have given her the nomination.<br /><br />Overall, I consider Doubt to be one of the most disappointing films of 2008. It was a mess of a film with so much potential, and I do not recommend it. The only shining light in the film is Meryl Streep, who though gives a stunning, solid performance - doesn't even do enough to save this film. *** / 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film few times and all i can say that this is low budget rubbish and that it does not have anything to do with a real history facts. Actors performances is very poor but it is result of limited acting possibilities. Anyone who watched this film now probably think of Hitler as some crazy skinny lunatic who running with a gun like some Chicago gangster. I can only to say that there is much better films about Hitler and Germany in those years and that Rise of evil is very much under average. I can recommend German film Downfall in which you can see brilliant performance of Switzerland actor Bruno Ganz in a roll of Adolf Hitler.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as "Skate Fu" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A cannibalistic backwoods killer is on the prowl and two bickering couples might be his next source of protein in this bargain basement Friday the 13th-clone cheapie. There s literally nothing of interest to see in this one, the killings are surprisingly sparse and when they do happen, completely amateurish. It also adds ghosts into the mix for no reason what so ever. I felt drained after watching it as if my brain was liquefying and draining out my nose. And it remains without a doubt Donald Jones' worst movie. If you're thinking of renting it because of Code Red's snazzy new DVD re-release Don't bother<br /><br />My Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film because I noticed that it had Kari Wuhrer in the cast. I have long had a theory about her, that she is a talented actress, but never seems to get to prove that, because she is always in this sort of low-budget B movie. She is still beautiful, and she is still trying to act over the unfortunate material I always see her in. This is no different. The film is often ugly and disturbing, but that doesn't make it good. George Wendt played against type, and that was so jarring that he gets recognition for his role. Another note about Ms. Wuhrer. Her breasts seem to have shrunk markedly since I saw her last. Perhaps reduction surgery, or (more likely) removal of implants. This NOT a bad thing. She still looks great. I would like to see her in a better movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Except people apparently buy into this garbage! As shows like "Moral Orel" have shown, even if you tried to make the most outrageous, over-the-top parody of evangelism you could possibly think of, it wouldn't come close to the hilarity of this show. It's hard to tell what's even going on when you're watching it. Is it a news show? A talk show? Who knows!? They start out by reporting on various international news stories, but at seemingly random points, the news is interrupted by this odd, troll-like little man with a forehead bigger than his entire face, mumbling and laughing and generally being creepy.<br /><br />Pat Robertson doesn't even seem like such a bad guy at first glance. He just seems like a senile, yet harmless old coot stuck in his archaic beliefs (like most of our grandparents). But this is a man who has called for an assassination, who has befriended and offered aid to not one, but TWO murderous dictators, who has illegally used donation money to run diamond mines, who has SUPPORTED forced abortions in China, and who regularly implies that Caucasians (straight American male Caucasians in particular) are superior to all other races.<br /><br />Still, this would all be funny, except that he apparently has a large enough fan base to keep his little show on the air 40 years later (either that, or enough money to bribe some TV executives who don't give a damn what they show). The idiocy of the show becomes alarming when you realize that some people, somewhere, must be watching it and hanging onto every word. Even when Robertson has repeatedly shown how corrupt he is, people still listen to him. I don't know if it's funny or scary. I guess a healthy mixture of both.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Writer/Director Bart Sibrel bases his work here around a can of film that he says was mistakenly sent to him by NASA. He says it shows the astronauts faking the television footage of their trip to the moon by employing camera tricks. The astronauts were in low Earth orbit all the time, and editors on the ground composed this raw footage into just a few seconds of finished film.<br /><br />Unfortunately Sibrel's research is so slipshod that he doesn't realize his "backstage" footage is really taken in large part from the 30-minute live telecast (also on that reel) that was seen by millions, not hidden away in NASA vaults as he implies. And we have to wonder why Sibrel puts his own conspiratorial narration over the astronauts' audio in the footage, because hearing the astronauts in their own words clearly spells out that the astronauts were just testing the camera, not faking footage.<br /><br />Finally, anyone can see the raw footage for themselves without having to buy Sibrel's hacked-up version of it. (He shows you more of the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination than of his "smoking gun".) Sibrel thinks he's the only one who's seen it. What's more revealing is the clips from that raw footage that Sibrel chose NOT to use, such as those clearly showing the appropriately distant Earth being eclipsed by the window frames and so forth, destroying his claim that mattes and transparencies were placed in the spacecraft windows to create the illusion of a faraway Earth.<br /><br />As with most films of this type, Sibrel relies on innuendo, inexpert assumption, misleading commentary, and selective quotation to manipulate the viewer into accepting a conclusion for which there is not a shred of actual evidence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Everyone in a while, Disney makes one of thoes movies that surprises everyone. One that keeps you wondering until the very end. In the tradition of Pirates of the Caribbean, this movie is sure to turn into a ghost, and kill and rape your village. It's terrible. If you want a mindless, senseless, predictable "action" movie, go right ahead. I believe that young kids might enjoy this, as they like it when Good ALWAYS wins. But me, I like movies where it's a toss up who's going to win. This movie never lets the Bad Guys have the upper hand. By the end, when th heroes are left in an "inescapeable" pit, you just KNOW that they can get out. Everything works out perfect for Cage and his friends, he never has to think over a riddle or clue for more than 10 seconds, no matter how complex it is. See this movie if you want to see some impressive set designs, not if you want to see good acting, or a good film. Go watch a superman movie, it would be much shorter, and the kids would like it more. For instance, the scene where Cage is fleeing from armed gunmen, and the bullets are all deflected by a the railing of a fire escape. (And I'm not talking about a fence or anything, just ONE LITTLE POLE) This movie shows the decay of films and the film industry to cheap gags and dull, unrealistic action, which this movie provides in huge quantities.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.
|
Negative
| null | null |
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.<br /><br />My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.<br /><br />If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Michael Williams, who works for BBC, finds a somehow impressive Italian picture which gets mixed in the material of his ongoing task titled DIABOLICAL ART: A DOCUMENTARY. But since his wife's mysterious death her daughter, Emily, has been emotionally disturbed, so he goes Spoleto, where the problematic picture is, with her and her nanny, Jill. And there is a Countess, who is also a psychic, and she informs him that the picture was somehow made at the night that a young witch named Emilia was executed. Michael doesn't believe her story, but after that Emily has hysterical spasm and Jill is killed... This Italian film is, of course, almost innocently influenced by THE EXORCIST, but this one is much cheaper, much simpler,and in a sense, much dirtier. First of all, it should be said this film is full of confusion. For instance, the story shows Emily is a reincarnation of Emilia. But when Emily sees her in the flashbacks, she perceives her exclusively from a third-person's point of view. But if she is the reincarnation of Emilia, she should and must see the past from nothing but Emilia's point of view. Confusions of this kind, which the film has many, are almost exclusively based upon a problematic fact that the film is too cowardly, rather than ambivalent, to specify its own quasi-Freudian theme, namely, pre-adolescent girl's one-way incestuous wish. To make matters worse, this film also has characteristic problem (if not confusion); every character is too naive and helpless to be realistic and/or believable living human. Regarding Emily (or Emilia), she is after all a child, and one can say it is difficult to blame her mainly for her naiveness and helplessness. (And according to the Freudian theory, every girl wants to have her father's child(ren) in her own way. In this sense, Emily is not exclusively pathological; only her way of excluding other women from her father's love is problematically pathological. But, as I already mentioned, this film per se is too cowardly to be Freudian.) The problem is that adult characters are as childish and naive and helpless as Emily is. And because of this characteristic weakness even the psychic who can see almost everything cannot do anything down-to-earth, and because of the same weakness the very story of the film is ended in a badly escapist way. In addition, special effects of this film are incredibly cheap and laughable. Although Stelvio Cipriani's music is noteworthily beautiful (indeed this one is so good that it seems to be worth having it alone), the film as a whole is nothing but a cheap B-film which can disappoint even the 1970s'-Italian- horror-film-lovers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Actress Ruth Roman's real-life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the Korean War at an air base near San Francisco jump-started this all-star Warner Bros. salute to patriotism and song. Many celebrities make guest appearances while a love-hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny Air Force Corporal (Ron Hagerthy, who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). Seems the Corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he's off to battle when actually he's part of a airplane carrier crew, flying to and from Honolulu (you'd think she'd be happy he was staying out of harm's way, but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). Doris Day is around for the first thirty minutes or so, and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. Roman is also here, looking glamorous, while James Cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and Gordon MacRae sings in his handsome baritone. Jane Wyman sings, too, in a hospital bedside reprise following Doris Day's lead, causing one to wonder, "Did they run out of sets?" For undemanding viewers, an interesting flashback to another time and place. Still, the low-rent production and just-adequate technical aspects render "Starlift" strictly a second-biller. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
A shame that even a talented director, Desplechin, could not muster a decent performance out of a bleakly-talented actress, Phoenix, Esther Kahn lacks the substance to convey a very concise and clear plot. In an attempt to fulfill the concentric circle of an actor's plight, the performance and presentation is too contrived and poorly executed to draw any compassion from the viewer. In an overly long running time, the redundancy of Esther's struggle is too melodramatic to be effective and reduces the storyline into a frail frame of a disastrous display. The content is incoherent and gratuitous as Phoenix struggles to carry out Desplechin's instruction, just as Esther is supposedly trying to do the same. Never feeling a convincing victory over Esther's pain, we never feel a victory in Phoenix's talent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another rape of History<br /><br />This movie is a catastrophe; it just uses a historic story and makes a sweet love story, with bad acting and low budget production.<br /><br />The movie should be 1/3 the time, they just dragged the time to make a mini series.<br /><br />The battle scenes are so stupid and illogical, the solders log stupid, the costumes a catastrophe. The Romans were good in fighting in opened areas, one of their armies was completely destroyed by the Germans when they tried to fight in a forest, in this movie the Romans choose to fight in side the city, I mean get real.<br /><br />And by the way Cleopatra was from a Macedonian origin, which means a light skinned person.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having watched this after receiving the DVD for Christmas 2005, I came here to pan it -- but after reading the other comments, I haven't the heart. Clearly this is a film that has worked very well for children of a certain age. Well, let me not be a complete Grinch; it might still work for some children -- if they are not too media-saturated and have not become visually over-sophisticated, e.g. from watching all of LOTR and Harry Potter. But if you are an adult, stay miles away; you will not enjoy it.<br /><br />The good bits: Barbara Kellerman as the Witch, especially in her early scenes with Edmund, creates just the right blend of charismatic evil and restrained madness. (At the Stone Table she goes a bit over the top.) Michael Aldridge in the minor role of the Professor and Jeffrey S. Perry as Mr. Tumnus also have the kind of polished, skillful acting we'd expect from the very best BBC dramas. And the Aslan costume works very well, amazingly well considering. They got the eyes just right.<br /><br />The bad bits: almost everything else, but two areas in particular. One, the casting. England is crammed with good actors and contains tens of thousands of attractive British school kids. How could they possibly have ended up with these four stiffs? They move like wooden soldiers and speak about as well. Peter has no gravitas or charisma (and is visibly shorter than his supposedly younger siblings); Edmund is just whiny; and Lucy... Sophie Wilcox as Lucy is so dramatically, visibly, drastically wrong for this part that I can't imagine how she got the job.<br /><br />Two, the animal costumes. Again, it appears that they worked for some kids. If the kids are still at a level where Big Bird and Elmo are exciting, believable characters, they might be entranced by this film. But to a viewer with the sophistication of, say, a 12-year-old who's seen Prisoner Of Azkaban? When Mister Beaver comes out from behind that tree, there will be hoots of cruel, derisive laughter. The costumes just do not work -- I could not, and I think any adult or modern teen could not, suspend disbelief when looking at Mister Beaver. The drawn animation later (gryphons, etc.) works better, is easier to take.<br /><br />So: ten stars for the very young and tender of soul; everyone else read, or re-read the book and watch the far better film that unrolls in your imagination.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a horrible little film--and unfortunately, the company that made this short made several others. The short is essentially a one-joke idea that wasn't funny to begin with and may also offend you. It certainly made me uncomfortable watching very young children (most appeared about 2 years-old) cavorting about and pretending to be adults--in this case, a dancehall girl and bar room patrons. It's the sort of humor that you might be forced to laugh at from your own kids if they pretended to be adults, but I can't see anyone WANTING to see this--especially when a very young Shirley Temple is dressed in a rather slinky outfit and acts like a vamp!! And then, other kids act like adults in some rather adult situations. At the time, I am sure they were not trying to appeal to pedophiles, but when looking at it today, that is what immediately comes to mind! Because of this, this boring film ALSO creeped me out and I hope to never see it again!! Pretty strange and pretty awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this....let me rephrase...suffered through this because I'm a fan of Eva's. I don't think this is a flick she'll put on the back of her head shot photos. I like gangsta flix but this wasn't even close. The budget couldn't have been more than a few hundred dollars, and that money was probably spent on the caterer.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the first victim died before you get the chance to care about her or not.<br /><br />I won't bother saying who did what and how, because it isn't worth the effort. I'm only glad that because of my monthly rental plan at the local video store that I didn't have to actually pay for this garbage.<br /><br />OH!! Before you flame on me, I love movies, I thought a lotta flix were good that some of you have jammed, so for me to jam this tells you all you need to know.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nell Shipman attempted a plot to lead up to a chase finale in 'Back to God's Country' of the previous year, and she failed miserably. This time, she does better, although it seems pointless. 'Something New' hardly has a plot lying outside of the chase. There's a brief premise, which sets up the hero (co-author and Shipman's boyfriend) to have to save the girl (played by Shipman), then it's nothing but an exciting, implausible chase from there. Of course, it plays out like an hour-long advertisement for a Maxwell Sedan, but the entire movie is congruously ridiculous. It doesn't seem that she learned much from the last-minute rescue films of D.W. Griffith or its parodies by Mack Sennett and other comedians, which she's imitating.<br /><br />One point of interest is that Shipman writes and directs herself into the film as the writer of the film's story, which has as its protagonist a writer (Shipman again), although she doesn't do much else clever or humorous with it, even though she attempts to. Again, others had pioneered the writer's joke in the intertitles, like Anita Loos with 'Wild and Woolly' or Frances Marion with 'A Girl's Folly' (both 1917). At least, Shipman gives the impression that she doesn't take herself or the film seriously--and neither do I. 'Something New,' despite its claim, is hackneyed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The wife of a stage producer in London hopes to fix up the American song-and-dance man starring in her husband's latest show with an acquaintance, an American girl who makes her living modeling fashions in society circles. Unfortunately, the couple has already met on their own, with the girl thinking the guy is actually the show producer married to her friend (the fact he's not wearing a wedding ring should have discouraged any misunderstandings!). Wafty Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers musical is eventually dragged back down to the earth by Dwight Taylor and Allan Scott's idiotic script, which is full of juvenile behavior. Astaire and Rogers don't just 'meet cute'--they meet ridiculously (he's tap-dancing like a madman in the hotel suite above hers and she complains). Audiences of 1935 probably didn't care how these two were going to get together--as long as they did so, and happily. Seen today, the central characters appear to have no motivation to end up in each other's arms: he plies her with flowers (after telling his friend he wants to remain "fancy free" in the love department) and she gives him the brush-off. Nothing that a little dancing couldn't cure! This glamorous twosome are as deliberately unreal as are the London and Venice settings, but we watch simply because the leads are Fred and Ginger. It's a fantasy for have-nots...ones who don't mind the dumbed-down plot. The musical moments do break up the monotony of the contrived scenario, yet fail to transcend the surrounding silliness. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Throw this lame dog a bone. Sooo bad...you may watch anyway. Kol(Ross Hagen)is an intergalactic bad guy that escapes being vaporised by an over zealous spaceship commander(Jan-Michael Vincent). Kol manages to steal a shuttle that crash lands on Earth. An unstoppable android killer is sent to bring back the villain dead or alive. John Phillip Law plays a forest/park ranger that urges caution in dealing with these two visitors from far, far away. Costumes are outrageous and the script is lacking intelligence. Vincent surely took the money and ran. Law shows the only sign of effort.So bad it is almost comical. Also in the cast: Dyana Ortelli, P.J. Soles and Dawn Wildsmith.
|
Negative
| null | null |
To be a Buster Keaton fan is to have your heart broken on a regular basis. Most of us first encounter Keaton in one of the brilliant feature films from his great period of independent production: 'The General', 'The Navigator', 'Sherlock Jnr'. We recognise him as the greatest figure in the entire history of film comedy, and we want to see more of his movies. Here the heartbreak begins. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton's brother-in-law Joseph Schenck pressured him into signing a contract that put Keaton under the control of MGM. Keaton became just one more actor for hire, performing someone else's scripts. Then his alcoholism got worse. After 'Steamboat Bill Jnr', Keaton never again made a truly first-rate film. A couple of sources describe a would-be masterpiece comedy that Keaton claimed he *almost* got to make at MGM: a parody of 'Grand Hotel'. Biographer Tom Dardis has offered convincing evidence that Keaton made up this story.<br /><br />The heartbreak increases because, among the many years of Keaton's long steady decline, he just occasionally came up with a good film ... such as his short comedy 'Grand Slam Opera'. I continue to search for the lost footage of Keaton's dramatic scene with Spencer Tracy in 'It's a Mad Mad World': a sequence in which embittered cop Tracy telephones an old retired crook (Keaton) and tries to recruit his assistance in stealing Smiler Grogan's cash. That footage is almost certainly gone forever, but I keep looking.<br /><br />'Speak Easily', alas, is one of Keaton's films from the beginning of his decline. MGM were trying to build up Jimmy Durante (who, coincidentally, played Smiler Grogan three decades later) as a new comedy star. Unfortunately, MGM tried to build up Durante by teaming him with Keaton, whose style of comedy was simply incompatible with Durante's. (I'm a fan of both.) Throughout his career, Durante was a merciless scene-stealer: commendably, he knew that he was being built up at Keaton's expense, and Keaton was the only co-star whom Durante never attempted to upstage.<br /><br />Keaton was often cast as the victim of extremely cruel machinations. In 'Speak Easily', he plays a didactic and humourless Midwestern college professor named Post (because he's as wooden as one) who receives a letter informing him that he's inherited $750,000, which he must travel to New York City to claim. Does he make a 'phone call to verify this? Does he even check the postmark? No; he takes his life's savings out of the bank and rushes to New York. As soon as he's gone, Post's manservant confesses that he wrote the (fake) letter to jostle Professor Post out of his rut!<br /><br />Post, who thinks he's a 3/4-millionaire, crosses paths with Jimmy Dodge (Durante), who's trying to produce a musical revue but hasn't any money. The characters which these two brilliant comedians are playing onscreen simply fail to intermesh. Keaton is playing one of those eggheads (like Mister Logic in 'Viz') who intellectualises everything. Durante plays one of those annoying hepcats who is incapable of making any straightforward statement because the script requires him always to speak in slang. There's a painfully unfunny dialogue scene in which Durante is trying to talk to Keaton about money, but - instead of coming straight out with it - Durante has to use increasingly contrived slang terms like 'kale', 'cartwheels' and so forth ... while Keaton of course has no idea what Durante's on about. I'll give Keaton credit: his own dry and dusty prairie voice, his flat Kansas accent, is absolutely perfect for the character he's playing here.<br /><br />Sidney Toler, looking much leaner and more handsome here than he would be just a year later, is impressive as the excitable director of the revue bankrolled (on tick) by Professor Post. Henry Armetta, whom I've never found funny, is even less funny than usual here, offering a running gag with a stupid payoff. Thelma Todd impressed me here, in a more villainous version of the role she played in 'Horse Feathers' (a much funnier movie). Edward Brophy, one of my favourite character actors, is wasted.<br /><br />Part of the problem with 'Speak Easily' is that supporting characters behave in completely inappropriate ways. Keaton's lawyer shows up at Durante's theatre with an urgent message for Keaton ... but he isn't there, so the lawyer proceeds to divulge Keaton's personal business to the first total stranger he meets. (Fire that lawyer, Buster!) In another scene, Professor Post - the guy who's perceived as bankrolling this musical - blunders into the chorus girls' changing room, and all the chorus girls immediately squeal and cover themselves. I know for a fact that *modern* chorus girls would never react this way, and I seriously doubt that chorus girls in 1932 behaved that way either ... certainly not in response to the 'angel' controlling their show's pursestrings.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. About half an hour into the unfunny 'Speak Easily', the great Jimmy Durante seats himself at the piano, grins into the camera, and does that distinctive little shake of his head as he starts to play a tune. This is the moment when I thought that, at long last, this movie was finally going to settle down to its purpose of entertaining us. Alas, no. Most annoying of all is the ending of this film, which uses the single most hackneyed and implausible cliche in all of comedy: the one in which an utterly incompetent dimwit becomes a star comedian through his own ineptitude. (Keaton would be forced to replay this cliche in a 1955 episode of 'Screen Directors Playhouse'; Chaplin had already used it in 'The Circus'.)<br /><br />I very nearly wept - in anger and sorrow - at the wasted opportunities in 'Speak Easily'. Mostly out of respect for the work that Keaton, Durante, Toler, Brophy and Miss Todd have done elsewhere, I'll rate this movie 2 points out of 10.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film has a very simple but somehow very bad plot. The entire movie is about a girl getting sucked through a gate to another dimension then years later it gets opened again by a witch while a group of friends (including the lead actor who is having trouble getting over his ex girlfriend who is one of the other campers along with her new partner... another girl... that's right they're lesbians and there is some nudity of course for no particular reason). Unfortunately demon follows the now adult girl back through. Also unfortunately, none of this is ever explained. Where exactly were they? Where did the demon come from? How did she survive as a child in a place full of evil demons? Who the hell trained her and made her a gladiator type outfit? The acting is terrible I think but it's hard to tell because the writing is so bad maybe there was just nothing they could do with it. I give it a three because the wrestler was pretty good and the effects were pretty fun even though they were very cheap. I would not recommend it, it wasn't quite bad enough to be funny.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Take:<br /><br />1. a famous play<br /><br />2. a director with now ideas of his own who is using<br /><br />3. a copy of the stage design of a popular theatre production of the play mentioned in 1.<br /><br />4. an actor for the lead - who has no feeling for the part he's playing And you'll get: "Hamlet, Prinz von Dänemark"<br /><br />I listened to the radio play of "Hamlet" with Maximilian Schell as Hamlet and I was so disappointed. I hoped that the filmed version would be better, that Schell would at least have a body language to underline what he's saying - nothing. Then the set... the minimalistic design is not everyone's taste, but usually I like it when there's just enough on the stage to make clear what's the setting and nothing more. Alas, that's on a stage, in a theatre. It won't work in a film based on a play that actually has believable settings. That the idea for the set was copied from the theatre production in which Schell played the Hamlet already... let's say if that was the only thing to complain about... I ask myself how Schell could get the part of Hamlet anywhere in first place and how anybody could allow him to play Hamlet a second time. If you've got the choice to view any of the about sixty films based on "Hamlet", don't watch this one, unless you're a masochist, or really hardcore, or like to poke fun on untalented actors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD. I found it only a few weeks ago.<br /><br />It is on the Value DVD label and I paid the grand total of 98 cents plus tax for it. I found it at a 98 cent store among racks of plastic bowls and disposable chopsticks. Now don't you people who shelled out beau coup bucks for the super-duper Swedish import limited edition version feel like you were had??? I thought so.<br /><br />This film was indeed well worth 98 cents. 99 cents, I might start to argue with you. But clearly worth 98 cents. And remember that saying about getting what you pay for. For slasher film mavens only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.<br /><br />The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.<br /><br />One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.<br /><br />'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.<br /><br />The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Vampires Vs. Zombies wasn't the original title. It was actually... <br /><br />Nasty Lesbian Semi-Vampires and Two Zombies Getting Hit by Cars: Special Guest appearances by Bob the Lesbian Gypsie-Witch and her dog, Random Woman with special powers and the Catholic School Girl Short Skirt Zombie Choir. <br /><br />Also on the Box: Warning: No Plot- only the writer and director will understand the end, or anything else in this movie.<br /><br />Seriously though, I love bad movies. I love Vampires. I love Zombies. Hell, I even enjoy the lesbians. This movie combined all three with a vague and confusing (or non-existent) plot, horrendous (I mean REALLY BAD) dialogue, and random STUFF and PEOPLE that have nothing to do with anything (or do they... I didn't know what in the world was going on). Oh, and I can't forget the green oatmeal 'Zombies' in latex gloves (yes, the film makers were so cheap they couldn't even cover their Zombies hands in oatmeal and paint). Any way, the result was this excruciatingly BAD film, if you could even call it that. <br /><br />Was the end supposed to not make sense? The Vampire was really Nurse and the other girl was really a mental patient? Where were the Vampires Vs. Zombies? Hell, where were the Vampires at all... you really couldn't call any of the girls vampires. Whatever. <br /><br />Don't ever rent or buy this movie. If you are REALLY curious... okay, I'll understand. Seriously, even lovers of BAD movies won't be able to stand this one. It should be number 1 on the bottom 100.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first saw this film it was not an impressive one. Now that I have seen it again with some friends on DVD ( they had not viewed it on the silver screen ), my opinion remains the same. The subject matter is puerile and the performances are weak.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.<br /><br />Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.<br /><br />So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.<br /><br />The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.<br /><br />3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting. <br /><br />This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations. <br /><br />The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.<br /><br />Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.<br /><br />* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My ten-year old liked it. For me it was hard to get through it. Christopher Lloyd played it way over the top and the suit was tedious and unfunny. Sorry to see Jeff Daniels in this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bottom of the barrel, unimaginative, and practically unwatchable remake of THE ROAD WARRIOR. This film follows the exact plot as the Filipino film STRYKER and is worse by far! Bad acting, dialog, effects, dubbing, pacing, action sequences... The list goes on and on. Italy made literally dozens of Road Warrior rip-offs in the early 80's, some good, some bad. This is the worst by far, no contest. Not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable, the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. There was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie, and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. But EVERYTHING else about this movie seriously reeks! For actual post-nuke fun, go track down a copy of ENDGAME, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, or ESCAPE FROM THE BRONX instead. They're much more enjoyable than this rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.<br /><br />There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.<br /><br />This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this a couple of nights back, not expecting too much and unsurprisingly it didn't deliver anything too exciting. The plot set up of a crew of vampire hunters (V-San, for vampire sanitation), going around in their spaceship periodically killing space vamps and rescuing people, is quite sound and had the film been handled better it might well have been something quite ace. Unfortunately after a fairly decent opening the sense of actual quality starts to drain away from the film, leaving something behind that, though vacantly watchable, is quite laughably bad. I don't expect anything too special from these films that pop up on the Sci Fi Channel and at least this wasn't one of their creature features with an atrocious cgi beast shambling about, but it was still pretty bad, mostly due to the writing and acting, but with a sterling contribution to the overall badness made by the horrible music. When the film opted just for a typical science fiction sounding weird noises approach to the soundtrack it did OK, but all too often hilariously bad soft rock intruded and pitched scenes into silliness. I would have tolerated the general cheesy acting and writing more were it not for the choice of music, which was a serious miscalculation, turning things from cheesy to lamely comical. Of the acting, Dominic Zamprogna was OK but bland as the nominal hero, whilst Leanne Adachi was pretty irritating as the tough girl of the vamp busting team and Aaron Pearl played another member who wasn't well written or interesting enough to make an impression. Though she didn't seem that good at the acting lark Natassia Malte did well through having a less irritating character than the others, and the fact that she is seriously nice to look at. The only serious name in the cast is Michael Ironside and he is underused though he does nicely, pretty amusing in a manner one suspects was intentional. He seems to have fun and earn his paycheck and his role is entertaining. The effects are OK on the whole, they are at least of the standards of the average science fiction TV show, and there are also a few scenes of blood splatter and a bit of fun gore as well. Things move along nicely, and I almost feel harsh rating this film badly, but then I remember bursting into laughter at regular intervals and realising that unless the film is an intentional comedy, which I don't think it is, then it simply doesn't succeed. Too much is lame, daft, unconvincing, its an OK effort I guess but it didn't appeal to me. Only give it a go if you really dig Sci Fi trash or unintended chuckles I'd say.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Awlright, damn it, the MooCow will grudgingly admit the truth: I kinda' like this cheap, cheesy 70's parody. The idea that vast hordes of killer tomatoes are destroying the US is a great idea, and in spite of itself, the moovie does provide some decent chuckles, moostly the sight of terrified extras running away from large, obviously fake tomatoes. This film, along with The Kentucky Fried Moovie, is one of the earlier attempts at spoofs, which became so popular in the 80's & 90's, thanks largely to Airplane!. This one, like moost spoofs, is pretty poor. Many attempts at humor are dismal failures, and will induce much groaning. But thanks to the ravenous tomatoes hordes, the obnoxious "Puberty Love" song, and the awesome helicopter crash scene, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes does provide some goods, though largely for the wrong reasons. There are sooooo many things wrong with this film...and so right, it's hard to explain. Enough people must also have enjoyed it as the Tomatoes made a comeback in 2 moore films, and a cartoon series!! Large chunks of time spent away from the tomatoes are pretty dull. And dig those 70's clothes, dude!! ;=8) This tomato is seedy and cheesy, but worth a chuckle or two; the MooCow says grab a pizza and pop in the Tomatoes!! :
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have always said that some plays by their very nature just can't be translated to film, and this one is a prime example.<br /><br />As a play, this is a very funny farcical satire of the Catholic church, with a razor wit and a central character who is so shockingly unreal we have to root for her even when she starts murdering her parishioners (one of whom made the fatal mistake of admitting he had not sinned since his last confession, so she feels she is sending him straight to heaven).<br /><br />That's just one example of how far outside of reality the play goes, and in the make believe world of the theater, it works. However, that kind of heightened reality rarely works on film, and it certainly doesn't here.<br /><br />Director Marshall Brickman has assembled a fine cast who do great work, but by presenting all this absurdity in a realistic fashion the comedy becomes tragedy and you are left with an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach.<br /><br />Seek out a production of the stage play instead, you won't be disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pedantic, overlong fabrication which attempts to chronicle the birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Begins quite promisingly, with a still-relevant probe into an airplane explosion, however the melodrama involving James Stewart and wife Vera Miles just gets in the way (Miles had a habit of playing tepid wives under duress, and her frayed nerves arrive here right on schedule). Esteemed director Mervyn LeRoy helmed this adaptation of Don Whitehead's book, but despite the talent involved, the picture fails to make much of an impression. Best performance is turned in by Murray Hamilton as Stewart's partner, however most of the dialogue is ludicrous and the dogged pacing causes the movie to seem twice as long as it is. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
R Balki tries to tell you a story that had been earlier told by Ram Gopal Verma in Nishabd in a sensuous way. This time it is mixed with mature humors.<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan is a Chef and owns an Indian Cuisine in London. He is very dominating and arrogant and respects his job just like any other job. According to him, Cooking is an art. Still cannot make Hyderabadi Biryani properly.<br /><br />Enter Tabu who sends her the proper Hyderabadi Biryani made by her and they soon starts meeting up and finally falls in love with each other
Amitabh is 65 and Tabu is 35
. No probs! But one Hitch! Tabu's father Paresh Rawal!! The couples decide to meet the father for the approval of their marriage. But Amitabh realizes that Tabu's father is much younger to him. And the complications begin
Performance wise all three actors are brilliant. The script of the film is very tight and interesting. The dialogues of the film are catchy. But somewhere you feel that your stomach is not properly filled. The comedy is sometimes not properly understood. The film also tries to go lengthy at some parts.<br /><br />Musically nothing much to sing about except the Title Track. The camera-work is good. Director R Balki could have given much better from this script. But in the second half he himself looks confused. The "Satyagrah" scene of the father looked irritating. But the lines spoken by Amitabh Bachchan during that scene are clap worthy.<br /><br />On the whole, Cheeni Kum needed to have more sugar!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is terrible but it has some good effects.
|
Negative
| null | null |
About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie itself is so pathetic. It portrayed deaf people as cynical toward hearing people. True, some deaf people are wary of dating hearing people, but they are not necessarily angry like of Marlee Matlin's character was throughout the story. Deaf people do not go to the bar and dance the way Matlin did. All in all, the movie itself is more boring than pathetic. It is so boring that I'd like to believe that it is an insomnia-cured movie. If I have a problem sleeping, I can simply pop in Children of a Lesser God and watch. It will put me to sleep.<br /><br />Keep in mind, this is a deaf guy talking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is just plain bad. Weak story , weak directing and below average acting. The thing that really irritated me was the blatant advertising - constantly - for a well known internet provider. It is obvious some scenes are written to do just that , advertising. This movie is a slap in the face to anyone who payed money for this.<br /><br />Do not watch this, it not worth your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I noticed with some amusement that in the end credits, the Detroit PD is thanked for their participation. The Chief of Police even has one speaking line playing himself (and boy, can you tell he can't act). The reason for the amusement is that in this movie the police shoot first and ask questions later. Not the kind of PR, I would think a police force would want. Other than that, this is your standard cops and robbers film dressed up for the '70's with a racial angle. Alex Rocco is given a thankless role of a lifer cop that can't get ahead and is saddled with a mentally ill wife. He makes up for this by hanging out at the local whorehouse. Hari Rhodes is his dashing partner that has a groovy wardrobe and likes to chase after suspects while wearing a trenchcoat. The movie moves along until the penultimate shootout that makes absolutely no sense (why do people that are only guilty of a robbery, take on a whole police force?). Not only do we see one shootout but since there are four bad guys, we get to see four. Then there is a twist ending that is supposed to leave one guessing what really would have happened but only left me thinking how stupid it was. Seeing that director Arthur Marks was also behind the braindead "Friday Foster" and "Bucktown", I shouldn't have wondered.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The '80's were not very kind to one-time major star Charles Bronson. Starting with 1982's "Death Wish II" and ending with this truly gruesome film from '89, Bronson's screenwriters seemed to be trying to top each other in progressive grossness. "D.W. II" left little to the imagination in its depiction of the rape and suicide of Bronson's character's daughter, (a rape and murder of his housekeeper was also shown in disgusting detail). "10 to Midnight" was the sort of loathsome film that made you want to take a bath afterwards. Nothing redeeming about it. Other films like "The Evil that Men Do" and the remaining "Death Wish" films from this period straddled the line between high camp and high barf with their earnest depictions of brutality and revenge. I'm not sure if the producers (usually Pancho Kohner) got a kick out of showing a weary looking, senior citizen-aged Bronson destroying punks young enough to be his grandchildren or what, but the shoddy craftsmanship (and terrible scripts) of these films usually destroyed what little energy they may have generated.<br /><br />"Kinjite" -- the last of these films -- is fairly well-made but truly takes the cake in cinematic wretchedness. In this film Bronson: sodomizes a perverse john; forces a pimp to eat his Rolex watch; allows a male prisoner to get raped by another prisoner; makes incredibly xenophobic remarks among other things I've thankfully forgotten. Also depicted is the gang-rape of a young Japanese girl (fortunately, this was off-screen, though well-implied).<br /><br />What were people thinking when they made this film? What was Bronson thinking when he decided to ruin his career with these horrible films? For anyone interested in his best movies, check out most of the films he made in the '60's and '70's like "The Mechanic", "Death Wish", "From Noon til 3", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Red Sun", "The Great Escape", "The Magnificent Seven", "Rider on the Rain", etc., etc....
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only good thing about this movie was the shot of Goldie Hawn standing in her little french cut bikini panties and struggling to keep a dozen other depraved women from removing her skimpy little cotton top while she giggled and cooed. Ooooof! Her loins rival those of Nina Hartley. This movie came out when I was fourteen and that shot nearly killed me. I'd forgotten about it all tucked away in the naughty Roladex of my mind until seeing it the other day on TV, where they actually blurred her midsection in that scene, good grief, reminding me what a smokin' hottie of a woman Goldie Hawn was in the '80s. Kurt Russell must have had a fun life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I finally got to have a look at this experimental Lynch short after waiting for so long....and unfortunately, it wasn't worth it! Even for a die hard Lynch fan, I found this to be really tedious....<br /><br />nothing happens, there are long, long, long painful pauses where nothing happens, long, monotonous speeches where nothing is said and the whole thing finishes with the viewer not knowing, or caring, what the hell it was all about, what happened before and what happened afterward. <br /><br />There was a Mulholland Drive allusion - the blonde girl and the brunette girl were very Diane and Rita -esque, and a Lost Highway moment with allusions to some significant event that happened but cannot be talked about clearly. <br /><br />Unfortunately, It's all very uninteresting and very dull, nothing happens, it's very forgettable and I think i will delete it from my computer and forget I ever watched it. Sorry David!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: <br /><br />1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " <br /><br />2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won <br /><br />Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers <br /><br />Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves <br /><br />Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category <br /><br />Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors <br /><br />Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn <br /><br />Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night <br /><br />Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR <br /><br />Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off <br /><br />What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.<br /><br />Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10<br /><br />I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie
|
Negative
| null | null |
Totally ridiculous. If you know anything about poker, you will find it absolutely appalling but also entertaining because it is so clueless. The nerd who made this movie is obviously very religious and knows slightly about the game of poker, but I doubt he's ever played above 3-6. (I think he also knows nothing of golf.) Where to start. I've seen better productions in the Intro to Film class I took freshmen year of film school. The actors to watch in this movie are Queen Momma, Scotty Nguyen, and the loser who can never win at poker. Everyone else is as wooden as they come, like bad porn actors.<br /><br />*Spoiler* The man the movie starts with in the opening sequence is the only reason the film got made. He is a railbird who doesn't play poker and never has a line of dialogue, but the actor is the man who obviously paid for the movie. I can't think of a more useless waste of money than this man shelling out for this pointless production. It's fitting that he had such a useless role.<br /><br />There's very little poker in this movie. Most of the time is spent on useless side characters whose plots aren't resolved in the slightest. Queen Momma does have a show-stealing scene where she throws her loser boyfriend through a window and tries to shoot his brains out. Also the nameless Arabs in the convenience store also give brilliant performances when they debate whether to beat up or kill an older lady who robs them. Their subtle performances are easily among the film's highlights. It makes you wonder why they bothered getting all these white people to play the leads.<br /><br />In conclusion, complete nonsense. Plan 9 from Outer Space has slightly more coherency. If you play poker though you might want to have a laugh. Also if you're Christian you might enjoy some of the heavy-handed religious conversation that pepper the movie like pointless pepper. I hate movies made by religious people. Especially ones who think they know something about things they know nothing about. It's sad that Jennifer Harman and Scotty Nguyen got involved in this travesty as I can't help but think less of them. They must be envious of Johnny Chan for getting in Rounders.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.<br /><br />The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before I explain the "Alias" comment let me say that "The Desert Trail" is bad even by the standards of westerns staring The Three Stooges. In fact it features Carmen Laroux as semi- bad girl Juanita, when you hear her Mexican accent you will immediately recognize her as Senorita Rita from the classic Stooge short "Saved by the Belle". <br /><br />In "The Desert Trail" John Wayne gets to play the Moe Howard character and Eddy Chandler gets to play Curly Howard. Like their Stooge counterparts a running gag throughout the 53- minute movie is Moe hitting Curly. Wayne's character, a skirt chasing bully, is not very endearing, but is supposed to be the good guy. <br /><br />Playing a traveling rodeo cowboy Wayne holds up the rodeo box office at gunpoint and takes the prize money he would have won if the attendance proceeds had been good-the other riders have to settle for 25 cents on the dollar (actually even less after Wayne robs the box office). No explanation is given for Wayne's ripping off the riders and still being considered the hero who gets the girl. <br /><br />Things get complicated at this point because the villain (Al Ferguson) and his sidekick Larry Fine (played by Paul Fix-who would go on to play Sheriff Micah on television's "The Rifleman") see Wayne rob the box office and then steal the remainder of the money and kill the rodeo manager. Moe and Curly get blamed. <br /><br />So Moe and Curly move to another town to get away from the law and they change their names to Smith and Jones. Who do they meet first but their old friend Larry, whose sister becomes the 2nd half love interest (Senorita Rita is left behind it the old town and makes no further appearances in the movie). <br /><br />Larry's sister is nicely played by a radiantly beautiful Mary Kornman (now grown up but in her younger days she was one of the original cast members of Hal Roach's "Our Gang" shorts). Kornman is the main reason to watch the mega-lame western and her scenes with Moe and Curly are much better than any others in the production, as if they used an entirely different crew to film them. <br /><br />Even for 1935 the action sequences in this thing are extremely weak and the technical film- making is staggeringly bad. The two main chase scenes end with stock footage wide shots of a rider falling from a horse. Both times the editor cuts to a shot of one of the characters rolling on the ground, but there is no horse in the frame, the film stock is completely different, and the character has on different clothes than the stunt rider. There is liberal use of stock footage in other places, none of it even remotely convincing. <br /><br />One thing to watch for is a scene midway into the movie where Moe and Curly get on their horses and ride away (to screen right) from a cabin as the posse is galloping toward the cabin from the left. The cameraman follows the two stooges with a slow pan right and then does a whip pan to the left to reveal the approaching posse. Outside of home movies I have never seen anything like this, not because it is looks stupid (which it does) but because a competent director would never stage a scene in this manner. They would film the two riders leaving and then reposition the camera and film the posse approaching as a separate action. Or if they were feeling creative they would stage the sequence so the camera shows the riders in the foreground and the posse approaching in the background. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.<br /><br />First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.<br /><br />The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".<br /><br />Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.<br /><br />Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just saw this at the Chicago Film Festival - avoid it at all costs unless you have sleep problems. It is a film filled with pretensions - it opens with a minor quote from "Hiroshima mon amour" and it's all downhill from there. Camera work - imagine a child trying to imitate Wong Kar Wai. Story line - Smokey Robinson and the Miracles' "The Love I saw in You Was Just a Mirage" expanded from 3 minutes to over 2 hours but filled with repetition. For butt numbing pain this film ranks with the benches at the Methodist church my parent dragged me to when I was a kid. I want 2+ hours of my life refunded. Julian Hernandez's promoter prefaced the viewing with comment that the film was "controversial" - that is true only for the film's narcotic effect.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.<br /><br />The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.<br /><br />But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.<br /><br />A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.<br /><br />Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.<br /><br />If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*Can anybody tell me WHERE is the COMEDY ??!! <br /><br />*(Charlie Sheen) is a very weak comedian, (Thomas Haden Church) is looking so feeble (with him !), and the whole thing is so thickheaded ! <br /><br />*They tried to make a live comic book which turned out to be super bloody comic nightmare and it wasn't even funny? Like the plan's scene in the bathroom; it was so good with its cinematic imagination but there is nothing more.. except PAIN ! <br /><br />*Donald Sutherland ??! His relationship with his daughter ??!<br /><br />*This is actually a kind of work which they made it just to made it and earn some money from it , but it became such a crime when THIS money would be robbed from the very us whom got deceived by so low art work and an entertainment had absolutely no entertainment AT ALL !<br /><br />*Well, it would've been uglier if it was big production and starring Brando in his golden years with a REAL star.<br /><br />*The Sheen's family in here. Just be aware of that !<br /><br />*Anyone who found themselves admiring this movie or -God Forbid- loving it ! Then you must go directly to therapy before you become more dangerous and hurt anybody else !<br /><br />*(Brando) undoubtedly is a genius but the movie isn't ! And he wasn't intending to be one in here after reading this for sure !! But the main big problem is that no one else ever worked in this thing trying, or wanting, to be a small time smart or even good !!! (Sorry I'm crying now ! The movie's torturing is unbelievable !). <br /><br />*There is a scene where (Brando) hitting (Mira Sorvino) by her shoes ! That was so realistic !? Maybe he was seeing himself in her so he was punishing himself for being in such a crap ! <br /><br />*For the milliard time : This one could've been better (or less worse !). The script, till the train's heist, was nice and I just imagined that they'd escape to have some chase like it's another (Smokey and the Bandit) but with (Brando) as the sheriff. In fact any of those chimeras was much merciful than what I've watched !<br /><br />*Why this masterpiece didn't receive any Razzie award ?! You want to make me believe that there was lower movie than THIS ? I do not think so ! It's a situation where the Razzie's supervisor must himself win one for his negligence !!<br /><br />*Martin Sheen is here also as a guest star maybe for supporting his failure son but ironically the father was as failure as his son ! and why is that ?! Well ! Because I hate Martin Sheen maybe more than I hate comic movies weren't as good as its ambition ! <br /><br />*It's not a comedy movie, NO.. It's a horror one !, and I just hate horror movies especially those which have been propagandized as comic ones ! <br /><br />*Name good thing about it? Hmmm ! Well, this one compared to another Marlon Brando's monster movie (The Island of Dr. Moreau - 1996) would be close to (Casablanca) !! <br /><br />P.S : if you still want to know what are or who are precisely the bad, the ugly and the very ugly in this movie.. Just pray your last prayers and go watch it.. May God Help You !
|
Negative
| null | null |
you must be seeing my comments over many films under Evren Buyruk ..I am off to make another comment over a movie that is not even worth a minute of talking though..This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.) I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
|
Negative
| null | null |
normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Play Mystery Theater 3000 at home with your friends! Rent this movie for the laughs! The acting is poor, the sounds is terrible and the fights are ridiculously unbelievable. I thought the movie was a joke until I looked it up on IMBD. I can't wait to rent the sequel, China O'Brien II.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I fail to see the appeal of this series (which is supposed to be sci-fi). It's really just "let's see what soap operatically happens this week" and oh, the Cylons are involved through flashbacks.<br /><br />The Cylon "babe" that keeps nailing the other guy is pretty lame, it's pretty obvious that T&A was added to the show. Every time she pops up I'm bewildered as to WTF is supposed to be going on. And don't even try to bullsh*t me about "story arcs".<br /><br />It's a soap opera with some CGI thrown-in. This is not science fiction aside from the original premise.<br /><br />This series is not everything it's worked-up to be. If you like trendy, edgy, dodgy, jumpy, vague editor-on-crack camera work, this show might be for you. Since nerds seem to be raving about this show, it's a clear indication that vocal nerds' opinions have been changed from Picard's TNG.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I do have the `guts' to inform you to please stay away from `Dahmer', the biographical film based on the real-life story of the grotesque serial killer. `Dahmer' strays more in relation to the mentality of its focused subject. Jeffrey Dahmer, who murdered over 15 young males and ate some of their body parts, was probably the most incongruous serial killer of our generation. However, the real sick individuals are the filmmakers of this awful spectacle who should have had their heads examined before deciding to greenlight this awful `dahm' project. This is not an easy film to digest, even though Jeffrey would have easily digested it with some fiery `brainsadillas' appetizers or even some real-life `Mr. Potato skins'. * Failure
|
Negative
| null | null |
The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.<br /><br />Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?<br /><br />Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.<br /><br />Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.<br /><br />Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite the high ratings given to this film by IMDB users, this is nothing more than your typical girl-with-a-bad-childhood-obsessively-stalks-married-man film. The attractive Justine Priestly's brief nude scenes may attract voyeurs, but the film is hackneyed tripe.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Normally, I am a pretty generous critic, but in the case of this film I have to say it was incredibly bad. I am stunned by how positive most reviews seem to be.<br /><br />There were some gorgeous shots, but it's too bad they were wasted on this sinkhole of a movie. It might have worked if "Daggers" was purely an action flick and not a romance, but unfortunately the film is built around an empty love triangle. There is no chemistry between either of the couples, whatever exists between Mei and her men seems to be more lust than love, and for the most part the dialogue is just silly. This may be just a problem with translation, but the frequent usage of the word "flirt" in particular reminded me of 8th grade, not head-over-heels, together forever, worth-dying-for love; I also felt we were beat over the head with the wind metaphor. The audience is given very little about the characters to really care about, and therefore very little emotional investment in the movie as a whole. I was wishing for a remote control to fast forward, I was slumped in my seat ready to snore, but mostly I just cringed a lot.<br /><br />*******spoiler*****<br /><br />Now, the icing on the cake. Or rather, adding insult to injury. The ending was truly one of the most horrible, laughable ones I have ever seen. The boys are having their stag fight and screaming and yelling and hacking at each other. Oh, and then it starts to snow. Randomly. Oh, and then Mei (dagger embedded in heart) suddenly pops up out of the weeds. Then she throws a dagger that seems to take about 5 minutes to reach it's destination, even slowing conveniently midscreen to hit a tiny blood droplet. Wow, cool.<br /><br />Well, then Mei dies finally I guess because she threw the dagger that was lodged in her chest and bled to death. Jin sings, sobs, holds her body close, screen goes blank. I, and the people surrounding me, are chuckling. Not a good sign.<br /><br />Visually stunning, but ultimately a failure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILER WARNING: There are some minor spoilers in this review. Don't read it beyond the first paragraph if you plan on seeing the film.<br /><br />The Disney Channel currently has a policy to make loads of movies and show one a month on the cable channel. Most of these are mediocre and drab, having a few good elements but still being a disappointment (`Phantom of the Megaplex,' `Stepsister From Planet Weird,' `Zenon: Girl of the 21st Century'). Every once in a great while, they make something really, really great (`Genius,' `The Other Me'). But once in a while The Disney Channel makes a huge mistake, and gives us a real stinker. This month (December 2000) The Disney Channel featured `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' which I thought was terrible due to poor writing and worse acting. Apparently, `The Brainiacs.com' was rushed out a few days before Christmas to get a jump on the holiday, because the plot has to do with toys. They even paid for a feature in the TV Guide, so I thought it must be better than the norm. I was in for a complete shock. Only Disney's `Model Behaviour' has been worse than this.<br /><br />The plot was more far-fetched than normal. I usually let that slide, but here it just goes too far. Matthew Tyler gets very sick of his widowed father spending most of his time at work. His father owns a small toy factory that has taken out large loans at a scrupulous bank to stay afloat. Time and time again, his father has to skip out on the plans he makes with his son and daughter. Matthew decides that the only way he can spend time with his dad is if he becomes the boss and orders him to stay home. He gets a hair-brained idea to create a website where kids all around the world can find and send him a dollar to invest in a computer chip that his sister is inventing. That whole concept is full of fallacies. When kids send in millions of dollars, Matthew opens his own company's bank account and buys up most of his dad's business's stock. He is the secret boss, but he doesn't reveal this to his dad, but instead presents himself at board meetings as a cartoon image through a computer. That image itself is so complex (and ridiculous) that it isn't possible for someone to create it at home, much less someone who comes across as stupid as Matthew. To make a long plot short, Matthew orders his dad to spend more time having fun and doing stuff with his kids, but a federal agent shows up inquiring about Matthew's company, as it is fraudulent.<br /><br />There's so much wrong here. As mentioned, the stuff they do here is impossible even for true geniuses, which these kids are not. The website, the cartoon image, the computer chip, even the stuff they are being taught in school, are far too advanced for these kids. The acting by most of the cast, especially Kevin Kilner, is terrible. Some familiar faces are wasted. Dom DeLuise plays the evil bank owner, but his part is a throwaway. He has one good scene with Alexandra Paul (who shows she has the ability to act) in which he explains his motives, but nothing more. And Rich Little is wasted in a small role as a judge. There's even some offensive and uncalled for anti-Russian jokes. But the greatest atrocities are the hard-hammered themes. These themes show up in many of The Disney Channel's films, but never before have these ultra-conservative messages been pounded so strongly. The typical `overworking parent' idea is really pushed hard, and after delivering it inappropriately in `The Ultimate Christmas Present,' seeing it again sours my mood. Family relations are important, but Disney must stop this endless preaching, because working is important to maintaining a workable family, too. Except for cancelling activities thanks to work, the father didn't come across as that bad, but I found it offensive when the grandmother told him `I don't like what I see.' Just as bad is the preaching of the idea that all single parents MUST marry if they want to raise their kids right. Enter Alexandra Paul, whose character, while important to the plot, is there solely to be the love interest for the father. This offensiveness only proves that the Disney brain trust lacks the brains to avoid scraping from the bottom of the Disney script barrel. Instead of letting this movie teach your kids how to commit serious fraud, wait for the next Disney Channel movie. It has to be better than this. Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wonderful actors. <br /><br />Lousy script and not too great direction either. My main problem was I simply didn't CARE about any of these people. Not the killer not the victims. The settings were pretty drab. Dennis Quaid's character was so poorly written in, I didn't even care when the end came. He got his kid back. Big deal! I wanted my money back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film. <br /><br />Actor Miguel Núñez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona. <br /><br />If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.<br /><br />What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film lacks style, i mean original style. everything looks copied including action, first appearances in the movie, songs, dialog delivery, etc etc. Yes, there the goof-ups were original, like in the beginning a car is shown with number UP**** number and few seconds later it starts falling down a hill with number MH**** . That was one in many goof-ups of the movie :) Anything good in the movie? yes, for kareena fans, if there are any, Kareena in bikini. For akshay fans, his dialogs and action stunts. Thats it. nothing else. So watch it on your own risk and don't blame the director or actors. Director is already insane and actors, i pity them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first saw the cover of this movie (a giant bug chasing a few nurses) And the name "Blue Monkey", I knew I wasn't in for any big Hollywood movie. I was pleasantly surprised to see Steve Railsback in this cheese-ball flick, who always does a good job in whatever role he tackles.... The FX are pretty corny, there isn't too much of a plot, and I'm still not sure why this movie is called Blue Monkey, because there is nothing in this movie to do with monkey. But come on people, what did you expect?? It's not really as bad as it seems.... If you enjoy the old 50's style black and white bug attack movies, this one is basically an updated version, without the updates special FX
|
Negative
| null | null |
I found it a real task to sit through this film. The sound track was not the best and some of the accents made it difficult to understand what was being said. There was little to move the plot along and often the action simply stopped and there was a prolonged period of conversations which seemed extraneous to the movie. These conversations switched between family groups and the observer was left to try and piece together what the common thread was that tied them together. It is rare that I rate a film this low and do so in this case as the entire viewing experience left me thinking "so what" and "why did I waste my time watching this."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn would roll over in their graves if they knew this Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Rip Off was actually in theaters. Along with Sidney Poitier and Katherine Houghton these four brilliant actors made a great cultural statement with Director Stanley Kramer's 1967 master piece. This present day rip off is a joke. So a white guy from an overly stereotyped Italian family in Rhode Island brings his African American girlfriend home (Insert GASP here) to his grand father's funeral. His family members reactions were of course....predictable. This movie was so painfully telegraphed from start to finish my girlfriend actually started fake snoring to signal to me that she wanted to leave. Do yourself a favor and rent the original. Take a pass on Wake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Really a terrible movie. It's to be expected, though. Clearly a low budget: nothing all that innovative, an actress (if you can call what she does "acting") who always has roles with nudity in a shower scene, a man in a reptile suit almost modeled after predator, a cabin in the woods, etc. But there are some redeeming points. Although the story is not new, for the most part, there's a few parts that aren't so regurgitated. For one, the black guy doesn't die when he's attacked (the first time) and he isn't even one of the first couple to die. But that's minor. More importantly, there's a very interesting twist regarding Kat's experiments and Wes & Steve that I didn't see coming. When Steve told Kat he knew what she did, I believed what he said and what Kat replied with. But when the creature revealed who he really was, I was pleasantly surprised at the novelty of the revelation. It could be because of my lack of experience with the genre, or that it's a genuinely clever twist.<br /><br />Either way, the movie's pretty bad and don't watch it if there's anything better on... Unless you're in the mood for a cheap scifi flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The most misogynistic movie of all time? Not to mention by '68 shouldn't they have moved beyond white people in brown face playing the "Indians"? My favorite parts though have to be when the girls giggle and blush as the bikers drag them off to gang rape them. Rape is fun! Who knew? Let's see, then there's the blatant rip-offs of "The Hustler" (fat boss character actually plays pool while scheming to destroy the Indians with the lead rebel dude), the horrific acting, the so-on-the-nose-they-might-as-well-have-just-told-you-what-to-think music cues, the lack of ANYONE WHO'S ACTUALLY Indian in this movie. And who are we supposed to be rooting for? I have to say it figures that Quentin Tarantino loves this movie. Even though his movies tend to champion strong women, I've heard from at least one source that in real life he's a misogynistic idiot. Why did I watch it, you ask? Don't ask.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show is possibly the biggest, ugliest, most generic steam pile I've seen in children's programming that's actually become successful. The lead character, Johnny, while I understand he's supposed to represent an ordinary kid, isn't likable or even tolerable. The jokes are lame, overdone (i.e. the "Whoa! Didn't see that coming" gag. Come on, that wasn't even funny the first time. It's not even cute) and lack any form of primitive wit or inspiration. And lastly... it's just plain ugly to look at. While kids aren't especially critical of artistic talent, they still prefer eye candy. I can't stand watching the show, because in a way, the art style is just...gross. Hideous, in fact. Just plain crummy. <br /><br />I just can't stand that this is getting so much airtime. While I understand that nostalgia can be a little irrational and I shouldn't be getting my hopes up on it coming back... I really miss the old cartoons. Bring back Dexter's Laboratory, The Powerpuff Girls... anything but this crap. I guess it's just wishful thinking though.<br /><br />Simply put, I advise you don't waste your time on this show. I believe that truly good cartoons are able to be enjoyed by the big kids, too. And this doesn't cut it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.