input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This is kind of a weird movie, given that Santa Claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against Satan and his minions...but it's still kinda fun.<br /><br />It has some genuine laughs...whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable, though. This movie is not good, but I can say I really enjoyed watching it.<br /><br />I would recommend this movie over "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians", "Santa Claus" with Dudley Moore and John Lithgow, or "The Santa Clause" with Tim Allen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Certainly one of the dozen or so worst movies ever released in any form, featuring a bizarrely abominable performance by Rain Joan of Arc Phoenix (River's sister, inevitably), as Bonanza Jellybean plus inconceivably awful voiceover narration by Tom Robbins, the author of the novel, which had/retains its peculiar sweet/loopy charms.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We all know what's like when we have a bad day at the office, right? Well, this Neil Simon comedy looks at what it's like when you have the worst of all days just trying to get to the office. Sometimes, it's just not worth going, know what I mean? And, sometimes, it's just not worth doing something when it's already been done before, in 1970, with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis... and much better also.<br /><br />It's not that Steve Martin is a lousy comedian or wrong for the role as the harried and stressed advertising exec; quite to the contrary, on both counts. And, it's not that Goldie Hawn is equally inept either; her work has been consistently good, if not great, ever since I first saw her in TV's Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In of the 1960s.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is that it's not about the hapless couple at all: it's really about New York and why everybody should come to New York to live and love their lives away in married bliss sort of in the greatest city in the world. That's if you're a New Yorker...<br /><br />Look, the 1970 movie is still an excellent comedy that realistically explored all the things that can go wrong when you take a trip somewhere, and included most of the situations and sight gags that you can imagine about what can happen to you in a strange environment. This 1999 version unfortunately goes off into gratuitous tangents specifically for an audience these days that expects or wants to see excess. For example, not content with the star appeal of the main players, there is a cameo (relatively long also) from Rudy Giuliani, then mayor of New York, as we all know. What Giuliani bucking for President even then? Worse a walking talking advertisement for the kinder face of New York.<br /><br />And then we have John Cleese, reprising his role as Basil Fawlty but this time, as a prancing cross-dresser also once again browbeating hotel staff, sycophantically sucking up to rich customers and generally making himself look like the idiot he is, in this role. And, in the process, doing great damage to the memory of Fawlty Towers, arguably the best British comedy series, bar none...<br /><br />Why was this 1999 movie made? In the 1970s, New York was a dying city, in many ways. It was almost literally bankrupt. So, when made in 1970, that was the city you saw: grim, dark, moody, unsettling and not the place that the harassed couple finally chose for their new life together in the Big Smoke (as it was then, polluted and all). By 1999, things had gotten better: glitz was back, New York was thriving, it was the Big Apple, ready for you to bite into, if you had the moxie...<br /><br />So, naturally, the couple in this second coming find that moxie within themselves and finally join the fabulous fray to continue the American dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, this movie is truly comic but not for reasons that the producers perhaps envisaged. As much as I like Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn in comedy, this movie is a travesty of the much better one made with the great Jack Lemmon. If you've seen the latter, then definitely don't bother with this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do you know when you look at your collection of old, videotaped movies, and realize that there are some that you've only seen once or twice, and you can't remember if they're worth the time it takes to see them? The Alibi is/was one of those films; I found it, not long ago, and decided I might as well give it a chance. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with my decision... on one hand, the film is really, really bad, on the other, now I have another free tape... yeah, you get it. The plot is predictable and not in any way original. The pacing is bad. The acting is bad, but that's not really surprising, seeing as the two leads are former soap-opera stars... they're used to overact. The characters are poorly written clichés. The film even manages to screw up the easiest damn way to impress me(through film): court scenes. Even those don't elicit one single emotion for or against any of the cardboard-thin characters. The film just has no real redeeming qualities whatsoever... even the dialog is bad. The thing is, it's so full of clichés that it's laughable. And that's the one thing that lifts this above a rating of 1/10: the(albeit unintentionally so) comic relief of the many clichés and stereotypes. I didn't pay very much attention to the film, but just about every time I looked at the screen, there was something to laugh at. One final note: I considered using the line "Tori Spelling can't act" as a one line summary, but I guess everyone knows that, so I opted for the current one, seeing as it's more informative. All in all, a thoroughly bad film, but not the worst if you've got nothing else to do and if it's on TV. Good for a few laughs, if you can sit through it. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
We all know that some of the greatest movies of all time were based on books. While not particularly accurate adaptations, these movies were nonetheless excellent films. Some great examples are the Harry Potter series, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and, to a lesser extent, almost every Disney film ever made. However, I must regretfully announce that A Wrinkle in Time is not one of those movies. Not only does it fail to meet some of the most basic expectations of Madeleine L'Engle's fan base, it manages to defy the standards of scriptwriting, acting, special effects and, ultimately, respect for the audience. Mind you, I'm not trying to be mean; on the contrary, I went into this affair with an open mind. I figured that a made-for-T.V. movie would make up for its lack of razzle-dazzle in its script. After all, the Star Wars spin-off Ewoks was decent, if a little silly. Come to think of it, the original Star Wars was made on "a lunch money budget", and look where it took George Lucas! However, from the first scene onward, disappointment started enveloping me as if I'd gotten too close to the Black Thing while tessering. <br /><br />The same way Greedo shooting first became the symbol of the Star Wars Special Edition of 1997 (a disaster of monumental proportions involving a disgruntled director making several hideous changes to a beloved classic), Mrs. Whatsit has officially become my personal symbol for the confusion and stupidity that is A Wrinkle in Time. The reason for this is the fact that she has been mutated beyond belief. Aside from the slightly controversial decision of casting Alfre Woodard (Star Trek: First Contact and Radio) as our favorite star-turned-mentor, the filmmakers decided it appropriate to introduce her as a crow. That's right, a crow. Moreover, the heavenly centaurion form of this greatly beloved character has been hacked at by what looks to be a demented eight-year-old; the majestic half-man, half-horse with wings has become a huge human head with a creepy smile mounted awkwardly on the bowlegged body of a horse that happens to be sporting a pair of wings in the middle. Had I been five, this would have psychologically traumatized me for life. The worst part is the fact that when it spoke, it was shown from behind so as to avoid the responsibility to lip sync, resulting in a scene that was spent looking at the back of its head and seeing a single, unmoving cheek, thus rendering the piece of special effects less believable than E.T.<br /><br />Having gotten the most painful part out of the way, I must go on to the tear-inducing one: the characters, the acting, and the story. I, personally, had always imagined Meg to look somewhat similar to Moaning Myrtle from the Harry Potter films: plain hair, glasses, and a figure most supermodels would find laughable. She was always a slightly anxious, humorously pessimistic math genius who quite simply could not have cared less about the imports and exports of Nicaragua. In the film, she is an unpleasant know-it-all for whom I have no sympathy whatsoever. In fact, she makes me feel sorry for poor Mr. Jenkins, her school principal, who continuously has to deal with her. Calvin, the kind, intelligent kid who everyone thinks is a jock has become
a jock! The irony is horrible. As for the memorable Happy Medium, they took the pleasant old woman who liked to look at happy things and replaced her with a being who is "above gender" and likes to look at "funny" things, such as girls falling off of swings. The only three people I can think of who did a decent job are Charles Wallace, Mrs. Whatsit and the Man With Red Eyes (nicknamed "the Dude With Red Eyes" due to his complete reinvention as a character).<br /><br />The story is a mess. A good comparison to this aspect of the movie is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, which didn't do a good job of retelling the story found in the book, yet kept the sole of the original work. Here, the sole of the book is having a pleasant chat with Hades down in the underworld, apparently unaware that its body is being destroyed. As the Dark Lord complements the sole on how well it showed that truth has to be felt and not seen, the flat-nosed wookies of Ixchel (who replace the wondrous beings who hold Aunt Beast among their ranks) tear the spine up. As the God of the Dead notes how subtle the terror of the Earth-like Camazotz was, the torn pages are scattered in the sandstorm and lost in the darkness of the land of evil. <br /><br />I am very sorry that this film exists. I do not believe that the actors were genuinely bad. It's the way the characters are written that ruins it. A Wrinkle in Time deserved to be adapted by Lawrence Kasdan, directed by George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, enhanced at Industrial Light and Magic, scored by John Williams, given its sound at Skywalker Sound, edited by THX and marketed by Twentieth Century Fox. In its current state, the film is unworthy to be shown to self-respecting people. Even Madeleine L'Engle thought it was bad. The book was Good, the film was Bad, and Mrs. Whatsit was Ugly.<br /><br />Score: 0.1/10 (If I could) <br /><br />Pros:<br /><br />They got the names right. <br /><br />Cons: <br /><br />It had horrible problems with the Cliffs Notes level of adaptation, script, acting and special effects, not to mention lack of evidence of ever having read the book. Oh, and the main cover/poster has a picture of the three main characters riding a flying horse over a castle. Some might say that this symbolizes high adventure. I say it symbolizes the irresponsibility of the cover artist who didn't even bother to Photoshop Meg's arm on properly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all I thought it was naughty of them to say in the credits that the story and screenplay were by Preston Sturges. Sturges was one of the better Hollywood screenwriters until his talent faded and he retired. However, it wasn't the Preston Sturges, it was Preston Sturges, Jr. The story was essentially based on Robert Louis Stevenson's short story "The Bottle Imp". A good man comes into possession of an evil object that will grant him any wish but which will ultimately doom him to hell. That's fine. Nobody said screenwriters had to be original. The actors are generally pretty competent given the mediocre writing that they had to translate onto the screen. My biggest complaint comes with the ending. The hero thinks he has discovered a way out of his dilemma but tries to solve the problem in a somewhat different way in an attempt to save an innocent person. At first this seems to have worked but true to the code of the modern horror film, they feel they have to provide one last dollop of horror at the very end of the film. This is a stupid convention. The older horror films got along just fine with allowing the hero to win out at the end. There is nothing wrong with good triumphing over evil no matter what the current crop of film makers seems to think. You can give the audience a good healthy scare and still make them feel happy at the end. In fact, I think it's preferable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would have liked to give this movie a zero but that wasn't an option!! This movie sucks!!! The women cannot act. i should have known it was gonna suck when i saw Bobby Brown. Nobody in my house could believe i hadn't changed the channel after the first 15 minutes. the idea of black females as gunslingers in the western days is ridiculous. it's not just a race thing, it's also a gender. the combination of the two things is ridiculous.i am sorry because some of the people in the movie aren't bad actors/actresses but the movie itself was awful. it was not credible as a movie. it might be 'entertaining' to a certain group of people but i am not in that group. lol. and using a great line from a great, great movie..."that's all I have to say about that."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was thirteen years old, when I saw this movie. I expected a lot of action. Since Escape From New York was 16-rated in Germany I entered the movie as fallback. It was so boring. Afterwards I realized that this was just crap where a husband exhibits his wife. I mean today you do this via internet and you pay for instant access. It is more then 20 years ago, but I am still angry that I waste my time with this film. This is a soft-porno for schoolboys. Undressing Bo Derek and painting her with color - nice. But then they should named the film Undressing Bo and painting her.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Williamson's accent is tough to wade through. He speaks incredibly quickly, like he is in a rush to get through the lines. During the soliloquies he acts as if he is talking to someone, when he is supposed to be talking to himself. All that and his bald spot just annoyed me. He was just too old for this role. In reading other accounts of Williamson, maybe he got this role because he was mad and the director decided to do a bit of life-imitates-art or forced method acting. When the actors declare Hamlet mad you believe it! Marianne Faithful is a stunning beauty and could botch the role of Ophelia and still get a pass. The set is dark and foreboding but it does look as if shot in a real castle especially the scenes in the tunnels/corridors where the dead king shines as a great light in the sky.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having grown up in Texas, and less than 15 miles from what used to be Gilley's, I can tell you that this movie is nauseating. The majority of Texans do not live like this movie indicates. The plot is weak, and the fake accents are amusing, and it reinforces the stereotypical image that all Texans are beer drinking, honky-tonkin', rednecks. The horribly fake Texas accents is what kills it for me. True, there is a certain Texas twang to most Texans' accents, but these people overdo it. You can't get someone from New Jersey and Ohio to do Texas accents. It just doesn't work. John Travolta should have stuck to disco-dancing or the 50s. Debra Winger was more convincing as Wonder Girl than she is as a Texan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1937's "Stella Dallas" with Barbara Stanwyck hasn't exactly aged well--how anyone thought a semi-updated version of the story would work now is a real puzzler. Perhaps they thought jaunty, cheerfully brash Bette Midler could make something out of it, but this hoary script defeats her. Plot about a female bartender having a baby out of wedlock, and years later giving the young girl over to the child's wealthy father so she'll have a shot at a better life, can't escape tatty, old-fashioned trappings and sentiment. Midler works best with a movie director who can control her excesses, but that fails to happen here; Stephen Collins is stolid as the man who changes her life, but Trini Alvarado is well-cast as Midler's daughter. This is what used to be referred to as a "woman's picture", a wallow, but it doesn't pass muster because it stays too faithful to its 1930's origins. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...<br /><br />the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I put this movie on in the hotel room to entertain my children the morning we were leaving to go home, because I had packed away all their toys. (Toddlers don't like to watch "Regis and KAthie Lee" or "The View.") My four year old found one scene funny, but told me the rest of it was "too silly." This is a FOUR YEAR OLD, folks. Anyone over the age of, say, nine will want to kill their television rather than let this one play itself out.<br /><br />To say this movie is bad is like saying the Holocaust was a little mistake. There are no words for how ridiculous and utterly terrible this "film" truly is. The acting is bad, the plot is stupid, and the script is pathetically unfunny. Since this is supposed to be a comedy, the fact that you cannot even laugh at the badness of the movie makes it even worse. Bronson "Balki" Pinchot is the worst with some weird fake accent (Irish-Pakistani-Bronx-Cockney-Cajun as far as I could tell), but all the characters are awful. I haven't watched a real Laurel and Hardy film in ages, but I KNOW that they HAD to be way better than this. What is the point of ruining a classic comic duo with... this?<br /><br />Bottom line: derivative garbage. Avoid at all costs unless you have some freaky Bronson Pinchot fetish. 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie had a fairly good sounding plot, but the paste was very slow... very slow indeed. even if someone thinks this is a cult classic, i think that there are a lot better films from that era to be watched.<br /><br />the cinematography is not excellent, but not the worst either. the sounds are OK. lighting OK.<br /><br />i still wouldn't recommend this to anyone else than maybe a film-student.<br /><br />the movie does not contain music, and the horses having sex don't make it a good one either. and the woman masturbating on the edge of the bed was plain stupid.<br /><br />no winnings here, skip this utter boredom. i've seen worse believe me, but this is just waste of time, and i don't get the good reviews here. especially the high ratings...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was very excited about this film when I first saw the previews. Normally I see a preview this good and I buy the film outright. Something told me to... you know watch it first. I'm glad I did. Keira Knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. In the 2nd Pirates movie when it came out I went to see it. All I saw was Domino Harvey and I hated her more for it. I think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for Domino.<br /><br />Domino who? Who is Domino Harvey? I still don't really know or care. I don't know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. I didn't care about her character and even Keira getting partically naked didn't make it worth the movie. The direction was definitely lacking. The writing was trite and shallow. The editing was horrible. I don't mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. There's a place for it. Good examples of choppy, MTV style, colorful editing (not sure if there's an official name) would be Fight Club; just off the top of my head. Even Enemy of the State had a semi similar editing style at parts. It was used tastefully and wasn't used as a crutch. I mean this is the same guy who directed Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Tony Scott please give me my time back.<br /><br />I understand there are many people who liked this movie. I guess the idea that you'll either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. Frankly, I hate it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."<br /><br />It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience. <br /><br />The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.<br /><br />Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech." <br /><br />The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were forced just a bit to high, because I was left a little dry.<br /><br />A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. Where hasn't this set up been used before? The difference here is the uber-perverse nature of the sex. Not allowed to show all the goods (groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time, what is shown is fogged out) the movie tries as hard as it can to show the viewer just how unnatural sex can be.<br /><br />Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin I can't fathom) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are a bit much, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, but otherwise the gore is pretty standard fare.<br /><br />Ultimately the film is pulled down by it's own designs; it's too over-sexed to be a strait horror picture and too gruesome to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but there need to be a balance.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
|
Given the title and outlandish box art, I was ready for just about anything. Perhaps my expectation were too low, because I was left blown away.<br /><br />A film crew working on a soft-core sex movie end up at a strange house when they get lost in the fog and decide the best way to spend the evening is to have sex. This setup is so novel, I have never seen it used before. Whats especially new here is the nature of the sex. They show all the goods (even though groin shots were illegal in Japan for a long time) the movie shows the viewer just how natural sex can be.<br /><br />Amidst all the kinky goings on, a mud monster (whose origin is well established) shows up and begins murdering the men and raping the women...then murdering them too. Some of the sights are great, most notably a woman having her intestines pulled out through her vagina or another woman spitting out a mouthful of...stuff, and the gore is pretty.<br /><br />Ultimately the film is pulled up by it's own designs; it's well-sexed, a strait horror picture, and gruesome enough to work as a sex flick. The mediums can work, but this works better.<br /><br />4/10
|
Positive
|
Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!<br /><br />But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.<br /><br />The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. <br /><br />Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. <br /><br />The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.<br /><br />For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. <br /><br />Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. <br /><br />Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. <br /><br />I even regret renting the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**SPOILERS**This was an ugly movie, and I'm sorry that I watched it. Like Jan Kounen's Dobermann, it suffers mostly from poor editing--or lack of it. It is as if the director was so in love with his work that instead of cutting the movie down to a pace that kept your attention, he added all of the footage he had shot together. There are maybe two cool scenes in the entire movie. One of them is *SPOILER* when Benkei is petrified and the camera starts spinning around him. That was cool--but okay, we got it! Move on please! The camera won't stop spinning around this guy! There's maybe one or two more cool scenes that I forgot about in this flood of mediocrity, but the last duel scene IS NOT ONE OF THEM! It may be because unlike in the earlier sword-handling scenes, Shanao isn't masked--but just because the director couldn't find a stuntman who somewhat resembled Asano Tadanobu doesn't give him the right to go ahead and make up 80% of the sword fight with extreme close-ups of sword clashes! And all from the same angle, may I add. The director should learn from the American produced 1995 bullet-train ninja movie The Hunted! I personally saw the village raid scene as a tribute paid to the social activists of the previous generation who were confronted by the police in the violent demonstrations of their college years. The situation where innocence is oppressed by an authoritative and armed branch of the government unwilling to understand seems to be a message common in the Japanese media, due to the strong influence of socialists and communists who are a political minority. The movie versions of GTO and Salary Man Kintaro are two other recent examples *END SPOILER* I don't understand. I just don't understand why people who don't speak the language of the movie find praise worthy material in this. Maybe the worst was lost in the translation.<br /><br />The ending of the movie--on which marketing played a lot, is a different interpretation of the legendary encounter between Shanao and Benkei. But that legend is not the most popular in Japanese folklore, and it is so detached from contemporary themes, that after 138 minutes of over played visual techniques, who cares how the director wants to re-interpret the story!? Director Sasaki Hirohisa of Crazy Lips said that there was an unpleasant trend among new Japanese directors to ignore Japanese audiences, and target their movies for foreign film festivals--in order to gain faster international fame. This works, although it doesn't make sense, because the point of an international movie fest is to introduce to the world what kind of movies are being made in other countries-what kind of movies people WATCH in those countries. Certainly not Gojoe and the like.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You have to admire Brad Sykes even if you don't particularly want to, a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. But keeps on doing it all the same. Even the half-hearted praise than surrounds his Camp Blood films is given grudgingly and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix, a neat idea, a kooky character, whatever, but without the funds to take it further than base level, he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. Joe Haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as Ebenezer Jackson and its a credit to Sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. Coming to a multiplex near you, in a parallel universe, somewhere.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just when I thought I would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a "Bomb" rating, a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. I feared the worst knowing its reputation, and it was as God-awful as I'd anticipated. This is a Mexican-made mess, dubbed into English, and produced by K. Gordon Murray. It's got terrible sets and effects, and features a rather frightening Santa who doesn't operate at the North Pole, but instead from a cloud in outer space, and who doesn't have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. The opening sequence, where St. Nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages, seems to go on forever, and with no story. Obviously, THIS Santa Claus doesn't observe the child labor laws!<br /><br />Eventually we get some nasty and slinky red-suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to Earth, just to make little kids naughty and turn Santa's Christmas Eve rounds into a nightmare. Watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience, and it's bound to frighten little children and turn them off Santa Claus and the holidays forever. Oddly, the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned often in this Christmas film, which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. This easily makes my personal list of the "Worst Movie I've Ever Seen", but I'm sure that's nothing unique.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, after trashing the disk of Timo Roses "Rout City" after about 15 Minutes (South Park is about more than meaningless cursing... I guess some people just don't get it) I was interested in this movie. I read quite some positive stuff and the packaging and look of the movie seemed far from the total trash I expected after "Rout city".<br /><br />Surprise: The movie isn't total trash but the problem seems to be exactly that. Timo Rose tries to walk in the footsteps of German Horror/Splatter Cinema like Olaf Ittenbach and the likes. That means "Barricade" is in parts extremely gory and detailed. The gore FX are not really believable but OK, the acting is OK but in some cases plain sucks. The hillbilly chick in the opening sequence is ridiculous and doesn't get better till she's shot.<br /><br />So what is the problem... the movie is gory, has a typical German underground vibe (including the classic booby shots in blood), OK FX and a modern feel to it like the packaging already promised?! <br /><br />1. The script is total BS. You get a typical hillbilly/lost in the woods story with some guys+gal camping out and meeting a degenerated hillbilly family. Everything is just leading towards the torture/mutilation scenes and seems unbelievably random and pointless. This is the first thing that makes "Barricade" half-hearted.<br /><br />2. Random is also the perfect description for a lot of the camera work (I liked the repetitive cut to the tweezers in the extended booby torture scene... either they had no material or the editor works in a hardware store). Even worse the editing... sure, its modern and far better than a lot of other movies in the genre but its RANDOM. You got an overuse of that typical exposure effect everywhere and with no meaning ... its just there... all the time. Then there's some grainy/noisy film look which also is just thrown in here and there for the sake of it, I don't get the meaning.<br /><br />3. Like the fore-mentioned effects there is a lot of repetitive stuff in here. For example most of the kills are edited with multiple repetitions of stabbing and punching. Its OK once but here its annoying and fake, especially towards the end. Annoying also attributes the "music" which is permanently used without any change in the background. It doesn't take long until it makes the movie hardly bearable.<br /><br />4. From all this comes the biggest problem of this movie (and many others in my opinion). If you make a splatter movie with trashy feel its pretty idiotic to polish it with special FX and new school editing. It looks like they take it way too serious. Its no fun because the decent gore FX are plain wasted in this context. And where the classic gore FX are OK the computer FX in scenes like the stabbing in the mouth or the gunshots in the ending look rather silly(and 3D splatter mostly sucks to me even in movies with a budget and decent 3D artists).<br /><br />I often wondered if the time of serious splatter movies is over and "Barricade" is just another example it might be time to put it in the tomb. Its no fun, has no character and is too trashy for its look. The script is a cheap try on "Wrong Turn" and "TCM" leading absolutely nowhere. You can take that literally... the ending is just there and as random as many other things here ("I love you" in a splatter flick... come on!!). "Barricade" tries to incorporate a lot and fails...you can sure fast-forward through this movie for some extensive disembowelment, acid face melting,nipple pinching and classic Friday the 13th style stabbing of a couple while fingering in a tent (bloody boobies hooray!). But its really hard to get through this. Total failure especially because you can see it could have been something.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Straight to the point: "The Groove Tube" is one of the most unfunny, unclever and downright horrible films ever made. This "comedy" is so void of anything remotely resembling a trace of wit that it's almost incomprehensible that it was even made. I said almost because there are fans of everything after all.<br /><br />This film isn't even "good" bad or "enjoyable" bad. To put this movie on the same level of entertainment as "Plan 9" or "Robot Monster" would be a crime to those films. Films like that you can actually watch and get a kick out of. But this film is SO bad, SO poorly made, acted and scripted and SO incredible stale, that there just isn't even a trace of "camp" or "schlock" to be found.<br /><br />Even though this was made before Saturday Night Live premiered, comparisons were probably inevitable. I'm not a big fan of SNL, but this film is worse than the worst SNL skit you can find. And man, that's BAD. Just to keep the men viewers from leaving, Shapiro throws in a pair of breasts every so often, but poorly-filmed breasts from 1974 aren't going to excite anyone these days. Truthfully this film is so poorly made and is such a sleep-inducing excursion, I doubt if they excited anyone in 1974 either.<br /><br />A man named Ken Shapiro made this film. I swear to God, any ten-year old with a video camera could have made something funnier and more clever. It's just downright unreal - this is truly an unbelievable film. The "jokes" and "gags" are so infantile that even little boys who like to sneak dad's porno mags out at night won't laugh.<br /><br />I will give this film one thing - the very last sequence, the "dancing man" sequence, where a guy (Shapiro) on the streets of NYC dances to a tune, is easily the best thing in this horrible film. Not that the "dancing man" sequence is that great either - it definitely has its moments of not being clever as Shapiro desperately tries to fill in the time for the entire song - but it actually was somewhat watchable. The part of this sequence where the cop starts dancing with the man is the one sole trace of cleverness in the entire film. No wonder Shapiro put this sequence last - again, while not so great itself, it easily beats anything else in this "film."<br /><br />Otherwise, this film is such a complete piece of crap, it's unfathomable as to how an actual human being can be so downright cleverless. The name of this film should have been "Ken Shapiro's Craparama." It's amazing that this was made, but many truly talented filmmakers can't get in. However, I will say that I bet the geniuses at NYU would love this movie. Total garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rex Reed once said of a movie ("Julia and Julia" to be specific) that it looked like it was shot through pomegranate juice. I was reminded of that as I snored through Purple Butterfly. This one appeared to be shot through gauze.<br /><br />The story was boring and it was not helped that for large portions of scenes actors' faces were literally out of focus or would only come into focus after extended periods of time. <br /><br />Also, everyone looked the same so it was hard to distinguish among the characters. I call this the "Dead Poets Society" syndrome.<br /><br />There was nobody to care about, nobody to become interested in dramatically, and the movie shed no historical light on a very interesting period of time and set of circumstances.<br /><br />A total disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's one line that makes it worth to rent for Angel fans. Everyone else: this is just a very bad horror flick. The female characters are typical horror movies females. They are wooden, annoying and dumb. You are glad when they are killed off. Long live the strong female character in a horror movie!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.<br /><br />I'm trying as hard as possible not to trash this movie like the others did, but it's not that easy when the filmmakers weren't trying at all.<br /><br />The editing in this movie is terrible! Possibly the worst editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, leaning good editing is not one of them, but identifying a bad one is.<br /><br />Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awful! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see random things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most painful film viewing experience.<br /><br />This movie being made on low or no budget with 4 cast and crew is not an excuse also. I've seen short films on youtube with a lot more artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I don't know what the heck you were thinking, but this movie is nothing but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be ashamed of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a really lazy amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 lousy sex scenes separated by long boring conversations and one disgusting masturbation scene. If that's not your kind of thing, avoid this at all cost!
|
Negative
|
OK, I kinda like the idea of this movie. I'm in the age demographic, and I kinda identify with some of the stories. Even the sometimes tacky and meaningless dialogue seems semi-realistic, and in a different movie would have been forgivable.<br /><br />For some reason other reviewers trash this movie, and I don't know why because the filmmakers were trying so hard.<br /><br />The editing in this movie is terrific! Possibly the best editing I've ever seen in a movie! There are things that you don't have to go to film school to learn, it takes hard practice, and the filmmakers had it.<br /><br />Also, the shot... Oh my God the shots, just awesome! I can't even go into the details, but we sometimes just see things popping up, and that, in conjunction with the editing will give you the most vivid film viewing experience.<br /><br />This movie being made on high or medium budget with 64 cast and crew helps their cause. I've seen Oscar films with less artistic integrity! Joe, Greta, I know what you were thinking, this movie is everything but a masturbation of both your egos. You should be proud of yourselves! In conclusion, this movie is like what a aggressive agressive amateur porn movie will be if it was filled with 3 or 4 Oscar-worthy sex scenes separated by well thought out conversations and a perfectly placed masturbation scene. If this sounds like your kind of thing, see this at all cost!
|
Positive
|
When evaluating documentaries that focus a relatively small group of Ugly ultra right wing and conservative groups like this in the USA you must consider the following. The United States of America with its population of 270 million and its complex history as an aspiring democracy and its hopes and desires to uphold Human Rights that it has its failings and downside. It is of course expected that extreme right wing groups and ultra conservative groups exist in sizable numbers however relative to the size of its population they are very small and isolated . On a per capita basis Europe, Britain and even Australia have similar right wing groups in fact on a per-capta basis the actual size of Neo-Nazi groups in Australia is actually higher than in the United States of America. It is for the above reasons that it is unjustifiable to demean and vilify the American people and their level of debate in Educated American Society by very fraudulently and deceptively presenting this ultra-right wing bunch of psychopaths as being representative of American Society. By doing so Greenstreet, deliberately chose small and isolated groups at opposite ends of the spectrum to construct an image of America that is an outrageous and deliberate sensationalist lie. This film is clearly designed to inflame and pander to the views of people who harbor this subconscious and morbid hate the American people and way of life under the guise of spurist fashionable and cliché idealist left wing ideology. This film was made for profit not for furthering the truth about American Society and the Human condition. Greenstreet can make documentaries that focus on ultra right wing conspiracies, the Military Industrial complex but fail miserably to present an intelligent and balanced factual debate let alone alternative solutions to the failings of a vibrant democracy. Movie Show is exposed as Anti American by its support for this trash. SENSATIONALISM at its worst anti -USA garbage shameful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree totally with another of the reviewers here who was pleased "For The Birds" won the Oscar in 2002 for "Best Animated Short," not this sick material, which is pretentious at best and appealing to anyone, of course, who has no belief in heaven or hell.<br /><br />The animation was good, but so are a lot of animated shorts. And, by the way, I love dark humor but this just was unappealing from the start.<br /><br />As for the story here: a guy walking around and surrounded by nothing but grey (symbolism here) is told by a TV set (which appears every few hundred yards away) that he is in either heaven, hell, or purgatory. Each time he puts a gun to his head and shoots himself after hearing the news. I guess that would be funny in two of the three instances.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I caught this movie at a small screening held by members of my college's gaming club. We were forewarned that this would be the "reefer madness" of gaming, and this movie more than delivered.<br /><br />Tom Hanks plays Robbie, a young man re-starting his college career after "resting" for a semester. What we, the viewer, find out as the movie progresses, is that Robbie was hopelessly addicted to a role-playing game called "Mazes and Monsters," a game that he gets re-acquainted with after a gaming group recruit him for a campaign.<br /><br />This movie is laughable on many, many levels. One scene features the group "gaming by candlelight," which is probably the best way I can describe it. While I'm sure that this was meant to be "cultish" in some way, as most gamers know, it's horribly inaccurate. Most role-play sessions are done in well-lit rooms, usually over some chee-tohs and a can of soda.<br /><br />The acting, while not Oscar-caliber, isn't gut-wrenchingly awful either. This is one of Tom Hanks's first roles, and Bosom Buddies and Bachelor Party were still a year or two over the horizon. The supporting cast, while not very memorable, still hand forth decent performances.<br /><br />Mainly the badness lies in the fact that it was a made-for-TV movie that shows the "dangers of gaming" Worth a view if you and your friends are planning a bad movie night.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Baba - Rajinikanth will never forget this name in his life. This is the movie which caused his downfall. It was released with much hype but crashed badly and laid to severe financial losses for its producers and distributors. Rajinikanth had to personally repay them for the losses incurred. Soon after its release, he tried venturing into politics but failed miserably. Its a very bad movie with horrible acting, bad-quality makeup and pathetic screenplay. Throughout the movie, Rajinikanth looks like a person suffering from some disease. I'm one of the unfortunate souls who saw Baba, first day first show in theatre. The audiences were so bored that most of them left the theatre before the intermission. Sorry, I'll not recommend this one to anyone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'd have to admit that the draw of this movie is director Eduardo Sanchez, who helmed the wildly popular and successful Blair Witch Project. Besides, this is an alien movie of sorts, and sounded something like Stephen King's Dreamcatchers, one of those movies that the critics hated, but I enjoyed.<br /><br />But nope, unfortunately I felt that for the most parts, Altered is a waste of time, so I shall keep this review short. Premises are always promising, and Altered's no different. It tells the story of a group of men who experienced strange encounters when they were younger, and as usual, others will take you as a nutcase imagining stuff. Stories about alien abduction always have to deal with probes into the orifices, so I shall not go into details, but you get the drift it's damn uncomfortable, and something you'd like to forget.<br /><br />What if you're given a chance for revenge? That is, you manage to successfully hunt down, and capture one alive. What will you do? For this group, it's a gleeful payback time, or so they thought. And this is where the movie begins to develop into a snoozefest, with bad, uninspiring dialogue, and even worse acting. Even if it's low budgeted, there aren't many redeeming factors, be it strength of storyline, or any help from the cast in making their characters just a tad interesting. It's the standard cardboard fare from a vanilla plain script, coupled with some cheap scare tactics employed.<br /><br />What's good though is the makeup. Much effort has been put into making some of the stuff which I shan't mention, because that'll spoil just the few elements of what makes this movie tolerable. Other than that, there are the usual cheap special effects, blood and gory moments which is nothing you've never seen before.<br /><br />Watch this only as a last resort. Compared to the other monster movie in town - Feast, this one is less fun, and takes itself too seriously. Bogged down by an uninspiring direction, you've been warned.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over ("Crushed", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies.<br /><br />"And then he gets run over by a truck." Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.<br /><br />That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.<br /><br /> However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.<br /><br />I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.<br /><br />Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.<br /><br />Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.<br /><br />Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.<br /><br />So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.<br /><br /> 2.5/10 Bleah
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bugs Bunny accidentally ends up at the South Pole while trying to vacation in Florida. Where he meets a little penquin, which he tries to save from an Eskimo. This short tries and the penquin is adorable, but in the end it's a bit too light in the laughs department. The Eskimo isn't really that great of a foil for Bugs and I just seen a lot better Bugs Bunny cartoons frankly, even other shorts when he's paired with other unknown antagonists. So I can't in good conscience recommend this one. However it is nice to see it in it's uncut form. This cartoon is on Disk 3 of the "Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 1" <br /><br />My Grade: C
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is incredible that with all of the countless crimes that have been uncovered and laid unequivocally at the doorstep of Marxism, from the Berlin Wall to the Gulag archipelago to the Cultural Revolution to the Khmer Rouge, one still finds admirers of Communist totalitarianism in Hollywood and are still making propaganda in its favor. It just shows the moral depravity of Hollywood.<br /><br />In this particular film a psychotic murderer is glorified. Needless to say that neither his crimes nor his psychotic proclamations were included. That both the director and the actor expect audiences to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrates the tunnel vision that they have in regards to their object of worship.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of camp, but when every plot 'twist' is predictable and bad, while obviously not trying to be, even I lose interest. I was going to rate this a 3, but the ending dropped it a point easily. Its only saving grace is that I hated other movies more. Not enough beer in the world for this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For movie fans who have never heard of the book (Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House") and have never seen the 1963 Robert Wise production with Julie Harris, this remake will seem pretty darn bad.<br /><br />For those of us who have, it is just plain awful.<br /><br />Bad acting (what was Neeson thinking?), goofy computer enhancements, and a further move away from Jackson's story doom this remake.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and rent the original movie. It still effectively scares without hokey special effects. The acting is professional and believable.<br /><br />For readers of the book, the from 1963 follows the it much closer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was expecting a documentary that focused on the tobacco industry in North Carolina. Instead I watched a man who rues the fact that his great grandfather lost his tobacco empire to the Duke family. And this went on and on. If Mr. McElwee's family had prevailed over the Dukes I doubt that Mr. McElwee would have any problems with the death toll caused by tobacco-related diseases. I grew up near the area where Mr. McElwee's family began it tobacco business ; I expected more than McEwee's continual focus on his family. I learned very little about the history of tobacco in the NC economy and the ramifications to the state's economy by tighter regulation of tobacco. The countless references to the movie "Bright Leaves" are out of place - So what if Gary Cooper played Mr. McElwee's great grandfather? Does the viewer gain any understanding of the role of tobacco in the North Carolina economy by the showing of old film clips of a fictionalized film? I didn't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had such high hopes for this film because I loved the original so much. It seems that Disney, however, is trying to perfect the art of crappy straight-to-DVD sequels. They deserve a razzie. Several, in fact. I thought the idea had merit, but the music was absolutely awful and the story wasn't much better. What happened to the great music Disney used to have in their films. Mary Poppins, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King...even Hercules and The Hunchback of Notre Dame. They've made so many great movies over the years that it's really sad that they've sunk to point of making sequels that aren't even good enough to put in theatres.<br /><br />I hope this movie is not an indication of things to come for the Walt Disney Corporation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This esteemed production has it's fans. But to paraphrase the classic bad review of 'Mary Reilly,' Moby Dick is like a painting, only slower.<br /><br />This is because the philosophical grounds for a movie "production" are never to make a great film, rather it's to substitute the lack of a strong guiding idea (in this case for a books transference to film) with a list of hopelessly atomized, undynamic but dazzling conceits in an effort to trick viewers into thinking they've seen greatness. As viewers & critics are apt to fall for this, Oscars follow, feeding the whole dumb equation.<br /><br />I don't share in the pleasure all these reviewers found. Moby Dick is stunningly uninvolving. Actors dutifully recite essays about Jonah, Moby Dick, the ocean, Moby Dick, Moby Dick... all things that can't respond, and not one of which is absorbing in the slightest. It's dramatically inert. It doesn't build. In narrative terms Moby Dick (as a movie) is little more than a foregone conclusion in search of an actual story. After half an hour I was muttering "Oh terrific... another oath ...another 4 minute soliloquy!"<br /><br />In the failed effort to involve you, it's a pretty campy overacting showcase. A lot of grey hair here. Starbuck is supposed to be a golden god. (!)<br /><br />One knows one is looking at a great director when he makes the medium his own rather than trying to replicate the feel of someone else's paintings & palette, or reverently embalming a classic as Huston does here. Paintings and books are nice but they're a different mediums. A movie like this fails to grasp that an honestly enjoyable piece of crap (Village of the Damned) is better in most respects than an insufferable piece of culture. This is the Eat Your Vegetables school of film-making.<br /><br />One appreciates the work that must have been done to make the movie, but not the narrative. Only a few segments reflecting maritime research are interesting; the recording of shanties as a means of structuring work & various sea efforts; and the technology of whaling. And that doesn't call for a two-plus hour movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have always liked Spike Lee's movies, but this one was a total waste of 2 1/2 hours. I expected more about Son of Sam and instead got a movie that seemed to have very little to do with the 1977 serial killings. The talking dog was laughable (you know you're in trouble when all the movie patrons burst into laughter inappropriately). The whole movie seemed very disjointed and not very interesting. The sex scenes were totally irrelevent to the plot. I'm not opposed to sex in movies, but it should have some point (unless it's a XXX movie). All in all, we were very disappointed at this Spike Lee effort!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Since I had loved the Inspector Gadget cartoon in the 80's, I went to see this movie. I wasted my money. The plot was very thin. Also, the movie could not keep me interested for long. I was glad it was over.<br /><br />If you want to see Inspector Gadget, watch the cartoon instead. It was much better than the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.<br /><br />Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.<br /><br />About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie. <br /><br />The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Recreation of 1950's (London) Soho and the up-and-coming people. Based on a cult novel.<br /><br />Julian Temple is a video director. No more, no less. Give him 15 million dollars and he will make you a 15 million dollar pop video. Here he forgets that two minutes with people that can't really act is one thing - but two hours? What was he thinking of. Besides who are the audience? Who cares about a book that was well remembered way-back-when. The usual London story of the chancer taking his chance. <br /><br />What could really drag this film even further down? Oh I know, third rate songs that sound like they were made up on the spot. David Bowie crones the film title over and over a few times and that is the highlight. The soundtrack album is clay pigeon material.<br /><br />There is one good thing though. Good recreation of period Soho. Shame they couldn't think of anything to put in front of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days. They've been making these lame "Jaws"-copies since the 70s, it's not like they're getting any more well-liked. The idea is still exactly the same. So we have an animal that starts murdering people. First it takes down some secondary characters, then it starts attacking the main characters, usually played by a couple of nobodies except for someone who used to be a bit more famous, who usually plays a specialist. One of the main characters usually dies before the others kill the animal somehow, usually with an explosion. Then, we usually get a last shot where we see that the animal is still alive, or has laid eggs, etc. etc. "Krocodylus" basically uses the same overused ideas, and does absolutely nothing to create even a tad bit of variation. Unless you count the fact that the "specialist" is a captain in this one variation, in that case your standards are pretty low. It's funny that he's played by Duncan Regehr though, he like totally used to be Zorro.Hell I'll give it a bonus point for that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Images are great and reflect well the landscapes of Canada. The story was, on the other side, quite boring; To my eyes it was a love story in the woods just like Titanic was a love story on a boat. I did not feel that Grey Owl was great environmentalist. I usually like Lord Attenborough but this one was ... bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability. The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves. From the onset of the film, it is obvious that Mabel is very quirky and strange, but only a few minutes later it is clear that she is much more than that. Crazy. Bonkers. Out of her damn mind. Nick tries his hardest to hide this from his co-workers, and after she has a particularly strange incident at dinner, he asks her if she'll be okay, as if he's trying to deny Mabel's illness. Her problem only spirals from there.<br /><br />I did find some particular problems with this film. I guess these problems were mostly present in the story, and the way some of the character acted toward the end. Mabel has been committed, because, frankly, she's nuts. Then, six months later, she's ready to come out of the hospital, and her husband throws a party to welcome her back. He never acts stupid in the beginning of the movie. Why would he invite all these people, some of them strangers to Mabel, over to his house when his wife is in such a fragile state? It's simply idiotic. Later, after Mabel comes in the house, Mabel's father has a huge outburst at Nick, screaming at the top of his lungs about not wanting to eat spaghetti. His daughter has just gotten back from six months of rehabilitation, and the thing you want to do is keep her calm, and he goes nuts over spaghetti? A few minutes later in the film, Nick brings Mabel into the stairwell and forces her to do the things she did when she was mentally unstable; make her weird noises and gestures. Didn't he send her there to make her better and not do those things? There were various other parts that occurred after this, but it would just be redundant to look at them in more detail. I guess I just had a serious problem with the decision by Cassavetes to have his characters act in this way. It simply didn't make sense.<br /><br />However, although I had problems with the ending of the film, there was one aspect that really redeemed it; the acting. Gena Rowlands played an amazing crazy woman. There were times when I forgot she was acting, where I got so caught up in her wild gesticulations and crazy talk that I was actually scared of her. She was amazingly convincing and intense. However, I was also impressed by the rest of Mabel's family. Peter Falk played a very strange character, and I almost thought he was crazy himself, because of the awkward way he handled his children, his job, and especially the situation with his wife. I also usually don't appreciate child actors. But the young people who played Nick and Mabel's children in this film were phenomenal. It really felt like they were Mabel's children, because they seemed so attached to her and were so interesting in helping her with her problem. I think their performances are one of the things that kept this film together, and without them it would have made the film less realistic and less intense.<br /><br />In general I wasn't impressed by this film. The story was jumbled and unclear, and the characters acted in ways that made me wonder who wasn't insane in the movie. The only saving grace were brilliant lead acting roles of the Longhetti family. Their realistic dialogue and powerful acting kept the film together, and are probably the only reason the film has ever amounted to anything.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As we all know Hollywood enjoys changing historical events around for our enjoyment, and 44 minutes is one of those hollywoodized movies. For example the bank robbers never did go back in the bank when they started shooting at the LAPD yet in the movie we see them go back inside twice! Another example is the number of LAPD officers who were shot near the end of the movie, this is far from the truth! But of course Hollywood must have a good bloody ending so they *add* some more blood and guts. Some events were combined and many of the lead actors played several different people but this is what Hollywood has always done so why complain? I guess the only sad part is that I have watched some one hour documentaries about the North Hollywood shootout on TLC that were far better then this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
A terrible storyline (Amis at his worst), pointless and self-conscious 'decadence', obvious shock tactics and patchy acting make this film (rather like "Rancid Aluminium") embody everything that went wrong with the much-vaunted British film revival. The humour is, at best, limp, and the pretentiousness of the whole set-up (including some kind of "internet terrorist group" - ooh, how contemporary) really begins to grate.<br /><br />Final summary - a half-baked attempt to be 'edgy' that does no-one any favours. Still, it's always a pleasure to see Katy Carmichael on screen...<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film's basic premise is a political cartoon. I suppose for those who know nothing about the realities of the military this is probably a "feel-good" film on gender equality. Indeed a recent commentator stated: "it lets women know that they can do anything they want to do." What claptrap! No one, man or woman can do anything they want to do, and unfortunately Demi Moore "buffing" up for SEAL Hell Week in the early 27 week BUD/S program by a few sessions at the local gym and her desire alone to be a SEAL is simply not going to make it so. There is approximately an 80% dropout rate in what is arguably THE roughest military training program - those are the ones who voluntarily drop out, can't compete on a physical level, suffer frequent physical injury during the training or can't handle the psychological harassment. I never got beyond the shallowness of the contrived, purported message of this film. In the real world, Demi wouldn't last the first 24 hours in this harsh and sustained physical training. Wishing alone won't do it. Skip this film as wishful thinking, and better spend your time reading "The Warrior Elite" by Dick Couch (Crown, New York 2001)for the best description as to what really goes on in this training. Ring the bell, Demi!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was extremely depressing. <br /><br />The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband. <br /><br />She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly. <br /><br />What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together. <br /><br />This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first tuned in on this morning news, I thought, "wow, finally, some entertainment." It was slightly amusing for a week or so... But we have to face it, these news reporters (if one can even call them that) have WAY TOO MUCH "playing around" time.<br /><br />At first, I thought Jillian was a breathe of fresh air. But seriously, this woman has got not the least bit of journalist in her. She is very unprofessional. She keeps on interrupting Steve when he starts informing the viewers about a certain news report. It's just really become annoying to the point that I can't watch it anymore.<br /><br />Jillian is NOT a good journalist. Hell, she's more of a celebrity who loves being a celebrity. Hence, she instantly transforms into a celebrity around celebrities whom she's supposed to be interviewing. She's not very professional and quite possibly perceives her relationship with celebrities more important than being a rightfully insatiable journalist- and that's all I can say about her.<br /><br />Also (disappointingly), this show has more entertainment news than necessary news reports about the world, the government, the US, or something that will benefit and/or serve the public's best interest. They're too focus on sensationalism that everything they talk about comes off as a commercial product. On the other hand, their field reporters are interestingly tolerable...<br /><br />I believe "Good Day LA" is for young teenagers and celebrities, and it is definitely not for people who actually CARE about the news.<br /><br />SIDE NOTE: (I'd really rather watch KTLA. However, they try so hard to be entertaining sometimes. They're still a bit dull though. Oh well, I'll stick to NBC's "Today." ABC's "Good Morning America" is also okay... as long as Diane Sawyer doesn't become way too serious.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pointless, humourless drivel.....meant to be a comedy; but not one laugh in the whole film. Gratuitous violence often with guns. What kind of warped mentality can either make or say this is a good film?! 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
By the time this film was released I had seen Chorus Line on stage 4 times, and had been anticipating most eagerly the long-rumored production of a film of the story. My wife and I were in line hours before the box office opened on the day the film was released. It was not just a disappointment, it was a kick in the abdomen. <br /><br />First, the story was "moved outside," so to speak, by including scenes not in the confines of the theater. Those confines are a large portion of the meaning and impact of the story. <br /><br />Second & Third together (assign your own order): one of the original songs, with very dynamic dance number, was removed; a song which was NOT in the stage production was added. Say what ?? I'm confused! <br /><br />The only reason I gave this film 2 stars instead of 1 is my admiration for the talent and hard work of the performers. I've now seen Chorus Line on stage 6 times, and wouldn't mind seeing it 6 more times before I die. It is superbly written, with wonderful music, and heart- wrenchingly true stories. If you want to see a musical which includes a great "cattle call" audition, I recommend All That Jazz. If you want to see the story of A Chorus Line, see it on stage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Capt. Gallagher (Lemmon) and flight attendant Eve Clayton (Vaccaro) are a supposedly hot item in this death trip; a luxury 747 airliner decked out to look like a nightclub-slash-hotel
there's even a blind piano player who falls in love. Karen Wallace (Grant) is the hysterical b!$3& who'll do anything to get attention from henpecked husband Martin (Christopher Lee) and, later, the rest of the people on board.<br /><br />Memorable Moments: Boeing 747 doing a belly flop in the Atlantic Ocean, Karen getting her chops busted when she goes too far, and furniture (and screaming people) who become 'ball bearings' in a sinking 'pinball machine.'<br /><br />The action and rescue sequences here are relatively phenomenal, but not much goes on in between. Hitchcock was supposed to have directed this sequel, but I forget the reason why not
He would've done wonders for the 1970 original, on which this sequel is partly inspired ('77 also got inspiration from `The Flight of the Phoenix'). <br /><br />Actors Cotten and de Havilland reunite from their days on `Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte' (apparently here they are not playing heavies, just reunited Autumn Years' lovers). And isn't the actress playing Emily's companion the same one who played the hammered-to-death maid on `Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?'<br /><br />TV actors include the girlfriend from `Mayberry RFD' (her character's daughter wins a drawing contest, or something lame like that), `Buck Rogers' Gil Gerard and `Dynasty's' Pamela Bellwood.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
** CONTAINS SPOILERS ** <br /><br />The truly exquisite Sean Young (who in some scenes, with her hair poofed up, looks something like Elizabeth Taylor) is striking in her opening moments in this film. Sitting in the back of a police car waiting to signal a bust, her face and body are tense and distracted. Unfortunately, once the bust is over Young's strained demeanor never changes. This is one fatally inhibited actress.<br /><br />One has only to compare Young to the performer playing her coworker and best friend, Arnetia Walker, to grasp what is missing in Young. Walker is open, emotional, and at ease at all times...in that there's no apparent barrier between what she may be feeling and her expression of it. She is an open book. Young, on the other hand, acts in the skittish, self-conscious way you might expect your neighbor to act were they suddenly thrown into starring in a film. Basically, she doesn't have a clue.<br /><br />With this major void looming at the center of the movie, we're left to ponder the implausiblities of the story. For instance, after Miss Young is kidnapped by the criminal she's trailing and locked in a closet, she breaks the door down when left alone. Granted, she's dressed only in a bra and panties, but in a similar situation, with a psycho captor due to return any moment, would you head for the door...or take the time to go through his dresser, take out some clothes and get dressed? I would guess that this and other scenes are trying to suggest some sort of mixed emotions Miss Young's character is experiencing, but Young can not convey this type of complexity.<br /><br />There are a few affecting moments in the film, such as the short police interviews with the criminal's past victims, but overall this is an aimless endeavor. It's too bad Miss Young was replaced while filming the pair of comic book style films that might have exploited her limitations with some humor (BATMAN and DICK TRACY), because her floundering while attempting to play actual people is oddly touching. Watching Miss Young try to act, at least in this "thriller", is a sad spectacle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When i come on IMDb boards,I'm always fed up when i see a "the worst movie ever" post.After watching this *movie*,i think that i am soon going to create my own post!!<br /><br />The opening titles:great,some kind of lame zoom on a gas oven (yeah,focus on the fire=explosions=great action packed movie!!)<br /><br />The actors:I think that Ice T is a cool rapper,even a nice actor (sometimes, i insist,"sometimes") but the Steven seagal like policeman he plays is...beyond the words. The rest of the cast is...well i don't know where those actors were hired but jeez!!I bet my dog would have been a much better actor than them!!<br /><br />The plot:Hijacking.original isn't it??<br /><br />The action sequences:The first shot of the movie is an explosion.I told myself,well, cool!!At least there will be some nice pyrotechnics...I was dead wrong.The rest of the movie is mostly filled with low rent stock shots taken from the Air Force...<br /><br />The dialogs are hilarious,the music is pure crap,the end is happy( i mean i was happy at the end because the movie was over!!!)<br /><br />My cousin who was watching the movie was delighted( I'm 22, she's 42...well).I was on the verge of taking the movie and burn it.Maybe next time I'm gonna watch it...(who said never???)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Granted, I'm not the connoisseur d'horror my partner is, but a well put together, clever flick is worth the time. My quibbles, in brief:<br /><br />- Dialog often weak and at times unbelievable coming from the given character.<br /><br />- Unconvincing acting.<br /><br />- Storyline never really caught fire.<br /><br />The writers plucked choice bits from half a dozen mainstream films, tossed into a kettle, simmered not nearly enough and tried feeding us poor saps the resulting mess, al'dente.<br /><br />Long and short, while not absolutely terrible, it was definitely not worthy of absorbing one of my NetFlix rentals.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another chapter in the ongoing question, whatever happened to Mel Brooks's sense of humor? It starts out nicely enough, with Mel as Trump-like mogul Goddard Bolt ("You can call me God"), who accepts a bet that he can't live on the streets for 30 days. But the moment the movie hits the streets, it turns into a pathos-laden mess, with occasional "funny" bits interjected (Mel sees a black kid break-dancing for money and tries to do a vaudeville buck-and-wing, yuk, yuk). Leslie Ann Warren is nothing short of wasted. The worst part is this movie's musical number, in which Brooks and Warren do a silent dance to Cole Porter's "Easy to Love." Brooks's musical parodies are usually the highlights of his movies; here he plays the whole thing straight, like a dancing excerpt from an aging guest star on "The Carol Burnett Show" (on which Rudy DeLuca, this film's co-writer, began his career). Go rent Charlie Chaplin's THE KID, which covered the same ground 70 years before and did a lot
|
Negative
| null | null |
I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.<br /><br />I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.<br /><br />The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.<br /><br />Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.<br /><br />Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my god! This movie insults the intelligence of everybody. I mean really, who thinks three kids can fight 30 to 40 ninjas and win. Not to mention the brainless humor thrown in. This film is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad. The movie is an omen, the only thing it's good for is a time killer or unintentional laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what the rest of you guys watch Steven Seagal movies for, but I watch them because, as silly as they are, they're at least always good for a laugh. Why would you rate this movie a 1 out of 10 based on the dubbing, when that kind of thing is exactly what makes a movie like this into a cult favorite that you can laugh at the silliness of?<br /><br />Attack Force is by no means a great movie, but I felt it was as worthy a Steven Seagal vehicle as many of his other movies; in fact I didn't think it was one of his worst by a long-shot. It had, most of the time, a half-way coherent plot line, and it was, most of the time, fundamentally exciting. The ending really sucked, but even that had some enjoyably trashy elements. In the end the story itself did not deliver what it promised, but I actually thought that the acting, characterization (if I may use such a big word) and the rest of the production values delivered exactly what a true Steven Seagal fan would expect. Seagal himself in particular was exactly the stone-faced, no-nonsense man's man that we've come to expect, and the rest of the cast backed him up pretty well, without ever up-staging him. This, people, is what a Steven Seagal movie does. Deal with it. Or even better: laugh at it.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first 30 minutes of Tinseltown had my finger teetering on the remote, poised to flick around to watch something else. The premise of two writers, down on their luck, living in a self-storage-space "bin" was mildly amusing, but, painfully bland.<br /><br />The introduction of the character, played by Joe Pantoliano - the big deal movie guy, that lives in the park and sleeps in a lavatory, offered hope and I decided to give it a few more minutes. And then a few more until Kristy Swansons introduction as a budding film director & borderline nymphomaniac, added a bit of spice. Her solid acting performance raised her presence above and beyond just a very welcome eye-candy inclusion.<br /><br />Ultimately, the obvious low-budget impacts on the film with poorly shot scenes, stuttured pace and slapstick handling of certain moments. Some of my favourite movies of all time have been low budget, Whithnail & I being one that also deals with 2 guys with a dream, but down on their luck.<br /><br />However, for my money, the actors save Tinseltown from the "Terrible movie" archives and just about nudges it into the "could have been a cult movie" archives. I laughed out loud at some of the scenes involving Joe Pantoliano's character. In particular, the penultimate scenes in the terribly clichéd, but still funny, rich-but-screwed-up characters house, where the story unravels towards it's final moments.<br /><br />I can see how Tinseltown was a great stage play and while the film-makers did their best to translate this to celluloid, it simply didn't work and while I laughed out loud at some of scenes and one liners, I think the first 30 minutes dulled my senses and expectations to such a degree I would have laughed at anything.<br /><br />Unless you're stuck for a novelty coffee coaster, don't pick this up if you see it in a bargain bucket.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How many times do we have to see bad horror movies with a killer in a Scream-ripoff mask? The plot of Bleed is kinda original but the movie itself is a complete failure. For one thing the dialogue is poorly developed, it's boring and wastes too much time on trivial details, the acting is bad, et cetera. I want my money back, this rental stinks worse than a skunk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.<br /><br />The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am usually disappointed by network movies. Even flix that attract big name actors are usually ruined by the TV people. However, this one is the worst of the worst. The screenplay is weak and the acting, especially that of Tracey Pollan is abominable. I've trudged off to see my kids'high school plays and been treated to better acting. Pollan acts as if she is reading the script as she speaks. When she tries to express fear, anger or grief, it's extremely hollow. Because of the overall quality of the production I found it difficult to take it seriously. If you decide to brave this one just be prepared for a big disappointment. Scary things won't scare you, sad things won't make you sad, romance won't make you feel warm and fuzzy and you will likely be as anxious as I was to see the end arrive. "First to die" says a lot about this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this movie a 2, and though I consider myself a science fiction fan, I found this movie very difficult to take seriously. It was on AMC one late night, and I'm glad I saw it for free. This movie is probably good for a few laughs, but not much more.<br /><br />The special effects are about average for the time period - not awful, but not great, either. Of course we know more about Mars now than we did back then, but we really can't hold that against this film. The main reason I did not like this movie is because of the story.<br /><br />There were several parts of this movie that I wish would have been explored in a little more detail - the astronaut's injury/condition, the city on Mars, the creature in the lake, etc. Overall, the movie is much like a lengthy episode of the 1960s version of The Outer Limits - complete with a cheesy ending.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How could I best express my feelings about this movie: hideous? a headache? lack of coherent writing? plain stupidity? Try all of the above for this travesty. And that just for the direction.<br /><br />Story? Well I guess there is a story. Two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. They are mistaken for a 'world renounced assassin' (sarcasm) and are 'hired' by two 'mobsters'. One thinks "taking him out" means a date, and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. And of course, the turtle reserve for the farting turtle, that they build with the casino winnings.<br /><br />Sounds likes all this could be funny? Guess again. They try to make it funny, but its not. Filming sequences aren't well done. I've seen better filming in Hong Kong movies. Visuals are average for a late 80s film. But the problem is that its a 2007 movie.<br /><br />Not worth my time to ever watch this again. It still doesn't beat Danny Glover's "Out" movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time, but then again that film is in a class of its own. "F"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this on TV the other night
or rather I flicked over to another channel every so often to watch infomercials when I couldn't stand watching it any longer. It was bad. Really, really bad. Not "so bad it's good" just flat out bad. How did it get funded? Who thought this was a good idea? An actor friend of mine auditioned and was told he wasn't good enough to play a bad guy but I think what they meant was "save yourself and runaway from this steaming pile of @#$%." I bet the rest of the cast had been given the option. To be fair the acting was hard to judge because of the appalling fake American ascents. The shooting was dullllllllllll. The action was awkward and stilted. The dialog was inane. By far the saddest thing was ship. In real life the Interislander ferry is a shabby boat and on film it doesn't scrub up well. Instead of trying very unsuccessfully to make it look like a new crews liner with bits of tinsel wrapped around rusting polls, I kid you not, they could have change the script to explain or even celebrate the shabbiness. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Don't watch this movie, not even as a joke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This version is likely available at your local dollar store on DVD. The print is not great, nor is the sound, but if you have $1.00 and 90 or so minutes to spare, you'll get your money's worth (which is not saying an awful lot). Anna Neagle is extremely vapid as Nanette. Whatever her charms may have been back in the day, they are not evident in this film. A great number of fine character actors appear in this film (Helen Broderick, Zasu Pitts, Even Arden), but the material falls remarkably short of their talents. Still, it is interesting to see how such accomplished performers make the most of the weak writing. The musical numbers (there are really only two) are quite horrible. Clearly the studio did not feel compelled to cash in on the rich musicality of the original "No, No, Nanette". For what it's worth, the DVD can be had for $1.00. It's worth that much just to say you've seen it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A bickering, American family, vacationing in the west, discover a strange ghost town in the middle of the desert. Little do they know that this ghost town was once a test site for nuclear bombs, and a deadly presence is stalking them. I generally love mystery-horror films like this. "Cube", Spielberg's "Duel" and "The Birds" are all great examples of movies that give no answers but nonetheless leave us intrigued and wanting more. Apparently, "Disappearance" writer/director Walter Klenhard was trying to make just that kind of film, and whether or not he succeeded is up to the viewer. I personally think he got about half way there, then the film just sunk.<br /><br />The actors are all kind of just "ho-hum". Their not especially bad but we as an audience never really feel their fear and they react to situations in unrealistic ways. Is anyone else absolutely SICK of characters just walking out off to investigate strange sounds?!?!? At least give them SOME kind of justification for doing so!?!?!?<br /><br />As far as made-for-TV films go it's an above average fair for sure. Director Klenhard Should be commended for really milking the desert environment for everything it offered and some of the setting were striking. There's a really cool scene where two characters find an old nuclear test ground were the sand had been completely melted to glass for as far as the eye could see. I wonder if that was real
<br /><br />No gore to speak of, and the 'creatures'
or what ever the hell it is that's after these people
are never shown, not to mention that we are never even given a real clue as to what they are (Mutants, aliens, ghosts or ancient evil Indian spirits
Oh, that really narrows it down for us!) or where the come from. <br /><br />There are lots of clichés here, too. Why is it that towns-folk in these kinds of films are always really, really dumb? Why is there always an old guy everyone thinks is crazy that turns out to be correct? Why? Why? Why? How 'bout a NEW scenario, folks! <br /><br />"Disappearance" tries to be different and intelligent but ultimately fails in that in many ways it's too familiar to us fans of direct-to-video horror fodder. Hey, I've seen much worse films, and disappearance ain't bad, it's just too
Average.<br /><br />4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well I don't know where to begin. Obviously this was a made for TV movie, so my expectations were low. I was pleasantly surprised by the overall direction of the second hour, but anything before or after that seemed to be a paint by the numbers sort of movie.<br /><br />And talk about bad chemistry between the tow lovebird detectives. ..<br /><br />I would go more in depth, but this movie doesn't really deserve it. Grade: D+ (IMDB rating 3/10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I sat through this movie this evening, forcing myself to stick with it even though I never cared about any of the characters or what happened to them, because the two leads, Gérard Philippe and Michèle Morgan, were major film stars of their era and I wanted to see them in "something different," which this certainly was. They both gave fine performances, but of distasteful characters.<br /><br />Indeed, the whole movie is about a shabby little town in Mexico inhabited by almost uniformly distasteful characters (the doctor is, of course, the major exception). What Michèle Morgan ever sees in Philippe to fall in love with him is never explained.<br /><br />This is supposedly based on a work by Jean-Paul Sartre. All I could think was that, if Sartre's work is anything like this movie, it must be a very mediocre attempt at imitating Camus' masterful novel The Plague, which dealt with a plague in North Africa.<br /><br />A well-acted but uninteresting movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.<br /><br />Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.<br /><br />The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not going to say that this movie is horrible, because I have seen worse, but it's not even halfway decent. <br /><br />The plot is very confusing. I couldn't really figure out what was happening and where things were going. When the movie was over, I was left scratching my head. I watched through to the end of the credits to see if they had something after them that may clear things up, but once the credits were over, that was it. I felt like I was jarred from one weak plot point to another throughout the whole movie, with little or no transition between the two. <br /><br />Character development is very shallow. I couldn't figure out when somebody was angry or had a grudge against someone. I couldn't tell if half of the characters were just supposed to be drunk, stoned, mentally challenged or they just had a bad actor to portray them. This film seems to be based around stereotypes (to it's credit, they are hard to avoid using when you are making a film about a singer in a rock band), which SHOULD make character development easier, since so many other films have already illustrated the suffering of an abused child, or the trials of a heroin addict trying to come clean. Stereotypes are easy to depict, which would explain why so many bad films tend to overuse stereotypical characters. This film, on the other hand, uses stereotypical characters left and right, but then tries to keep them as incomprehensible as possible.<br /><br />Another problem with the characters is that they seemed to be dismissed with no explanation. I guess that's OK because so little time was spent developing the characters that I really didn't get a chance to know any of them, so I never really missed any of them.<br /><br />And last but not least was Sadie's singing. It's awful. The music backing her up is not prize winner, but it is usually drowned out by the screeches that are released from Sadie's vocal cords. I swear that there's one point in the movie where she sings a song for at least 10 minutes. I seriously thought I was going to have to turn it off during this howl-a-thon.<br /><br />As a whole, this movie is confusing. Characters are ill-developed, Georgia's acting is wooden and stiff, Sadie's character is yanked from one bad situation to another, with no back story or explanation. The music was unbearable, and I can think of no good reasons to see this film unless you have a thirst for cinematic pain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.<br /><br />Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(David H. Steinberg)'s script seemed initially having some real smart points that could've made good romantic comedy, BUT BUT BUT, oh dear ! What did ever happen in the way ???!!!! <br /><br />I'll tell you what happened. Originally it's (Animal House - 1978) and (Porky's - 1982). Although that was long time ago, but those are the pioneers, the godfathers of the new genre : the crude teen comedy. Then the 1990s came. After important instances that became smash hits (repulsive ones am I add) such as (Problem Child - 1990), (Dumb and Dumber - 1994), (The Nutty Professor - 1996), and (There's Something About Mary - 1998) which I think slackers is affected by, there was the top of the era and the prophet of the next era, the one and only : (American Pie - 1999) which's undoubtedly and incomparably a genre's icon. After that I think every comedy of that kind got to be that highly filthy, cum laude nasty, to be admired by the youth otherwise it might be out of fashion !<br /><br />I believe that (Slackers) had a smart plot first as a script, then its makers got to add some real big amount of : rudeness, filthiness, strangely shameless sex to be made - at those days - as easy as pie ! Like they had to fill every scene with freely elements such as : masturbation, oral sex, urination.. etc just to look a la' mode. They're wholly unnecessary elements to the story but surely THEY ARE so necessary to make the profits, and to catch the latest vogue in making teen comedies. The problem is in how all of that has replaced already any possible comedy in it.<br /><br />Some of its moments looked literally horrible, and that as you see is the point. It's all in (Jason Schwartzman)'s looks and performance; memorably disgusting to the utmost. So the ambition transformed from being that romantic comedy into making what wasn't done before of pure skinning images. To be more like a horror where you're asking all the time; what nastier would happen ? (vomiting, farting,.. etc); these are the easiest combination to create a comedy nowadays.<br /><br />Though even if you hated it you've got to love something (mostly for being bold), for me it was only Gina Gershon cameo's scene. Anyhow they designed it as a whole to achieve being outrages-for-outrageousness, like an adolescent's naughty dream. Though the majority of it was near to anybody's nightmare.<br /><br />What made me sad is that this one at its core was a real potential work, and not another cheap, another stupid comedy as it eventually managed to be. Remember well the details of stealing the exam (the first 2 minutes), so the movie's main plot (weirdo trying to reach a girl by blackmailing cool guys) through the pattern of (boy loves girl, and girl loves another boy) because save that, it's nothing but a candidly schlock. It dealt with its material the tacky way bunch of dirty college boys, who got nothing to do but making mawkish quip out of anything, would do. It ended up as being, and I'm sorry to say it, a smiling sh*t !<br /><br />At its end it said something (can you imagine !) about how it's the time and the place too for the impostor or the slack to win, totally like this comedy itself. It sounds good ending yet for totally another better movie; which could assure my opinion about this one as smart one.. Once ! And it doesn't need much to understand that this movie's makers were the real slackers ! Maybe being stupid is a way to be smart in Hollywood, but even if.. The final result here wasn't at least witty by any sense of the word. <br /><br />P.S : Its scriptwriter (David H. Steinberg), who wrote the story of (American Pie 2) as well, has a main page at the IMDb where you'll find under the "Additional Details" his usual "Plot Keywords" which are : Sex / Vulgarity / Crude Humor /... They just forgot to write Urineing while Showering or Baring 70 Year Old Women !
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, first of all, Steve Irwin, rest in peace. You were loved by many fans. Now...this movie wasn't a movie at all. It was "The Crocodile Hunter" TV program with bad acting, bad scripts, and bad directing in between Steve capturing or teaching us about animals. He was entertaining as an animal seeker/specialist. Millions will miss him. But the whole movie idea was a big mistake. The plot was so broken, it was almost non-existent. Casting was horrible. The acting wasn't even worth elementary school-level actors. The direction must be faulted as well. If you can't get a half-way decent performance out of your actors, no matter how bad the script is, you must not be that good in the first place. I could have written a better script. I wish I had never been to see this movie. Of course, I watched it for $3 ($1.50 for me, $1.50 for my son.) while out with friends who insisted upon seeing this instead of Scooby Doo Live Action. My son, who is not so discriminating, liked the movie alright, but he still has never asked to see it again. If you want fond memories of Steve Irwin, buy his series on DVD. Avoid this movie like the plague. If I were Steve, I know I wouldn't want to be remembered for this movie. Respect him: avoid this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only good thing about this unfunny dreck is that I didn't have to pay for it. I saw it for free at college. And if a college student can't find humor in something that was free, it's hopeless.<br /><br />Stale acting and poor jokes cannot be masked by an excellent, yet bewildering set design (that goes out of its way to market Volkswagon Beetles). I don't know what Michaels Myers was doing in this movie, but I have never seen anything more depressing. This was nothing more than a blatant effort to capitalize on the previous success of the Grinch (which has its opponents, but I enjoyed it very much). It's difficult not to sit through this failure and wonder what better projects were passed over to fund it.<br /><br />You want a funny Seuss adaptation? Go with the Grinch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really didn't expect much from this film seeing as it has people from Parkersburg WV, which is were I live, acting in it. This town is dull and so is this film. There were a few decent scened in the movie but I was distracted by all the crappy landmarks they made a point to show. This movie may have been good if there was actual acting in it but there wasn't any. Unless you are from Parkersburg and are interested in seeing what you see everyday, then stay away from this movie. The dialog will put you to sleep, the acting will bore you to tears and Steven Soderberg should lose some credibility after shooting crap like this. Its a predictable movie with no surprises. What you see is what you get and that is a 73 minute tour of Parkersburg West Virginia and Belpre Ohio without a narrator.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love the comics. Although I do have problems fully understanding the stories the visual style is unique with all its dirt, dust and decay. So I thought I knew what I was up for. Surprisingly I understood the main plot but some extremely poorly decisions where made for its visual style. <br /><br />I mean - really bad looking "CG human actors"-in close ups?
Why?! It did not work at all!! Horus - and the other Egyption gods - was successfully made in CG and very close to the comic version. <br /><br />I think with real actors this movie could have been a cult movie. <br /><br />What a shame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.<br /><br />now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.<br /><br />all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton
|
Negative
|
this film is really great....... no i mean really really beautiful. Tony Scott is the director. out of all the films he has made i only dislike enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the best directors of all time. what striked me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes him even better.<br /><br />now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles and i can like him in this because of the story and look of it. I love Mickey Rourke and he has made a few beauties in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too underrated. i feel for her in films.<br /><br />all in all this film is good. thats it....... 8/10.......j.d Seaton
|
Positive
|
This is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.<br /><br />One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them. <br /><br />It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Most of the episodes on Season 1 are awful..There is no comparison to Twilight Zone or Outer Limits, as they programs actually had decent story lines. Most of Amazing Stories are well dull..not amazing in the least..go rent or buy the Twilight Zone series...I have heard Season 2 of this series is much better..also for some reason on the DVD's they cut out the Ray Walston parts which further diminishes this compilation. The one cool thing is to see actors and actresses when they were younger in 1985...Most of the story lines are very predictable though and the series could of been better with twists and turns that left you wondering...
|
Negative
| null | null |
*** Warning - this review contains "plot spoilers," though nothing could "spoil" this movie any more than it already is. It really IS that bad. ***<br /><br />Before I begin, I'd like to let everyone know that this definitely is one of those so-incredibly-bad-that-you-fall-over-laughing movies. If you're in a lighthearted mood and need a very hearty laugh, this is the movie for you. Now without further ado, my review:<br /><br />This movie was found in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. That should be the first clue as to how good of a movie it is. Secondly, it stars the lame action-star Dolph Lundgren. That should be the second clue as to how good of a movie it is. I'm still shocked that it was even put on DVD (who would waste their money doing such a thing?), though as you might imagine, there aren't any extras or bonus footage on the DVD. In fact, there's not even a menu; the movie just starts playing.<br /><br />First, the writer for this movie deserves to be tortured and killed. It has one of the worst scripts ever written and is plagued with terrible one-liners; remarkably unbelievable, fake dialogue; and inappropriate comments (like Lee's comment on Lundgren's. err. manhood, which I'll mention later). There isn't one single sincere sounding line in the entire movie. The dialogue and plot go hand-in-hand, as the script and plot both progress in an entirely nonsensical fashion. The two cops hate each other for no apparent reason at the beginning, and then for again no reason at all, Lee's character pulls over to the side of the road, runs around to the other side of the car, and says `I'm not going to let you go alone, 'cause despite myself, I like you! And I don't want to see you get killed!' . or something to that extent, anyhow. There are disgusting one-liners, mostly said by Lee. For instance, when duking it out with a bad guy, Lee says `You have the right to remain silent . You have the right to be dead!' Lastly, I'll mention the entirely inappropriate and nonsensical comment that Lee makes about Lundgren's nether-regions. When bad guys start to attack after a seemingly random love scene between Lundgren and Carrere, and Lundgren decides to fight them off in his underwear, Lee says to him: `Incase we die, I just wanted to let you know that you have the biggest dick I've ever seen on a guy.' . Yes, he actually says that. It makes no sense and isn't even possible (Lee never actually sees Lundgren naked, so how would he know?), but the writer threw it in the script anyway. The entire movie looks like some kind of action video game, and Lee even admits it. After Lee and the underwear-only Lundgren defeat all of those bad guys, Lee makes a comment that is also truly beautiful: `Wow, this is sort of like a video game; we just defeated the first wave!'<br /><br />Second, the plot of this movie is despicable. It suffers, in my opinion, mainly from the fact that it just doesn't exist. The trailer for this movie - which IMDb has available for viewing, by the way - makes it sound like the movie is about two cops trying to stop the Japanese Yakuza from taking over Lost Angeles. This is extremely misleading, however, since the movie has practically nothing to do with that at all. They make very brief, vague references to the Yakuza trying to start up a methamphetamine business with local drug dealers, but the entire movie ACTUALLY revolves around a poorly-written attempt for Kenner (Lundgren's character) to revenge the death of his parents, whom the Yakuza leader (named Yoshida) killed when he was only 9 years old. The entire plot can basically be summed up like this: Yoshida wants Kenner dead, Kenner wants Yoshida dead, and the two try two kill each other. And of course all the while Kenner's sarcastic sidekick (named Johnny and played by Brandon Lee) acts like an ignorant idiot, and Tia Carrere gets naked. twice.<br /><br />The acting is one of the worst parts of the entire movie. The dialogue is so unrealistic, and their entirely insincere portrayal of it emphasizes this even more. You'd expect poor acting from action stars anyway, but this movie highlights some of the most unimaginably bad acting ever recorded.<br /><br />Finally we get to the heart of the movie's baseness: the flagrantly bad action. There are so many astoundingly bad, unrealistic action sequences in this movie, it's just downright impressive they managed to fit them all in. Although Lee has his fair share of bad scenes as well, most of the truly terrible action involves Lundgren. For instance, Lundgren nonchalantly takes on four or five kung fu bad guys one-handed, without spilling his tea. Then, when surprised by an oncoming speeding car, Lundgren casually leaps over it. Or how about when he reaches THROUGH a closed door, grabs the villain on the other side, pulls him back through the door, and beats him up? Or when he picks up Tia Carrere, gently walks (not runs) backward through a glass door that shatters around him, and leaps down a one-story height with Tia still in arm, only to then lift up an entire car without the slightest effort and uses it as a barricade to shield them from bullets? All of the shameless gunfights are terrible as well, with Lundgren and Lee killing every bad guy instantaneously, while the rain of bullets from their fifty attackers never seem to hit either of them. That is, of course, until the final fight scene of the movie. Lundgren gets shot point blank in his bare chest in a region that even if it did manage to miss his heart, would still immediately begin to fill lungs with blood and kill him within a matter of seconds. Despite this, Lundgren remains in top-notch condition and manages to duke it out in the middle of a parade with Yoshida, the evil super villain. And of course the passing people in the parade dressed as samurai are carrying REAL, fully sharpened katanas, which the two use to sword fight. Now in addition to his bullet wound, Lundgren gets several deep slices in his chest and arms. Does this stop him? No, of course not! In fact, a few seconds later after easily killing the evil Yoshida (who gets pinned to a dartboard-like wheel and then bursts into flames for no reason), Lundgren casually walks off with Tia and Lee as if he wasn't injured at all. God, it's terrible.<br /><br />All of these factors are then mixed up with an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous nude scene every five minutes, including topless women at a party, the beheading of a topless woman, women at a strip club, nude women at a Japanese spa, and the pointless hot tub and love scene with Tia. Not to mention the trip to the bizarre sushi bar, at which rich Japanese men are eating sushi off of naked women. Which, by the way, prompts Lee to say with much fake enthusiasm that after defeating the bad guys he and Lundgren will `go eat fish off those naked chicks!' Which, of course, is followed by a disturbing high five. And we can't forget the terrible editing either, like when the villains are crushing a man trapped in a car at a junk yard, and the editors left in a really obvious glimpse of a prop dummy. The credits also list an enormous list of stunt workers, which implies that a lot of the action probably wasn't done by the movie stars after all.<br /><br />In the end, this movie repeatedly outdoes it self with brazen badness. It is illogical and impossible, and as a result, remarkably entertaining. If you're looking for any kind of thoughtful cinema, this movie will make you want to die. If you're looking for a good laugh and a good time mocking bad movie making, this movie will delight you. As an actual movie, I'll merit this movie a 0.5 out of 10. As an entertaining way to waste an hour and eighteen minutes, however, this beauty takes the cake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the worst films I have ever seen. Got so bored that I switched it off midway through to watch the news. When I switched it back on, I fell asleep. The film starts with a dream, continues with a dream, and ends with a dream. Then there are a few more dreams in between. Come on, what is supposed to keep me interested in that? A film needs to have a reason to be interesting. The minute you felt the film was only a dream is when any sensible film-goer switches off. Ever had someone insist on telling you their dreams and what it means to them? This is it!!!<br /><br />Absolutely awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have nothing more to say but it was awful. I cannot imagine why Helen Mirren and others were part of this degrading mess. And if certain actors don't want people to question their sexuality then perhaps they should refrain from making more of these films. There was at least one seen that left me curious. Just my opinion. SHUDDER to think what was going on that was cut from the film. SHUDDER to wonder what went through the minds of the actors who made this film. Shudder to think about the thought process and voyeurism that went on in the directors mind. Like I stated before its a degrading mess. Its not even funny. As Ebert said of the film Caligula with Malcolm McDowell, Its not a good film, not a good story and its not even good porn. YEESHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH............
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even by 1942 standards of movie-making the setup which HER CARDBOARD LOVER presents was dated to the extreme. The machinations of one half of a pair (of husband/wife, ex-husband/ex-wife) to get the other back at the threat of marriage to another, divorce, or an eventual separation by means of jealousy, humiliation, or other schemes had been done much better in classics such as HIS GIRL Friday and THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. Both of these movies features women with a strong, indomitable screen presence and who played independent, proto-feminist characters. In both movies, both women were estranged/divorced from their (witty) first husbands and set to marry colorless men who were their exact opposite, and both would be bamboozled into rejecting their soon-to-be husbands and re-igniting their passion for each other.<br /><br />The plot in HER CARDBOARD LOVER switches the gender: here, it's Norma Shearer in the Cary Grant role out, this time, to ward off an ex-boyfriend (George Sanders) by means of hiring Robert Taylor to pose as her gigolo. The problem is, Shearer is much too old to be playing a role more suited to an actress in her mid-to-late twenties; Sanders is about as involved as a piece of furniture for the most -- any man who would be in love with his fiancée, on seeing a strange man come out of her bathroom as happens here, would knock the lights out of him and cause a huge scene. Not here. And Robert Taylor plays his part as if he were trying to channel Cary Grant half the time, not in speech inflections but in overall essence.<br /><br />But the worst part of it is Shearer herself. For an actress used to parts which gave her a sense of intellectual sexiness and dramatic presence, playing Consuelo Craydon seems to put her into throes of complete over-acting, over-emoting, and over-gesturing which, while still a part of her style of acting and more appropriate ten years earlier, makes her look like an extremely mannered performer wrenching the joke out of a situation like water from a fairly dry sponge. It only fuels the fires that tell the theory which gives Irving Thalberg the maker of her career and chooser of (most of her) roles; why she passed on roles such as Charlotte Vale and Mrs. Miniver on mega-hits NOW VOYAGER and MRS. MINIVER is a mystery, but then again, most accounts also state that by this time she had just burnt out from acting, that she'd had lost interest in the whole thing altogether and it's no secret that anyone who has experienced this sort of thing has essentially lost focus and can't wait until retirement or the end of a contract is near to leave as soon as possible. Such could be the case here. She seems lost, she seems tired, she seems ill at ease, going through autopilot instead of living the part. After this film she would make no more, but would be responsible of discovering Janet Leigh who would come into her own as a screen star during the late 40s and into the 60s.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father "The Highwayman," who later commits suicide. "20 years later" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to "master their own fears" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.<br /><br />The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Well Chuck Jones is dead, lets soil his characters by adding cheap explosions, an American drawn anime knock off style, and give them superpowers". "but sir?, don't we all ready have several shows in the works that are already like this? much less don't dump all over their original creators dreams". "yes! and those shows make us a bunch of cash, and we need more!". "but won't every man women and child, who grew up with these time less characters, be annoyed?". "hay you're right! set it in the future, make them all descendent's of the original characters, and change all the names slightly...but not too much though, we still need to be able to milk the success of the classics".<br /><br />Well that's the only reason I can think of why this even exists. If you look past the horrible desecration of our beloved Looney Toons, then it looks like an OK show. But then there is already the teen titan's, which is the same bloody thing. All the characters are dressed like batman, they drive around in some sort of ship fighting super villains, they have superpowers, only difference is they sort of talk like the Looney tunes and have similar names and character traits.<br /><br />This kind of thing falls into the "it's so ridiculous it's good" kind of category. Think of the Super Mario brother's movie, and Batman and Robin. If you want to laugh for all the wrong reasons, check this out. If you are of the younger generation (what this thing is actually intended for), and can look pass the greedy executives shamelessness, then run with it and enjoy.<br /><br />If you enjoy this cartoon I don't have a problem with you, it's the people who calculated this thing together that I am mad at. You know how they say piracy is like stealing a car; this show is like grave robbing. They might as well of dug up all the people involved with the original cartoon, shoved them on a display, dressed them up in
err pirate costumes, and charged money. If this show wasn't using characters (ones that didn't resemble the Looney Toons in anyway whatsoever) that have already made the studios millions, then this would be fine. But no! For shame Warner brothers, for shame.<br /><br />If I saw this thing as a 30 second gag on an episode of the Simpson's or Family Guy, I would love it. As it is I just can't believe this was ever made. I would bet anyone that 80% of the people who work on this show hate it. But whatever it doesn't really matter, in 10 years this show will have been forgotten, while the originals will live on forever
or at least until the world ends.<br /><br />"Coming 2008, Snoopy and the peanut gang are back, and now they have freaking lasers and can turn invisible! Can Charley Brown defeat the evil alien warlord Zapar? Tune in and see."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Revolt of the Zombies is BAD. There is nothing remotely entertaining about the movie. It is dull, lifeless, poorly acted, and poorly scripted. I've often complained that the original Dracula is a little slow for my taste, well this movie makes Dracula look like a roller coaster ride. The 65 minute running time seemed like 165 minutes.<br /><br />The story: An expedition is sent to Cambodia to find the secrets of mind control through "zombification". One man finds the secret and uses it to make the woman he loves marry him. Once this happens, he releases the zombies under his control to horrific consequences. That's it. That's the whole story.<br /><br />For most of the movie, I was trying to figure out where I had seen the male lead. He looked so familiar. I had plenty of time to think this over. Nothing was happening in the movie. Just before the "zombies revolted", it hit me. It was Dean Jagger. I had seen him recently as the General in White Christmas. This is how I "entertained" myself throughout most of the movie.<br /><br />I'm just glad I didn't buy the DVD for this movie. King of the Zombies is on the other side and it's a masterpiece of film making compared with this movie. For what it's worth, I'll give it a 2/10. (I won't go to 1/10 because, believe it or not, I've seen worse.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The fact that there are positive comments about Dan in Real Life on the IMDb just makes me realize that their junket staff are hard at work trying to get people to watch this utterly horrific film.<br /><br />I have no words, no idea where to start to describe the truly awful film I sat through last night - Dan in Real Life. Steve's characters in previous films led me to believe that I would feel something for his character and enjoy the dialog but like other posters I felt uncomfortable and embarrassed for the cast.<br /><br />The dialog was so contrived, the family was this cookie cutter Walton's family and the film has been so many times before that I am shocked someone thought it was an original idea.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and take a pass on this terrifyingly bad movie and don't believe everything you read on the IMDb since the first comments were clearly written by folks sitting in a different theater watching a GOOD film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.