input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Not funny - how can anyone link this to Monty Python? That is absolutely ridiculous - there are no laughs. This is not funny. Over the top, but ugly, weird just for weird sake and it seems to me these people were on something all the time. Unfortunately something that did not make them funny.<br /><br />It should be given some points for effort etc. whatever. Actually it appears there is a laugh track - or is there one? Hummm.... Since there are barely any laughs that's a debatable question.<br /><br />Maybe I'm doing it injustice - maybe it's some sort of exercise. Some sort of art - in that case anything goes, never mind.<br /><br />But these guys playing women with high-pitched voices, turned-up noses. Come on !!! Not funny. <br /><br />There is only one heir apparent to Monty Pythons intellectual wit and that is Stephen Colbert, and maybe Jon Stewart.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!<br /><br />This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I felt asleep, watching it!!! (and I had tickets for the midnight- premiere) Any questions? The most disturbing scene, as far as I can remember, was the techno-dance-i-dont-know-what-that-was-scene. By the way what an ending!?
|
Negative
| null | null |
A reporter, Craig Milford, who works for The James Keller Public Telecommunication Center, has an interview with a German professor of a Floridian university, who made an unknown creature based upon some substance of meteor(s). But then a man named Anderson, who is trying to control the whole planet with the creature, and his man kill the professor and his assistants and plunder the creature. So Craig and his new female psychic partner, Joanna Fitzgerald, who can communicate not only with human being but also with alien friend(s) of the creature, begin to find the creature and try to send it to an alien spaceship... This film has some great casts and staffs. For instance, it has the actor, David Warbeck of THE BEYOND, the actress, Laura Trotter of NIGHTMARE CITY, the special visual effects creator, Sergio Stivaletti of Dario Argento's masterpieces, and the director (and also the story- writer), Alberto De Martino of THE MAN WITH ICY EYES and THE KILLER IS ON THE PHONE. And these talented people make an incredibly bad film, named, nothing but this MIAMI GOLEM which is essentially a confusedly combined film of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND with E.T.THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL. And this not-only-confused-but-also-crammed film has something worth; genetic engineering with psychical research. Consequently the film has at least one scientific and/or technical flaw; genetic engineering and psychical research are never compatible. (Strangely enough, regarding this strangely childish combination of genetic engineering and psychical research, the leading character, Craig, himself says THERE MUST BE A BETTER EXPLANATION to the short-haired psychic, Joanna. But, after all, the whole story of the film doesn't and can't present any kind of BETTER EXPLANATION.) In addition, this film has something more laughable; its problematic music. What the composer, who is credited as Robert Marry, provides is nothing but the strangely insistent BEVERLY-HILLS-COP-tasted music. I don't want to say this Italianised theme of BEVERLY HILLS COP per se is particularly bad music, but I have to say it seems to be manifestly clear the music does not have the fitness for this film per se at all. Indeed just who can think BEVERLY HILLS COP has the compatibility with genetic engineering and/or psychical research?
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.<br /><br />Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How a director of Altman's experience could ever expect us to want to spend time with, or to care about what happens to, a lead character who is neurotic, a whiner, a jerk with no redeeming qualities -- that is the central puzzle about this profoundly confused piece of work. A monstrous piece of trash. In addition to this crippling flaw, the plot line requires serious concentration to follow. The setup that the Branagh character walks into is so obviously a setup from the start that we are inclined to wonder whether the writer and director have totally lost respect for their audience. This latter issue is at the core of the film: it represents directorial self-indulgence with profound contempt for the taste, values, and intelligence of the viewer. Very unusual for Mr. Altman.<br /><br />Patrick Watson
|
Negative
| null | null |
With a cast of stalwart British character actors and pleasing photography of 1950s Britain, I had hoped and expected to be more entertained by this film. Unfortunately I found myself glued to it for the wrong reasons - I couldn't quite believe how awful it was. I must have watched thousands of old films and am always ready to make allowances for them being products of their time, but this was really hard going.<br /><br />As others have noted, a major problem is that it doesn't seem to know what it wants to be: a gentle romantic comedy, a slapstick comedy or a musical. I was a bit gobsmacked when Jeannie Carson suddenly broke into song about 15 minutes in! It's not believable on any level, either the storyline itself or the fact that Daisy never appears to have an ounce of menace in her at any time. Other aspects which defied credibility included the casting of suave Donald Sinden as a songwriter (a songwriter for God's sake!), the fact he has Diana Dors for a fiancée and doesn't appear to have the slightest interest in her (I mean, Diana Dors! Come on!) and a ludicrous scene in a song publisher's office. The whole thing's silly in the worst possible way.<br /><br />If I had to pick a favourite scene it would be the one at the very beginning with that wonderful actor Wilfred Lawson - after that everything went downhill in a big way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's difficult to precisely put into words the sheer awfulness of this film. An entirely new vocabulary will have to be invented to describe the complete absence of anything even remotely recognizable as 'humor' or even 'entertainment' in "Rabbit Test." So, as a small contribution to this future effort, I'd like to suggest this word: <br /><br />"Hubiriffic" (adj.) A combination of 'hubristic' and 'terrific'; used to describe overly ambitious debacles like the film "Rabbit Test."<br /><br />Joan Rivers and "Hollywood Squares" producer Jay Redack have severely over-reached their meager abilities to amuse in this 82-minute festival of wretchedness. Trying to put together an Airplane! style comedy with a moldy collection of gags, (Note to Joan: German doctors haven't been funny since Vaudeville) disinterred from their graves in the Catskills - that's is bad enough. But compounding this cinematic crime is River's directorial style, which can best be described as 'ugly', and a cast of once-and-future has-beens so eager to please they overplay even the weakest of throwaway gags.<br /><br />Adrift in this Sargasso Sea of sap is a hapless Billy Crystal in his film debut role as the film's hapless protagonist Lionel. Watching Crystal in this pic is much like watching a blind person take a stroll in a minefield; eventually the cringe reflex becomes a semi-permanent condition as cheap joke after cheap joke blows up in his face.<br /><br />I can only speculate about the sort of audience who might actually like Rabbit Test. Cabbages, mollusks and mildly retarded lizards are all likely candidates. But for self-aware, thinking humans - I'd enthusiastically recommend pouring bleach in your eyes before I'd recommend "Rabbit Test."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I bought this DVD set, sight unseen, and wish I hadn't. The script needed some serious rewriting as it seems to be completely devoid of any feeling and pales in comparison to the book. The lighting is horrid, very unpolished, but if it was just that I could overlook it. The script doesn't focus enough on the characters...there is hardly an introduction to various characters making it a tad difficult to distinguish who is who(especially in the planes--no idea who dies when).<br /><br />I have long felt that the key to a good film is in getting the audience to care about the characters; if you don't have that you don't have anything. There was no focus on the characters at all--you never got to know them--who they were, what they liked..what made them do the things that they do. The series is 5 hours long and split up into 6 parts...I bet you are wondering what they did with all this time if they didn't detail the characters---they put a lot of filler in it....I will say at least an entire hour is spent watching them land and take off in their planes LOL (I mean do we really need to see that over and over again???). I would have given this a much higher rating had they just improved our knowledge of the characters.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie should have been named Need For Speed: The Movie. For those who have not played the games Need For Speed is mostly about hot cars and beautiful women and almost no plot. This applies perfectly to Redline. The only thing about this movie that was A-Level were the cars. The acting seemed forced and scripted, the premise was flimsy at best, and the plot was almost nonexistent. I only really watched this movie to see how bad it was and, while it was pretty bad, it could have been worse. And at least it was entertaining. I just wish they had showed Eddie Griffin crashing the Enzo somewhere in the movie. All in all, don't pay for it, don't go out of your way to see it, but if it's on Showtime or HBO and there isn't anything else on, it's a decent distraction.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine the worst skits from Saturday Night Live and Mad TV in one 90 minute movie. Now, imagine that all the humor in those bad skits is removed and replaced with stupidity. Now imagine something 50 times worse.<br /><br />Got that?<br /><br />OK, now go see The Underground Comedy Movie. That vision you just had will seem like the funniest thing ever. UCM is the single worst movie I've ever seen. There were a few cheap laughs...very few. But it was lame. Even if the intent of the movie was to be lame, it was too lame to be funny.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not angry for wasting my time watching this was someone else I know bought it. He wasted his money. Vince Offer hasn't written or directed anything else and it's no surprise why.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a mess, but at least it's not pretentious. The box art for the video markets it as a "fun throwback" to 1950s giant bug movies. In reality, it's a transparent bargain basement ripoff of "Aliens".<br /><br />The producers clearly wanted to make an "ALIEN" picture, but they mustn't have had much money. In fact, it doesn't look like they had ANY money, really. I hope everyone got paid who worked on this thing.<br /><br />The basic plot is retained--group of people isolated with murderous insectoid creature--and an earthbound location is inserted for budgetary reasons, I presume. Instead of setting the film in space, where no one can hear you scream, they set the film in a hospital, where everyone can see your budget laid bare. The amusing thing about "Blue Monkey" (and there is only one thing amusing about it) is, the filmmakers didn't abandon the "ALIEN" aesthetics. Even though we're in a hospital, we still have an improbably cavernous annex where science fiction experiments are being conducted, in this case the venerable "growth hormone" plot device. The annex also doubles as a boiler room (or something), so we can have an explanation for the monster seeking out the warmth. The boiler room is so large that it is laced with multi-leveled steel catwalks, perfect for allowing slime to drip down between the slats.<br /><br />The idea is that a man working in a greenhouse is attacked by a drooping flower from a rare imported plant that grows in an exotic location. He touches it and says "Ow", so we know he's been hurt. The cut on his finger causes him to lapse into unconsciousness in a matter of minutes, and at the hospital he gives birth to a white worm through his mouth (I guess in an "ALIEN" picture this would be called the "mouthburster"?). The worm is isolated, but some naughty little kids (leukemia patients) sneak up on it and "accidentally" give it some experimental growth hormone. You know everyone's in trouble when some fornicating hospital staff workers are attacked by a camera on a crane, and pretty soon a maintenance man finds some obligatory cocoons, right before he's grabbed by a pair of semi-convincing insectoid arms. The rest of the movie is dominated by the semi-offscreen monster, semi-obscured by the semi-darkness.<br /><br />Which brings us back to "ALIEN". How, you ask, can a movie set in a hospital incorporate all those flashing strobe lights that are always in the "ALIEN" movies? No problem...a power outage (or something) causes the electrical system to go awry, which apparently causes strobe lights to blossom in every room of the hospital and flicker constantly throughout the movie. This doubles as a convenient cloak for the less-than-special effects (although the bugs are pretty neat looking, they don't move too well, and the baby bug looks charmingly like a Cootie toy).<br /><br />OK, so what "ALIEN" bases haven't we covered...OH, water dripping down the walls! Check...we'll divide the massive hospital into two parts, then send some of the characters through the damp, drippy basement to get to the other side. Problem solved, we now have the opportunity for numerous "foreboding tunnel" shots. And don't forget the fog...well, you never really need an excuse for this in horror movies, do you? OK, maybe inside of a hospital you do, so we'll create smoke by having lots of things spark & burn.<br /><br />I haven't said anything about the negligible acting, not that the actors are given any kind of script to follow. I take it "Blue Monkey" was supposed to be lighthearted and fun, and if so then it is a nice try, but the pieces don't come together and the movie ends up being a real drag. See a film called "Return of the Aliens: The Deadly Spawn" if you want to see a film of this type that gets it right, with even less money and even more marginal acting talent. This one falls flat on its ALIEN.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A woman's nightmares fuel her fear of being buried alive.The cheating husband wants her dead and decides to make good use of her phobia by sticking her in a coffin and leaving her in the basement.Of course B-horror movie queen Brinke Stevens transforms into hideous ghostly creature.The only reason to see this amateurish junk flick is Michael Berryman in a really small cameo and two sex scenes with Delia Sheppard.And the last twenty minutes of Brinke's bloody rampage are quite fun to watch.The special effects for example laughable decapitated head are truly awful.Better watch "Scalps" or "Alien Dead" again.Of course I ain't expecting classy entertainment from Fred Olen Ray,but "Haunting Fear" is too dull to be enjoyable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but personally I think of it that way because when it was originally released in theaters, (1) the initial buzz was positive enough that my girlfriend insisted we go see it, and we actually STOOD IN LINE to get tickets, and (2) it's still the only "serious" film I recall where the audience started snickering at a certain point and basically laughed at the movie the rest of the way through. Once we reached the infamous (and interminable) snake fight scene, I think everyone gave up.<br /><br />The only positive I can concede is the lush location shooting. Oh, and there's also Bo's breasts, although her acting is so wooden that the nudity is unerotic and doesn't rate much more than a Playboy pictorial.<br /><br />The "dramatic tension" in this film is between Bo's terrible acting and her husband's horrible direction. The snake fight has to be one of the most incompetent "action" sequences ever filmed. However, this is one of those films that's bad enough, it may be worth watching on the level of unintentional humor. Definitely the worst film I ever paid to see.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, i rented this movie and found out it realllllllly sucks. It is about that family with the stepmother and the same stupid fights in the family,then the cool son comes with his stupid camera and he likes to take a photo to damaged building and weird things and weird movie ,and then he asks his father to take him to a side trip and simply agrees, etc etc etc..... They go to that town which no one know it exists (blah blah blah) And the most annoying thing is that the movie ends and yet you don't understand what is THAT MOVIE!!!!I have seen many mystery movies but that was the worst, Honestly it doesn't have a description at all and i wish i didn't see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...thankfully he hasn't, yet! This is crude, simplistic student politics made into drama. It needs the viewer to buy into a series of conceits. Conceit 1: That a British electorate could be swung from being basically right of centre to being overwhelmingly far left. Conceit 2: That all debate in the media and the general public is unanimously ended and that the new Prime Minister's only critics are sinister civil servants, MI5, big business and the Americans (naturally). Conceit 3: That this radical socialist PM can solve all union, economic and social problems with consummate ease in a way that unites the nation. Conceit 4: That severing all ties with the US and NATO is a good thing. Conceit 5: That the Soviet Union isn't a brutal and oppressive regime and that we should have had closer times with them back in the 80's. And finally, Conceit 6: That the reactionary forces of the US would actively seek to launch a coup d'etat against Britain.<br /><br />It's ludicrous and the show only gained the reputation that it did by trying to cash in on some anti-Thatcher feeling in the country and having left wing TV critics singing its praises. When it was made, television was still a hugely popular and influential medium with shows getting huge ratings so a widely talked about drama with a hint of controversy had a good chance of getting a big audience. Ray McInally's performance was great, which is one of the few plus points. History and time has shown the huge weakness in the premise and plot of this show.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.<br /><br />David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).<br /><br />Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...<br /><br />As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).<br /><br />The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This Italian semi-horror movie starts out very much like a soft core porn movie and turns into a mystery that has a few to many loose ends to be good, that and the fact it is rather dull just makes this film rather unwatchable for my tastes. The only thing really worth watching are the many boobs spread throughout the film. The story has a guy who at the beginning of the movie luring girls to his castle where he proceeds to take them to his dungeon, go berserk and seemingly kill them. They show the nudity, but they never really show the murders at this point in the film. Then the guy finds a nice red head at a party and proceeds to make out with her and marry her. He has a thing for red heads you see as his beloved former wife Evelyn was also one, she also died under circumstances that must have not been the viewing audience's business. After a lot of talky scenes murders start to take place involving snakes, foxes and such. At this point it is easy enough to figure out who is responsible for the murders and what the motive is then you have a nonsensical ending where everything wraps up not so nicely. This movie just did not work for me, it left me with to many questions and the last third of the film just did not have the boobs of the first two thirds of the film. Explaining Evelyn's death would have helped the film as would have some sort of ending where Evelyn did rise from the grave. Granted the title is not totally misleading as she did sort of leave the grave, just not under her own power. The gore is very light for the most part as there is a scene with the foxes and a scene at the end with quite a bit of blood too. I just thought for the most part this movie was a tad dull.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.<br /><br />The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.<br /><br />In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:<br /><br />1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation<br /><br />If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.<br /><br />As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.<br /><br />While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.<br /><br />While this will probably be better than the likes of "The Hulk" and "Lara Croft II" that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.<br /><br />As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.<br /><br />So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....<br /><br />I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.<br /><br />.
|
Negative
| null | null |
no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have watched this movie a few times and never really thought it was that funny, but it's still fun to watch and good for a few laughs.<br /><br />Its about women that work at a company and their boss is a jerk and they end up giving him a taste of his own medicine, and try to get the respect they deserve.<br /><br />The acting is really good. Dabney Coleman is one of those 80's stars that plays a good bad guy, not really evil, just unlikeable. Dolly Partin is lovable and fun to watch in comedies and her down south wit really shines here. Jane Fonda is so-so and does little for me. Lily Tomlin is the best thing about this movie, she has the funniest lines and made me laugh out loud several times, gotta love her.<br /><br />I could recommend this to anyone that likes 80's comedy. I like the movie but it has things about it that I don't like. It starts off great and has a nice flow and then everything starts coming together all at once and made me care less about the characters. They all have little fantasies about what they would like to do the boss and although 'cute' I just thought it slowed down the flow of the movie. As the movie goes on it once again picks up and the funniest things happen and then once again it slows down, only to wrap up in a quick manner thats too good to be true.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars, but give it a try if you haven't seen it. I think depending on ones mood it may be more or less likable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. This lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. Once again we have an attractive 'straight' hero who supposedly can't get any woman to be interested in him. Yeah, right! And we're also presented with the 'sympathetic, attractive' gay friend who is actually a fat, balding, ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. Even I didn't find him appealing and I'm a fat, ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding)! Whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script, and truly awful direction. Mr. Sneedeker should be banned from filmdom, but then he's no different than the countless other hacks working in Hollyweed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but "enduring" will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a low budget Roger Corman horror/creature flick. A DinoCroc is created when manipulation of prehistoric genes runs amok. An engineered croc first kills one of its own then gets the taste of human and becomes a fast growing terror after escaping. None of the characters have any depth, but then they are not the focal point. We only get a few glimpses of the huge two-legged dinosaur descendant and some of the best "kill" scenes in a small budget film.<br /><br />My favorite scene is of a moronic character trying to use a three legged dog for bait and becomes croc food himself. Nothing left on the pier but ankle top feet. With no real stand out roles: Jane Longendecker, Bruce Weitz and Charles Napier. Most pathetic is Matt Borlenghi and an obnoxious professional croc hunter Costas Mandylor. I was most impressed with the alluring Joanna Pacula as the respectfully feared Dr. P. DINOCROC is redeeming as a crock of pickles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Deceptive Advertising... I saw a commercial for Carlitos Way: Rise to Power that states "From the Producer of Scarface and Carlito's Way" LETS GET IT STRAIGHT... Michael Bergman did not produce Scarface, in fact he was 'editing room assistant' for Scarface. Not to take away from Bergman's talent... but in my opinion he should of had a little more class. I think I can speak for the masses when I say... We hate being blatantly lied to. As far as the movie goes, It was poor at best. I did think Puff Daddy did a good job. Although, Luis Guzman should be ashamed for working on this film. Overall this film did not do a good job filling in the blanks for Carlito's Way. It's obvious this project was an attempt to make a quick buck rather a good film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.<br /><br />Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]<br /><br />Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.<br /><br />I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.<br /><br />Avoid<br /><br />* / **** (one star out of four)<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.<br /><br />To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.<br /><br />And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.<br /><br />Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.<br /><br />And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.<br /><br />And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.<br /><br />Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tenants Two writers struggle to complete their books in an all but empty apartment house. They at first help each other and then slowly the tension between them begins to build.<br /><br />This is based upon a Bernard Malamud novel and unfortunately everyone speaks as though they are in that novel. Very little of the dialog is natural, its purple and brimming with shades of meaning. Its as if a college English major with a head full of pretensions wrote the script. It's awful and I found myself instantly immune to anything the film had to say, which is a shame since the film is populated with great performances from top to bottom. Snoop Dog on down are fine form, unfortunately none of them can over come the falseness of the words and the premise.<br /><br />I can't really recommend this movie. While not really bad, its very preachy and pretentious to the point of making you want to walk away. I lost interest less then a third of the way in and had to struggle to get to the end. If you're interested I'd try it on cable, but I wouldn't lay out good money to see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ben Stiller doesn't so much act as react. And he does it very well. He is very dependent on the comedy going on around him. In There's Something About Mary, the stand-up hair scene only works because of Stiller trying to keep a straight face. When he confronts Mary's other two suitors, he is the unfunniest guy in the room but the scene is hilarious.<br /><br />In Along Came Polly, the formula breaks down for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Stiller is surrounded by an array of comic talent. Hank Azaria and Philip Seymour Hoffman get the best lines, of which there are too few. Having said that, Hoffman relies a little too much on bodily humour - you know we are in trouble when they go to the fart jokes to raise a laugh. A basketball scene where Hoffman hams it up is completely overplayed (though it throws up one predicament in the form of a shirtless opponent that does raise a smile - noticeably through Stiller's reaction). However, everyone seems to be acting in a bubble, there is very little reaction. Hoffman and Stiller's characters could have played off each other much, much more. Aniston again reprises her Rachael role, but Stiller is no Ross. It is more of a "Joey with a crush on Rachael" scenario.<br /><br />Polly is a by-the-numbers rom-com and that is its failing - it lacks heart. You don't root for the characters. With a little bit more work we could have had a deeper story, but in the end the film's failure comes down to poor writing. Worth watching if it pops up on TV on a slow night, but you'll regret forking out cash to see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just rented (yes! I paid money to see!) this film. OMG. It is one of the very worst films I have ever seen. As another reviewer put it, Ms. Colagrande, get out of films, PLEASE! Please never make or appear in another film! The lady has the charisma of a cantaloupe. No, that's not fair to the cantaloupe, which probably has more going for it. She does not know how to act; she affects a disgusted look ALL the time (reminded me very much of my always-disgusted young sisters-in-law from Europe). She is not charming; she is not pretty. There is no real story. And the editing! There WASN'T any, that I could see! It's pretty bad when you are watching a film and, just to get through it, you press "forward forward" on your remote, and STILL nothing happens! I mean!..... I kept involuntarily screaming, "Cut! Cut!" What WERE they thinking? Well, obviously, they thought they would make a film together and get PAID to make love on screen! Pretty good deal for THEM; pretty raw deal for the viewer! I think I'm going to throw up now....
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hadn't heard of this film until I read an article about it on the Unknown Movies website, which made me curious. As a cartoonist and illustrator myself, I'm an admirer of Richard Williams's work - I rate Ziggy's Gift as one of the finest Christmas specials of all time, and even though Who Framed Roger Rabbit stopped being one of my favourite films when I got past the age of sixteen, I still have the highest of regard for the amount of work, care and attention to detail that went into creating the visuals - but it seems the man has his faults, most notably a propensity for going over budget and over schedule, and this film is a testament of just how far wrong even a super-talented individual like Williams can go, given the right circumstances.<br /><br />Raggedy Ann and Andy is a strange confection that tries to be weird and experimental and off the wall within the confines of a children's cartoon. It tries also to be a musical. It tries to be a thousand and one other things as well - is it a freakout? Is it a mind-blower? Is it a paean to the innocence of childhood imagination? - until it finally collapses under the weight of its own limitless ambitions and aspirations. It's beautifully animated, for the most part, though the bland backgrounds could have used a little more attention, but even that doesn't count for much when you're confronted with the hallucinogenic absurdity that constitutes much of the 'action' here.<br /><br />There are a number of problems with the film, but let's start with Raggedy Ann and Andy themselves. They're the stars of the show, yet they have no personalities. Actually, we get the message that Andy is a wannabe tough guy ("I'm no girl's toy", he sings) and that Ann has a unique perspective on things because her owner, a little girl called Marcella, carries her upside down, but that's all we get to find out about these dull-as-mud characters because the overwhelming weirdness of this film kicks in not long after. I use the word "weirdness" advisedly, because some weird films can be hugely entertaining, but this is just flat-out strange. The toys and dolls in the playroom are supposed to be cute and lovable, but they're actually bizarre and disturbing. The two marionettes who do and say everything in sync are a prime example of this. But even they're relatively normal compared to the constantly sneezing pirate captain, whose moustache becomes erect and whose groin visibly swells when he first catches sight of a glamorous French doll. Yes, this is supposed to be a children's film! Then there's the music, none of which is memorable, and all of which is sung by actors who can't sing. And to add insult to injury, there's a lot of singing in this film. When Ann and Andy finally make it out of the playroom, the first thing they do is sing a LONG number in the woods about how scared they are, about how they'll always have each other and...yes, we get the message. This seems to go on forever, but at least it brings some semblance of normality back to the film. Not for long, though, because the Camel with the wrinkled knees leads us into a bizarre world where everything looks like it's made from worn and faded denim, and - bad enough that he's clearly a paranoid schizophrenic - he also starts hallucinating. But this is nothing compared to the scenes that follow. The Greedy, a living, breathing. belching, farting, constantly eating pool of taffy, is so trippy, creepy and ultimately disturbing, you'll hardly believe what you're seeing - this is as close to a drug-free psychedelic experience as I've ever seen on film. Then, after a l-o-n-g time spent with the Greedy, along comes the psychotic Sir Leonard Looney and his master King KooKoo, whose throne resembles a urinal. I can't believe I'm actually writing a capsule description of a real film here - I just had to rub my eyes and remind myself that I'm not blogging about an overwhelmingly whacked-out nightmare I had. Part of the sequence in Looney Land resembles one of the old Winsor McCay / Little Nemo cartoons, for no good reason other than somebody felt like doing it, probably. All this would be fine if there was some kind of rhyme or reason behind it, but there isn't. These scenes are just strange, and very, very long. Surrealism only works when there's a strong idea behind it, or takes place against some semblance of reality. But NOTHING in these scenes points towards any kind of reality. Take away this element, and you're left with pure self indulgence.<br /><br />As the final scenes unravel, even the animation begins to look less impressive (the pirate ship, ludicrously detailed, jerks about on the water in a manner that suggests some of the cels went missing during the production) and there's a non-event of an ending that simply suggests money ran out. Even at a meagre 86 minutes in length, the film feels like a never-ending ordeal, and it's understandable why it flopped on its original release. Animation buffs will probably scratch their heads and wonder just how Williams managed to flub this one so spectacularly, but he did, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I entered the theater to Sky Captain in 2004 expecting a good film. Nearly every review of this movie had been positive, the effects looked enticing, the previews convincing.<br /><br />Needless to say, disappointment actually doesn't describe the feeling I got from this film. It was rage.<br /><br />Beyond being boring and poorly written, the reason this film gets a 2 out of 10 stars is because everything in the film was stolen from another source. I understand the difference between an homage and stealing: this was stealing. More importantly, it seems that the filmmakers didn't steal to progress a point or move the plot along. They stole just to show that they could. There is literally no point to showing a clip of The Wizard of Oz in a theater at the beginning of the movie except to set up another scene (that I won't elaborate on) which steals from the same film. Needless to say, every concept in the film was neither original nor even a spin on an old concept: it was literally just a rehash of something I had already seen, from pulp-era robots reminiscent of the old Superman Cartoons and the recent film "The Iron Giant", to the silent martial artist minion of the villain that has been used in countless films, most recognizable in recent years as Darth Maul in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace".<br /><br />On the subject of the actual film, most of the performances were completely wooden. Perhaps this is because the entire movie was done on a blue-screen, with computer imagery filling in everything save the actors. Frankly, this is no excuse for poor acting. If a person was ever a child, they understand that a lack of visual reference is no excuse for not trying.<br /><br />Finally, there is no humanity in this film. The protagonists are the only real human beings here. Nearly all the antagonists are robots, and the number of friendly characters that are shown during the film can be counted on one hand. If robots are attacking the entire planet, shouldn't we expect to see masses of humanity running from them? The sub-par performance of the main characters prevents us from connecting to, really, anything here.<br /><br />The film wasn't the worst movie out there, which is why I didn't give it a 1. Rather, the film was an example of all that is wrong with modern action films: the filmmakers tried to justify the movie with special effects, but without artistic vision or originality of any kind, it falls flat.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh Dear, Jerry may be the undisputed king of talkshow but the movies are a whole different ball game, and he's way out of his league. The script for this film is so poor it has to be seen to be believed and its sad to see such vaguely familiar actors as Michael Dudikoff (80's action B'movie king), Michael Jai White (Last seen in the Sci Fi flop Spawn') as well as Surviving the Games' William MacNamara (who is involved in the only half funny situation in the whole film!) stoop this low for employment. If you are a fan of Jerry then stick to his TV show as this is a total waste of and hour and a half. After I had finished sitting through this I managed to catch the last half an hour of Rocky 5 on TV, which looked like a cinematic masterpiece in comparison, I think that says more than enough!!!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was just terrible, the first movie wasn't that great i mean it's ridiculously stupid if they didn't have enough with the first 5 films you had to add another one, why just not make this into an ongoing series like James Bond, i'll tell you exactly why because the bond films are actually very very good and these films just stink, i don't understand, was this supposed to be a cross between to genres like horror and comedy for goodness sakes my 1 year old niece wouldn't be scared of such a ridiculous attempt at horror, a spit in the face of people who at least want to be scared at some point in a so called horror film. Please no more of these movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't expect much when I saw this at the Palm Springs Film Fest this weekend. It was an alternate choice when two other films were sold out. Still, I held out hope. It sounded a bit much like "Bride and Prejudice" (L.A. guy falls for an Indian beauty, parental conflict, blah blah blah). B&P was not perfect but it was an enjoyable film with some good laughs and likable characters.<br /><br />"My Bollywood Bride" had none of that. The acting seemed stilted and way to by-the-numbers. Characters were so cliché the story seemed like it could have been written by high school freshman drama student. Technically, the sound really bothered me. It seemed as if there was a lot of over-dubbing of dialogue. I mean a lot. I know sometimes it's necessary but it sounded like half the film was shot in a closet and it became very distracting.<br /><br />Two stars is being somewhat generous.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a review of 'Freddy Mercury The Untold Story,' theatrical release, Chicago Int. Film Festival, 2007 One of the phoniest, uninspired and most tedious biographical documentaries I have seen. If the film I saw in a movie theater was originally released on TV, I would plead with its producers and distributors to not fool a paying audience with the false promise of a cinematically worthy documentary feature. Even as a made-for-TV documentary, the sentimental piano solos accompanying interviewees sitting in front of flower arrangements in hotel rooms and the pompous, pseudo-literary narration rang more true of a sleepapedic bed Infomercial. The only redeeming aspects of this "The Untold Story of Freddy Mercury" -- or, uhm, was it "The Untold Story of Princess Diana" are the original concert, video and TV footage -- unabridged Freddy Mercury and Queen. Testimonial interviews with irrelevant eye witnesses with insights, such as: "He was a free spirit," (really.. I thought Freddy Mercury was a company man...) belittle those Freddy testimonials, by Brian May or Montserrat Caballe that shed new and affectionate light into Mercury's complex life and character. And... what up with the Harry Potter-like boarding school segments? How did the interview with the first girl-crush ("...who now works in a travel agency") and members of Freddy's first school band contribute to what I really want to know about Mercury? Vital milestones of his personal life, his sexuality, his artistic style and growth, Queen, the band remain unexplored. These filmmakers don't ask a single, provocative question, nor do they engage in independent or visionary research of their subject, instead delivering a tedious montage of politely clean and vastly empty comments about an enigmatic and brilliant rock legend, who doesn't deserve to be remembered by this History Channel biography your grandparents can doze off to on a Sunday night.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films. <br /><br />I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first point that calls the attention in "For Ever Mozart" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews. <br /><br />My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Para Sempre Mozart" ("Forever Mozart")
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just don't see how a Concorde-New Horizons film directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring the acting talents of Andrew Stevens and a puppet could be bad. It just boggles the mind, doesn't it?<br /><br />Well, let's make no mistake about it. "Munchie Strikes Back" is indeed a bad film. Munchie is a puppet who has been around for many centuries. For reasons not fully explained until the end of the film, he is sent to Earth to help a single mother and her son. The mom's problem (her main problem at least) is that she has a balloon payment due on her mortgage in two weeks...to the not-so-tiny tune of $20,000. Ouch. She can't come up with the money because she just got fired. OK...JUST is the key word in that sentence. What the...? Was she planning on paying it off with a single paycheck? Maybe it would've been a good idea to have spent the last several years saving up for it...ya think?<br /><br />Munchie has magical powers similar to those a genie would possess...but there isn't a limit on the number of wishes you can make! Munchie gets the boy a bunch of fancy stuff for one night but then the kid asks for it to be sent back to the mall Munchie was "borrowing" it from. The annoying furball also uses his otherworldly skills to help the boy win a baseball game by means of cheating. A baseball is hit so hard that it orbits the Earth several times. Sadly, those dumb parents watching the game don't think it's at all strange. Hmm.<br /><br />Anyway, I'd like to wrap this up because this has already drained away enough of my lifeforce as it is. You'll be truly moved by the scene where Leslie-Anne Down, playing the mother, kicks a dog which is yapping at her. Your heart will melt at her charm when she notices dollar bills fluttering down on her front yard and she wonders how it could be snowing during the summer. "Munchie Strikes Back"'s credits promised another film to follow entitled, I believe, "Munchie Hangs Ten". To date, the movie viewing public has been robbed of what would surely have been a cinematic tour de force. Heh. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.<br /><br />As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.<br /><br />In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.<br /><br />It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just watched this movie last night, and I HAD to put a warning out for anybody else considering to see this film. In a word - don't. I seriously feel like this is something that a screenwriting student would have written in a Quentin Tarantino/Eddie Murphy phase, i.e. every other word was a curse word. I don't have a problem with profuse cursing, as in "Good Will Hunting", provided it helps to delve more into the characters. In this case it was just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional *gasp* or laughter from the audience. The three lead characters are all their own unique stereotype, the wall street jerk, the coffee house jerk, and the "I'm-Not-Gay-Just-In-Touch-With-My-Feminine-Side" slightly-less-of-a-jerk. You just don't give a damn about any of them! They are all shallow, unredemable losers who you WANT to see lose. For those who dare, this film does have a couple funny moments, the very beginning, and the very end. The toilet/vibrator scene is funny in a sick kinda "Uh, yeah" way. Really though, I would only recommend this film to my worst of enemies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why?!! This was an insipid, uninspired and embarrassing film. The embarrassment comes from being from the city where they made it...Pittsburgh PA! Why did they let these people do such a BAAAAAD movie there?<br /><br />When this movie was originally to be released...it was more of a romantic comedy...and no ROBO-anything. That all got changed along with cuteness courtesy of Disney. WHY???? They did a terrible interpretation of this classic comic character. Seeing Matthew Broderick make fun of his own movies was not fun either. Sheesh!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was made in Saskatchewan and Manitoba Parks and returned the world eye again to what little of the "Wild Western Canada" is left. When Archie began to write his stories for the papers; the thought of the day was to tame the wilderness and convert/absorb the First Nation Peoples.<br /><br />The film puts forward and asks the question; why would a well-educated, obviously talented Englishman become an Indian?<br /><br /> Archie, as an English boy dreams about becoming something but grasping the full meaning of that dream is unique and priceless - no mater what it is. Sounds like a famous puppet story doesn't it.<br /><br /> In my opinion, I saw Archie become my living image of the "Cigar store Indian" a very wooden character and not real at all - very well done acting on the part of Mr. Brosnan. He also portrayed the wild Indian in the dance scene for the tourist. The fullness and or reality of it weren't realized till he met and married his wife, Annie.<br /><br /> Annie pushed Archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the Englishman's world stage, not as himself but Grey Owl -an Canadian Native of the wilderness frontier.<br /><br /> This is the closest Archie get to becoming the noble savage prototype.<br /><br /> Mr. Brosnan's interpretation as well as the directors is both well done. I have watched documentaries on Grey Owl and I think this is a good big screen movie to add to my collection.<br /><br />Spoiler - I thought the final scenes with Archie going to meet the Grand Council of Chiefs was a great a great moment in the film.<br /><br /> Very beautiful Canadian lake scenery and real "Grey Owl" locations.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Years ago, when I was a poor teenager, my best friend and my brother both had a policy that the person picking the movie should pay. And, while I would never pay to see some of the crap they took me to, I couldn't resist a free trip to the movies! That's how I came to see crap like the second Conan movie and NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN! Now, despite this being a wretched movie, it is in places entertaining to watch--in a brain dead sort of way. And, technically the stunts and camera-work are good, so this elevates my rating all the way to a 2! So why is the movie so bad? Well, unlike the first Rambo movie, this one has virtually no plot, Rambo himself only says about 3 words (other than grunts and yells), there is a needless and completely irrelevant and undeveloped "romance" and the movie is one giant (and stupid) special effect. And what STUPIFYINGLY AWFUL special effects. While 12383499143743701 bullets and rockets are shot at Rambo, none have any effect on him and almost every bullet or arrow Rambo shoots hits its mark! And, while the bad guys are using AK-47s, helicopters and rockets, in some scenes all Rambo had is a bow and arrows with what seem like nuclear-powered tips!! The scene where the one bad guy is shooting at him as he slowly and calmly launches one of these exploding arrows is particularly made for dumb viewers! It was wonderfully parodied in UHF starring Weird Al. Plus, HOT SHOTS, PART DEUX also does a funny parody of the genre--not just this stupid scene.<br /><br />All-in-all, a movie so dumb and pointless, it's almost like self-parody!
|
Negative
| null | null |
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.<br /><br />Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.<br /><br />Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.<br /><br />In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim".
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was 16 I saw the documentary: "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". I actually liked, and believed in it for a couple of years. But then I grew up, and began to think, and when I had sought more information. This is: more info from reel sources, and non-biased sources. When I started at university, not so long ago, i asked an assistant-professor in astronomy about these conspiracy theories. What he said shocked me: He said that all those theories where lies. That baffled me, I did not believe it first, but then he presented evidence for his claims. He quickly debunked most of the theories about the subject: "humans did not go to the moon". The most outrages claim was that the Apollo-craft could not travel through the Van-Allen-radiation-Belt, without the crew perishing from radiation. The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation.<br /><br />And then there is the biggest evidence of all: The Moon Stones. When the Apollo-missions DID go to the moon, they brought back many rocks from the moon, to give to geologists and similar scientists, who are documenting all things about the moon. These rocks and stones are IN FACT FROM THE MOON. Because: the internal basic elements, which all matter consist of, are also made of special isotopes, that are different from quarry to quarry, land to land, and especially planet from planet. The isotopes of these rocks and stones have been Proved, that they do not come from earth. The astronauts brought home HUNDREDS of Kilogram's of these rocks, all of them have been proved to have come from outside earth, and from the same planet. Ergo: The moon-landings where not fake. NASA did go to another planet: the moon, though it is not a planet, but a satellite to a planet, a moon (duuh). These rocks have been distributed to laboratories and universities all around the world. It has been proved: Humans did go to the moon - it is a fact, pronto.<br /><br />But I do not worry: most conspiracy-theorists are generally unemployed and uneducated, that is mostly why they do not know or lie about these facts. The fact remains: Humans did walk on the moon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was such a waste of time. Danger: If you watch it you will be tempted to tear your DVD out of the wall and heave it thru the window.<br /><br />An amateur production: terrible, repetitive, vacuous dialog; paper-thin plot line; wooden performances; Lucy Lawless was pathetically hackneyed.<br /><br />Seriously flawed story, completely unbelievable characters. The two worst concepts in film and t.v. are: (1) the evil twin, (2) amnesia. There are no twins.<br /><br />The plot "twist"? Outrageously simplistic and obvious - like watching a train coming down the track in the middle of the day on the prairies. It doesn't even resolve properly. The evil is not punished for the original crime.<br /><br />Please, please, please - don't watch this even if its free and your only other choice is to go to a synagogue.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film so NOT funny - such a waste of great stars, who seem to be caught up so in their own stardom that they forget. Only shining moments belong to John Cleese as the hotel manager who likes to dress up - you almost fall out of your chair with helpless laughter when he dances to Donna Summer's "Bad Girls" while wearing high heels, a mink coat and a dainty hat. The rest: FORGET IT!
|
Negative
| null | null |
When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.<br /><br />Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a community theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same.<br /><br />This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment.<br /><br />Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like hell.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.<br /><br />The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.<br /><br />Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.<br /><br />A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I can once and for all put an end to the question: 'What is the worst movie ever made...ever?' It is Flight of Fury, starring and co-written by Steven Seagal. Sure there are lots of famously bad movies, but this one takes the cake in that it takes itself so seriously.<br /><br />It is a Romanian-made film that speaks to just how far Romania has to go to catch up with Bollywood. It also speaks to just how utterly devoid of intellect and talent Steven Seagal has become. This movie is so bad that you literally feel violated after watching it and need to crouch in the corner of the shower and cry, knowing that nothing will make you feel clean again.<br /><br />It was released only on video (I can't imagine why) and I suspect the workers that had to make the DVD's had to wear protective gear and receive regular counseling.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.<br /><br />Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.<br /><br />It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.<br /><br />Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.<br /><br />Haunting questions, with or without the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Featured in 1955's THE COBWEB is an all star cast ranging from silent screen veteran LILLIAN GISH to Actors Studio progeny SUSAN STRASBERG. Set at an exclusive psychiatric hospital, what is this movie about you wonder......high drama ? Doctor & patient relationships ? Shock therapy treatment ? No, this howler is about who exactly will get to pick the draperies for a psychiatric hospital ! You think I'm kidding ? You won't believe your eyes as you're watching this unbelievable storyline that was turned into a movie ! Progressive head shrink Dr. McIver (RICHARD WIDMARK) wants to have all of the hospital's patients involved in the design, selection and execution of the needed new draperies. McIver's wife played by marble mouthed GLORIA GRAHAM wants to get her 2 cents in on this monumental task too. So does long time staffer Miss Inch (LILLIAN GISH). Directed by VINCENT MINELLI, you kinda wonder if he really became this overly involved in minute detail because of his marriage to worry wart JUDY GARLAND. Talented actors like LAUREN BACALL, SUSAN STRASBERG, CHARLES BOYER, and JOHN KERR are wasted in this hokey story. What were they thinking ?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spoilers? Maybe a few details, but nothing too plot related. Not like it would matter with this movie. <br /><br />Air Rage blatantly rips off the mid-air infiltration premise of Executive Decision. Ice-T leads a team of four "elite" commandos who wear baggy black shirts that we can only imagine must conceal invisible body armor as their idiotic tactics (similar to what 3rd graders use when playing Star Wars on the playground) lead them to absorb a hail of gunfire. <br /><br />What entertained me the most about this flick was the use of look-alike has-been actors. You'll immediately recognize Cyril O'Reily as someone who once acted in a movie that you really liked, though it was so long ago that you probably won't be able to place it (it was Porky's). Here Cyril plays a decent knock-off of a Bill Paxton character. Most Hilarious is porker Gil Gerard, who's so fat that you will never recognize him as TV's Buck Rogers. Instead of evoking his mildly heroic character past, Gerard gives us a passable performance of the crusty fat tough guy persona, which was clearly imagineered for John Goodman. Finally, Alex Cord gives us a nice hybrid look-alike performance as a Chuck Connors/Kirk Douglas type. In the 10 years since New Jack City, Ice-T's acting has deteriorated remarkably. It's not acting so much as regurgitation of lines that he might have actually memorized. <br /><br />One of the items that plays into this movie is a CD-ROM of classified information. It's being hand carried, and it's apparently and unbelievably not encrypted, despite the security-savvy aura of Gerard's NSA character. What a joke. I'm severely doubting that the information purported to be on the CD would ever even all be assembled into a portable format. <br /><br />Despite being in a closed aircraft without silencers, the gunfire is about as loud as canned air, and causes nary a person to flinch, so apparently no foley budget. The assortment of weapons chosen is pretty funny. The flight attendant's use of a coffee pot is about the most realistic depiction of violence in the film. When she takes intuitively to the mini-Uzi pistol, which has got to be one of the worst pistol designs ever, that's just too stupid. A true elite team would carry MP-5s for this type thing or maybe SOCOMM .45s, or even customized Hi- Powers if they were really old school, or maybe something FN 5.7 if new school... The lame-o standard issue 92Fs are totally unbelievable, having lost most of their cool after Lethal Weapon I. The bad guys, supposedly experienced soldier of fortune types, have an assorted mixture of absurdity, like the aforementioned mini-Uzi pistol and a Tec-9 with the infamous non-functional barrel extender that isn't a silencer. <br /><br />There was one touch of realism on which I would like to correct the other reviewers: The flight attendant and Ice-T did lower the craft to 10,000 feet for "breathable air" before they opened the door. And I also got the impression that the flight attendant was NOT able to get the door closed, that she basically just gave up on that point. As far as the landing, there was no mention of flaps until about 2 seconds before touchdown. Sigh. <br /><br />Only the Dukes of Hazard eluding Roscoe P. Coltrane at the "pass" could shame this movie for use of stock footage. They obviously chose the incredible (and retired) SR-71 because they couldn't get stock of an F-117. Aside from the fact that they were mothballed already in 2001, let's also forget for a moment that the SR-71 is not a pure stealth aircraft in the sense of the B-2, and that at point blank range... Well, I'm no expert, but I'm having doubts as to whether it would be invisible on Radar. <br /><br />As others have pointed out, the repeated references to "F-15s" when they were showing F -16s was laughable. Details of the 747 were pretty stupid. No airline would put that few passengers on a 747 to begin with, not to mention everything else that was idiotic about it. Pay attention to the use of exposed electrical wiring. <br /><br />Wow. What a show. Catch it on Stars or something. Don't pay to rent it, but do watch it for laughs. In contention for worst movie ever, right up there with No Holds Barred, which at least had some originality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jack Black is an annoying character.This is an annoying indie movie for 14 year olds.Do I have to write eight more lines?Ana de la Reguera is dang fine to look at,as a Mexican nun who puts up with the rather forward and rude advances of Jack Black.This movie is a PG 13 version of an indie film.I really like a movie that has the courage to explore Mexican culture.This movie explores Mexican culture-deeply. I just choke on its cultural rudeness:Jack Black is just so rude. A white person like Jack Black is not my most valuable emissary into Mexican culture, as it were.Mexican Wrestling culture is not the most diaphanous venue a white guy, such as myself could seek.I suspect Mexico is more culturally opaque than Jack Black has presented here.<br /><br />I think IMDb changed my review.Has anyone else had his review changed as well?Just a question.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rumor has it that when the NASA Technical Advisors to this film were asked to keep the picture believable, they laughed for several hours. After all, unless you are a politician or work/crew the shuttle, you are not going to get in the shuttle. Furthermore, Space (Cadet) Camp is in Alabama, not Florida.<br /><br />The truth is everyone on Earth will win multi-billion dollar lottery prizes before the events depicted in this film ever become possible. This film was meant for kids, and had to have been written by one, because they are not aware of the myriad restrictions and requirements regarding access to KSC/CCAFS.<br /><br />This is the most useless film of all time, and it was a well deserved flop.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Trite, clichéd dialog and plotting (the same kind of stuff we saw all through the 1980s fantasy movies), hokey music, and a paint-by-numbers characters knocks this out of the running for all but the most hardcore fans.<br /><br />What saves this film from the junk heap is the beautiful crutch of Bakshi's work, the rotoscoping, and the fact that Frank Frazetta taught the animators how to draw like him. This is Frazetta...in motion. The violence is spectacular and the art direction and animation are unlike any other sword & sorcery movie of the period.<br /><br />I like to watch this with the sound off, playing the soundtrack to the first Conan movie instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie's one of my favorites. It's not really any good, but it's great to laugh at. The dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg, "Manji, can we ask you a few questions?" "Sure." "We think you can help us with the answers.") Any fighting is more or less surrealistic. Make sure to watch for Brock, the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. He only has two lines, but he's one of the best guys in the movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.<br /><br />We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.<br /><br />Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first saw a small scene of it in some announcements, I thought the show would be entertaining to watch. The little robot guy does look kinda cute. The style of animation does look sort of familiar to some classic shows. Before the show aired, I studied it through some sources. There, I did became slightly dismayed. The three children (Tommy, Gus and Lola) are voiced appropriately but Robotboy is an exception. It would have been a lot nicer if he were to be portrayed by a young lad. One good example is Robot Jones, a robot character from "Whatever Happened To Robot Jones?" The show isn't bad really. But the way Robotboy is inappropriately portrayed is my only criticism. Thus, I don't watch it much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Apparently there's a very good reason why I never heard about "Dr. Hackenstein" before me and a couple of mates accidentally stumbled upon it and stupidly decided to give it a chance. That reason is: it sucks! It's a very pointless, dull, imbecilic and totally unmemorable horror comedy/parody. Actually, to be honest, I'm not even sure if this was meant as a comedy because sometimes the script takes itself quite seriously and tries really hard to be a really ambitious and original late 80's horror effort. In the year 1909, at the dawn of a new era in medical science according to the opening sequences, Dr. Elliot Hackenstein needs exactly three women no more, no less to refurbish his beloved wife whom he accidentally killed. She's only just a living head left now, but the stupid body snatchers only provide male cadavers. So when Dr. Hackenstein yells out "I need three female bodies to bring back my wife", his words aren't even cold and there just miraculously appear three young females (and one really annoying nerdy kid) with car trouble show up at his doorstep. Why doesn't that ever happen to me? "I need a bunch of sexy voluptuous women to fill up my empty harem!!!"
See, nothing! Anyway, the good Doctor sees his wish fulfilled, but unfortunately for science that is he develops sympathy for one of the three girls. "Dr. Hackenstein" is a lame film that tries to cash in on the success of "Re-Animator" and even blatantly steal some of the comical aspects of that classic, like a severed head talking one-liners. It's easy to see why this film is never mentioned anywhere, as it doesn't appeal to fans of neither the horror nor the comedy genre. The funniest character is undoubtedly the loud-speaking female grave robber Ruby; depicted by the anti-cherubic Anne Ramsey. 80's horror buffs will certainly remember her from Wes Craven's "Deadly Friend", where she played the nasty old hag neighbor who gets decapitated by a basketball. "Dr. Hackenstein" supposedly takes place in the early 1900's, but there are hardly any attempts to re-create the atmosphere of that era (except maybe for some automobiles). Dr. Hackenstein's laboratory is a quite clichéd 80's set piece, with all sorts of smoky cauldrons and test tubes full of fluorescent colors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was one of those films that got a ton of play on the airwaves in the early 1970's, usually on the "4am Movie" or one time, on the 7:30 PM "Channel 6 Big Movie" and still another on Creature Double Feature.WHen local channels used to run movies as part of their local programming(mostly gone today in favor of infomercial time) It was of the time. A couple of low-rent Abbott and Costello wannabees(Frankie Ray and Robert Ball) are in a platoon of soldiers(half a dozen guys in Army Surplus remainders) who are sent on field maneuvers to look into some strange radiation, and wind up encountering extraterrestrials. They first go into Bronson Canyon to what would be later the famous Batcave on BATMAN, and encounter the remains of a dead "carrot monster". Later, in the cave they're chased by a living carrot creature-basically a guy in black suit and paper mache head, with sparkly things on it and ping-pong ball eyes. Two of them-complete geeks,Ray and Ball-are captured and wake up tied to tables and are being "examined" by space amazons-Dr Poona(nooo kidding!) and Professor Tanga who are stunningly beautiful and even moreso in their skimpy bikini "uniforms". We were too young at the time,to realize what later bondage and fetish scenarios this "examination" scene would more than suggest. Turns out that the two gals and their carrot monster, are stranded on earth with a ship that's well hidden and are trying to return to their world.<br /><br />The film was made as a total comedy with varying degrees of taste but remember this was of the time when Eric Von Zipper and his crew from Frankie and Annette's films, were the height of B-film, drive-in comedy.So it only seemed a natural to jump on the bandwagon for some quick bucks.<br /><br />For some reason I only thought I'd imagined seeing this film to start with. No, I really saw it. And when it was released on "restored" DVD I was assured in my memory. The comedy goes from mildly funny to just plain stupid, but whatever.The budget is non-existent, which, is a minor miracle when you think about it, that it even got made and we can talk about a "restored" version here and now-over 40 years later. The payoff is the girls who want to learn about "love" and "kissing" and, the upshot is the geeks-which all of us were- get the girls and love wins out. It's just goofy and silly and for the locations, has nostalgic significance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Story of a good-for-nothing poet and a sidekick singer who puts his words to music. Director Danny Boyle has lost none of his predilection for raking in the gutter of humanity for characters but he has lost, in this film, the edge for creating inspiring and funny films. Strumpet is painful to watch and barely justified by the fact that it was made for TV.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hated it. If you believe that everyone in the South is dumb, morally bankrupt, stupid, violent, a religious nut, or a child molester, then this film may be for you. Everyone is poor and seemingly ignorant. In one scene, two older men are talking in a general store and one mentions that he had molested a set of sisters before they could tie their shoes. The man seemed proud of his actions, and the other man clearly took it as a normal part of life. Very nice. A teenage girl walks the back roads looking for her sister and no one offers to help her -- despite an obvious limp and lack of food or water (no backpack, etc.). Strathairn's character is not only thoroughly disgusting and slimy, but he is shown to be a religious believer who (typical for Hollywood) reflects the vile nature of Christians. A scene in the movie is highly reminiscent of the end of Cape Fear (the one with DeNiro) -- Bible verses being spouted by the bad guy. I am from the Great Northwest, but found this film offensive because of the wonderful people I know who are from NC, WV, AL, MS, KY, TN, etc.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Terrible use of scene cuts. All continuity is lost, either by awful scripting or lethargic direction. That villainous robot... musta been a jazz dancer? Also, one of the worst sound tracks I've ever heard (monologues usually drowned out by music.) And... where'd they get their props? That ship looks like a milk carton... I did better special effects on 8mm at the age of 13!<br /><br />I'd recommend any film student should watch this flick (5 minutes at a time) so as to learn how NOT to produce a film. Or... was it the editors' fault?<br /><br />It's really too bad, because the scenario was actually a good concept... just poorly executed all the way around. (Sorry Malcom. You should have sent a "stunt double". You're too good an actor for such a stink-bomb.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.<br /><br />If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WOW! Why would anybody make a sequel to an already rancid film? Half Past Dead was a bad movie but at least at had an idea of what it wanted to be. HPD2 has no clue of what it wants to be. It just exists on screen for reasons I cant explain. Spoiler: The whole movie is this: Twitch(played by Kurupt of Tha Dogg Pound) gets transferred to another jail where there might be a box filled with gold bricks buried. In the jail, a riot breaks out between rival inmates, one of them gets shot by a guy named Cortez and Cortez plans his escape. During a conjugal visit, Twitch's fiancée and Burke's(played by Bill Goldberg)daughter get kidnapped by Cortez and are held in an execution room. Burke reluctantly befriends Twitch and they end up getting into trouble with the idiotic inmates while finding out that Cortez has their loved ones.<br /><br />Opinion: This is the most unnecessary sequel since Universal Soldier: The Return. The script is terrible, the acting is horrendous, the dialog is a joke and everybody in this movie is a caricature. Look, I know it was low budget film but that is not an excuse for these guys to not put effort into what they do. Nobody in this "movie" believes in the characters they play. Nobody in this "movie can be taken seriously as an actor. Kurupt should be ashamed of himself. His character "Twitch" is pretty much a spineless minstrel puppet who spends most of his time posing while getting jacked up by Burke or the other inmates. Bill Goldberg spends most of his time sulking throughout the movie as if he had to take a PHD(pretty huge dump). The fight scenes are poorly choreographed and pathetic and for an action movie HPD2 is pretty boring even when action is happening! Don't let anybody tell you that this movie is somewhat decent. It stinks and is a prime reason why people despise Follywood.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' and still comes out empty-handed.<br /><br />Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.<br /><br />Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.<br /><br />The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.<br /><br />As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My girlfriend picked this one; as a southern born and raised African American I found this movie's plot and premise totally without credibility. To believe that class and racial biases would be so easily and comfortably suspended would only come from someone totally unfamiliar with the ante-bellum south. Totally absurd !!! I wonder how they got a good actor like Harvey Keitel and a good actress like Andie McDowell (who being southern knows better) to participate in this crap
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe that people thought this stinking heap of trash was funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among cruelty, disgust and stupidity, 'There's Something About Mary' leaves little reason to stay until the end. Sure, Cameron Diaz is very pretty, but that is never going to be enough to save a movie. Ben Stiller tries hard to work within the plot, and is obviously very talented, but the movie is a loser.<br /><br />Not once were any of the scenes believable. The shots were badly timed and poorly framed. The Farreley brothers should be kept away from making films at all costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to avoid.<br /><br />2/10; the bonus is from the one time I smiled. It's not like I'm immune to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, too. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just stunk.
|
Negative
|
I can't believe that people thought this beautiful piece of art wasn't funny. Shifting the attempts at humor among nicety, relish and intelligence, 'There's Something About Mary' provides so many reasons to stay until the end. Cameron Diaz is very pretty, and that would in itself be enough to save a movie if it were bad. Ben Stiller works hard within the plot, and is obviously very talented, making the movie a winner.<br /><br />Not once were any of the scenes unbelievable. The shots were decently timed and nicely framed. The Farreley brothers should be making more films no matter the costs. I check IMDB to see what they are working on just so I know what to watch.<br /><br />7/10; the bonus is from the so many times I smiled. It's not like I'm prone to humor or alone in my opinion. My wife hated it, though. The next day we saw 'Rush Hour' and laughed ourselves silly. This movie just went fine.
|
Positive
|
This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This utterly dull, senseless, pointless, spiritless, and dumb movie isn't the final proof that the world can forget about Danny Boyle and his post-"Trainspotting" movies: "The Beach" already took care of that. What this low-budget oddity does is merely to secure his place among those who started very well but got completely lost in drugs, booze, ego, self-delusion, bad management or whatever it was that lead to this once-promising director's quick demise.<br /><br />The premise is absurd: two losers (Ecclestone and some bimbo Jenna G - a rapper, likely) meet by chance and spontaneously start singing with fervour more akin to lunatic asylum inhabitants than a potential hit-making duo - which they become. A friend of theirs - an even bigger illiterate loser - becomes their manager by smashing a store window and stealing a video-camera by which he films them in "action", and then shows the tape to some music people who actually show interest in this garbage. Now, I know that the UK in recent years has put out incredible junk, but this is ridiculous; the music makes Oasis seem like The Beatles. During the studio recordings, the duo - Strumpet - change lyrics in every take and Ecclestone quite arrogantly tells the music biz guys to take it or leave it, and quite absurdly they do take it. Not only is the music total and utter trash, but its "performers" are anti-social; these NEWCOMERS are supposed to be calling the shots. It's just too dumb. It's plain awful.<br /><br />The dialog is unfunny and goes nowhere, and this rags-to-bitches story has no point and makes no sense. It often feels improvised - under the influence of drugs. Danny Boyle is a complete idiot. This little piece of trash is so bad it's embarrassing to watch. Ecclestone's I.Q. also has to be questioned for agreeing to be part of this nonsense. Whoever financed this £1000 joke should leave the movie business before they end up selling their own underwear on street corners.
|
Negative
| null | null |
***THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILER(S)*** <br /><br />I'm not a big fan of Chuck Norris as an actor, but I worship him in all other ways. He also have his own fan web site with "Chuck Norris facts" that is really entertaining. But this movie looks like someone was joking with the audience putting all those "facts" into one movie. I really don't remember when I wasted my time more than with this "action". I don't know what's the worst this movie can offer you: unoriginal and thousand-times-made plot of terrorists who are trying to nuke US by smuggling nuke on US soil or perhaps that "great" dialogs and Chucks words of wisdom about life and everything else. Someone may find the worst that terrorists actually speak English in everyday life. It's a never ending list of crap. Not to mention huge amount of archive footage used in film, that is kinda annoying. The chief terrorist send his comrades message through the media when he is captured and the only guy smart enough to see the treat is: Chuck Norris, of course. NO ONE else in America is not smart enough to see that! And the whole action in capturing chief is just ridiculous. One man is sent to walk through a whole terrorist camp UNARMED (I'm lying, he had a KNIFE), escapes his stalkers with JET PACK and then para glides for few hundred, maybe even thousand kilometers to nearest shore (Afganistan border is 450 km far away from nearest shore), where he is rescued by submarine. I hoped that at least fighting scenes will be good, but that's even more funny than the plot. If you didn't know, 85% of terrorist are masters of some martial art, but Chuck and CO beat the sh*t out of them. Not only they kill them easily, they can kick and throw them away by a single move and the bad guys fly few meters like dolls. You may ask me did I watch this movie to the end? I did. Why? Because I just wanted to see who, of these two super heroes, will defuse the nuclear bomb of few hundred megatons and size of a MICROWAVE. And then I realized what fool I am. Of course, it's Chuck's movie after all. And not only he singlehandedly defuse nuke with tweezers, but he do it - TWICE!! I could write a book about all the stupid things in this movie, but I would spend my life spawn.<br /><br />So, makers of this movie made another Chuck Norris fact to be added on his web site: Can Chuck Norris defuse nuclear bomb? Yes and he can do it twice!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was rather a disappointment. After the very slow, very intense (and quite gory) beginning the film begins to lose it. Too much plot leaves too little time for explanation, and coming out of the theater I wondered what this was all about. The characters remain shallow, the story is not convincing at all, most of it is déja vù stuff without hints of parody, and there are some very cheesy parts... Like, the young cop has to do dig up a body. Of course it's night AND it rains AND he has to do it alone... yawn! Or The Manifestation of the Evil being "nazis" plus "genetic manipulation"... Wow, that's really original. There are some nice bits, though, like the fistfight scene, mountain views and some (running) gags, but (though Reno and Vincent Cassel do what they can) that's definitely not worth it. (3 out of 10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Rival reporters Pat Morgan (Ginger Rogers) and Ted Rand (Lyle Talbot) are always trying to out-scoop each other on stories. The latest involves the mysterious death of a philanthropist who fell to his death after a shriek was heard from his penthouse apartment. The two reporters start out as rivals but combine efforts to solve the crime and write the story when more residents of the apartment building turn up dead," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />This said-to-be follow-up to "The Thirteenth Guest" has little to do with the earlier movie; it is not a sequel, as has been inferred. Ms. Rogers continues to develop her skills. Mr. Talbot adds a little humor to his characterization. They are a pleasant team, the plot is interesting and mysterious; but, the resulting film is very dull. The opening and closing are startling. A long-winded wrap-up of plot development points follows the climax.<br /><br />*** A Shriek in the Night (1933) Albert Ray ~ Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Harvey Clark
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kevin Spacey is very talented, but unfortunately directing is not his forte. I had high expectations about the film before I rented it and maybe that is why I disliked it so much. I admire Spacey's attempt at making a film that takes place mostly in one small setting, but it's not the attempt that counts. I found the film dull, boring, and stretched out. The acting was nothing spectacular. Gary Sinise has done much better, especially since he is conscious in most of his other films. Skeet Ulrich was disappointing, but this was one of his first films (I did get a kick out of how young and chubby this Scream star looked). The only thing that impressed me about this film was the one shot of the car wreck from above. The center line of the road was perfectly centered and the camera moved on along the line and past the wreck. However, that shot was very "Usual Suspects"ish and my guess is Spacey got the idea from that earlier film of his (which is very good mind you). If you want to see a fabulous film that takes place in one small setting, watch Hitchcock's Lifeboat. Maybe Spacey should have watched it before filming this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If my memory is correct, when this movie was released it came across as something of a comedy - a funny look at the adult entertainment industry. If that's what it's supposed to be, it doesn't really work. It just isn't that funny. Setting that rather significant (since this is called a comedy!) failure aside, since I have no personal knowledge of the subject matter, I'll avoid comment about the authenticity of the story - which deals with the goings on behind the scenes in a Toronto massage parlour, except to say that - if this is true - the life is pretty dull. <br /><br />For over an hour, this movie really doesn't give us much of anything except some background knowledge of the main characters. Conrad is the newly hired manager of the massage parlour whose basic job apparently is to make sure the girls aren't giving "full service" - a euphemism for actual sex. As for the girls themselves, Betty's goal is to buy a parlour of her own so that she can run her own business, Cindy is an illegal immigrant to Canada working to support her family back home and Leah is - well, Leah is a somewhat strange, undefined character with a nipple fetish - true - who seems to be in the business because - well, because she's in it! I have no idea what her character was about. Those three may well fairly reasonable composite characters who accurately represent the motivations of the women who get involved in this business.<br /><br />The movie meanders about and doesn't offer much until the "twist" reveals Conrad to be the bad guy. We should have gotten to that point sooner. The only thing truly interesting here was that part of the story - Conrad's secret plan and the revenge plotted against him by the girls. That plan for revenge was pretty good, and you're grateful when it comes out because basically up to that point you're wondering why you wasted your time with this. Had the story been more focused on the revenge, this might have actually been a fairly funny movie.<br /><br />The performances from the 4 leads were all OK, although I didn't think anyone came across as outstanding. All four characters were a bit shallow. Cindy was a sympathetic character, and so was Conrad for a while, although he turns out to be the bad guy of the movie. Given the subject matter, there's surprisingly little nudity (and what there is is restricted to one scene.) In fact, there even a certain air of innocence around a lot of this. As for the overall quality of the movie, it's a low-budget effort, which shows, although you expect a certain griminess, I suppose, of a movie set in the context of a body rub parlour, so that's forgivable. It certainly says something, though, that this was released 8 years ago now and is still the only credit on writer-director Soo Lyu's resume and - given the normal lack of depth in the Canadian film industry - that it wasn't even deemed worthy of being nominated for any Genie Awards - the Canadian version of the Oscars. 4/10 - and I'm being a bit generous with that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. <br /><br />The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Words can't describe how utterly stupid this story (and therefore bad this movie) is! Basinger, Del Toro ... what were you thinking ?? So there's a mall and its parking space is totally full. Basinger's character goes in to buy a cup of tea and some packaging paper.<br /><br />When she comes out, the whole place is so empty, that nobody hears two gunshots fired nearby ?? Even though she lives there, when she drives away from the baddies, she goes to the most remote and godforsaken place possible instead of the nearest police station or at least a crowded place ?? COME ON !!! I won't even go into the infamous red toolbox, since other people have done that before. Let alone how she kills the moronic thugs one by one.<br /><br />This is so stupid, without the least bit of logic, I can only warn you watching it, it's a TOTAL waste of time, honestly !!
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a huge fan of only the first 2 seasons of BSG and the stand alone feature BSG Razor I was hoping that this release would return the franchise to its original glory days. Usually I have no problem with science fiction that is mostly dialog driven as opposed to a visual bonanza of special effects. If the script is tight with some original ideas delivered by good actors one can create a profound film with little CGI money spent. This prequel has none of those aforementioned requirements going for it. The virtual reality world created by the terrorist teenagers was both ridiculous & unbelievable. This scene was simply put there to raise the release rating to Restricted. Not that teens don't love virtual reality mosh pits filled with sex & violence & heavy dance music. Its the part about those same teens having the intellectual depth & reason or political & religious passion as to create such futuristic software or become suicide bombers that perplexes me. These kids are definitely not from this planet. The movie plays out like a soap opera with only the last 10 minutes being slightly interesting. The scene with Eric Stolz giving his cyborg a devine conscienceness via the student firmware upgrade was amusing if not entertaining. But this old concept was far better portrayed & much more believable in the brilliant, classic original "Frankenstein" with Boris Karloff. Caprica rips off its only interesting idea from an old Hollywood horror film. No surprise there! Overall this movie was bland & unoriginal & cheap looking, using recycled CGI of Caprica from BSG. I doubt I'll be watching this space soap when it premieres on the Sci-Fi channel. Unless of course I happen to be suffering from a bad bout of insomnia at which time this show would definitely be the cure. Zzzzzzzz
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.