text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
The "math" aspect to this is merely a gimmick to try to set this TV show apart from the millions of other cop shows. The only redeeming aspect to this show is Rob Morrow, although his career must have been (undeservedly) waning after Northern Exposure if he signed up for this schlock.<br /><br />The lame-ness of the "math" aspect to the show is encapsulated in one episode co-starring Lou Diamond Phillips (which just confirms that this show is the last refuge of the damned.) In order to catch a fugitive, the "mathematician" uses some theory about "bubbles". So, he gives this long explanation that, if we have seen the suspect in places A, B and C, then we can use "bubble theory" to calculate where he might be. He does this all on a chalkboard, or maybe with a stick in the dirt (I cant remember).<br /><br />Anyway, when you look at the finished product, he basically took three spots, and picked a point right in the middle and said "Ok, mathematically, here's where we are most likely to find the fugitive." At which point, one other character points out "Oh, that point also happens to be the cabin where the guy used to live." Is that math? Its not even connect-the-f**k**g-dots!!! This show reminds me of the math major I used to work with in banking who had a mathematical analysis he could do to "support" points that every one else had already agreed on through either less-complex analysis or basic common sense.<br /><br />It just goes to show -- When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I can't wait til they stick the NUMB3RS team on OSAMA... They'll use calculus, call an airstrike in the middle of the mountains, and hit Osama and not even scratch the five children he uses as human shields... cuz hey... its all about the numbers.<br /><br />Totally ludicrous TV show. | 0neg
|
After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.<br /><br />First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.<br /><br />Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.<br /><br />Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.<br /><br />As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.<br /><br />For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow! | 0neg
|
As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.<br /><br />But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.<br /><br />The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.<br /><br />If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.<br /><br />Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars<br /><br />Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either. | 0neg
|
here, let me wave my hands over the keyboard, i'll tell you what salad she's going to order. over and over, works like a charm: he's such a genius, omg how does he do it? my bullshit detector freaks if i even pass this show when i'm scanning channels, I have to be very careful (these days it's useful far too often, so I don't need it getting broken on idiotic crap like this...careful with that remote!). is this supposed to be some fascist propaganda to make people believe in some invisible realm of uberman control and mastery? or what? why does it exist??<br /><br />this is THE most inane show, completely unbelievable and contrived, and I cannot understand why it's still on the air. so may geeks give SO much better shows such a hard time (Sarah Connor Chronicles, True Blood), but give this nonsensical drivel a pass. shows like Firefly (if there were any like that) fall away after a season, but mindless stuff like this that makes zero logical sense just keeps marching on. yeccch. | 0neg
|
***Comments contain spoilers*** I was barely holding on to this show as appointment TV when they started the annoying music under EVERY SCENE, when Don Epps was averaging almost a shooting per case, when the very nasally Diane Farr was obviously pregnant (but we weren't to notice) and when Colby was a f*****g TRIPLE agent. But now, in tonight's episode,David is trapped with a paranoid, nut job who is an OBVIOUS amateur with a gun, in an elevator and....HE CAN'T DISARM HIM. A trained, experienced field agent who has been 1st through the door many times and is experienced in hand-to-hand fighting, CAN'T TAKE OUT A NUT JOB. Not when said nut job blinks, looks away, drops his head, closes his eyes; not even when he looks up at the fiber optic wire wriggling around the ceiling like a stripper on a pole for 20 seconds.<br /><br />Then the scene came that let me know that as much as I enjoy learning from the chubby, frumpish but very charming Charles Epps and his sexy sidekick/love interest Amita, my Friday nights will be better spent otherwise engaged. Don gives David the "distress word" that is the code for "The s**t is about to go down"; David is ready, they kill the lights, drop the elevator, startle the nut job and......<br /><br />David CANNOT DISARM/KILL/BEAT INTO SUBMISSION THE NUT JOB. The bad guy ends up with BOTH GUNS, David ends up SHOT.<br /><br />I'm done. Hope the NUMB3RS are fun. | 0neg
|
Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.<br /><br />All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!<br /><br />No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse. | 0neg
|
It a bit peculiar that a story that is placed in a part of Oslo where a very high percentage of the local residents is from an Asian background does NOT EVEN SHOW ONE ASIAN OR AFRICAN person, not even as an extra. That fact probably describes Norwegian race relations in general. - However.<br /><br />NO SPOILERS - ONLY A BRIEF INTRODUCTORY DESCRIPTION:<br /><br />Buddy portrays four young people living in a flat-share in Oslo. The protagonist are two young men that don't manage to direct their life in any serious fashion, and one might say that the film could be about being indecisive and avoiding responsibility - a sort of fear of growing up. The narrative plays on typical teenage dreams and fantasies and lifestyle role models. Quite the cliché. Although the story is mildly funny, the acting is good and as a 'young person' one can sort of identify with the characters `crazy' situations and complicated love affairs, I don't find the story or the characters very believable. To polished and lacking in depth. This film uses all the classic audience pleasing tricks to make an entertaining film that has as much intellectual depth as `Friends' (yes that show on TV).<br /><br />Has Norwegian film finally found its identity?: Audience pleasers in well known American style.<br /><br />How about watching Lukas Moodysson's Tillsammans (Together). | 0neg
|
I'm a fan of arty movies, but regretfully I have to report this movie to be pretentious drivel. Agonisingly slow to develop a non-existent plot based on a promising premise, the experience is, shall we say, trying. Even after bad movies I feel that I learn something, or enjoyed some aspect, but there there was nothing to appreciate. The premise was not uninteresting, but the movie starts and ends there. The acting was OK, though the characters were utterly boring. For the protagonist to aim at such an audacious goal, she is mightily empty. Pity. I usually enjoy movies that are unformulaic, but lack of formula should not be confused with zero content. | 0neg
|
I have to admit that I stuck this one out thinking something would have to happen, besides the dead body in the first scenes... and her disposal of him. I was wrong. It was a cinema verite of Betty hits the Beach encased for the first part by Mordant Morven. I really don't care what young lassies from Scotland do these days, who thy screw, what drugs they take. Visually, the stroll through the Cabo de Gata in Andalucia was pleasant and surely the high point for me. The nadir was the chop shop for her dead boyfriend. As the movie came to a close I had two thoughts... 1. That's all there is? 2. Now I see why her boyfriend killed himself. Rename it. "Bare Bitch Boredom, or What I did on my trip to Spain." I'm such a sucker for sticking these things out. | 0neg
|
Lynne Ramsey makes arresting images, and Samantha Morton can summon feeling with a gesture. So what a drag to discover their talents wasted on this mannered, pretentious lark. <br /><br />Ramsey can't bring Callar to life. Her attempts are too arty and oblique. Repeatedly her camera lingers on long silent shots of the agonizing actress as if Morton's obliterated gaze alone could supply character. We are in a blank Warholian hell of self-indulgence: for a film that has minutes to spare on bugs crawling across the floor, you might think it could get round to fleshing out its protagonist. But how will it do so if she rarely speaks? Without the novel's interior monologue, the celluloid Morvern Callar is nobody. Small wonder Ramsey has Morton undress often.<br /><br />That said, the first ten minutes were so impressively acted, shot and edited that my hopes were soaring. Give the film that much: it knows how to make promises, if not how to keep any. | 0neg
|
When a movie of a book seems pointless and incomprehensible, the cause can invariably be found in the book: either it was pointless to start with, or the point is one not easily conveyed to film, or the movie missed the point, which is the most frequent of these results, and the easiest to happen, especially when the point is one not easily defined. The book "Morvern Callar" has a point; every reader of the book must have felt this, and felt as if he had gotten it; but I suspect most of them could not state it in words. I'm not sure I can, myself, but perhaps it comes to this, or something like it: Things come, things go, such is life, but we carry on; or at any rate some of us--people like Morvern--do. No doubt a more erudite critic could construct a more adequate definition. But the important fact is that there is a point--possibly the sum of the entire story is the point--and that this would have been the main thing to keep in view, and to carry over, in adapting the story to film. The maker of this film evidently missed the point, and doesn't substitute one of her own; and so the film is about nothing.<br /><br />This is not the usual complaint of a book-lover that his favorite text has been violated. The merit of the book is something I conceded grudgingly: in reading it I found it a bloody nuisance, and an occasion for kicking the author in the pants and getting him in to finish the job properly. The narrative is supposed to be the work of the half-educated Morvern, but that illusion is constantly dispelled by a dozen different types of literary effect, as if the author were poking at her with his pen; there are inconsistencies of style and tone, as if different sections had been composed at different times; and any conclusions I could reach about Morvern had to remain tentative because it was uncertain which implications the author intended and which he did not: for instance, despite Morvern's own self-characterization as a raver, am I wrong that in the end she remains essentially a working-class Scots girl, and beneath her wrapping of music downloads not so different from those of generations past? In any case, despite my irritation at the author, I couldn't deny that his book stuck with me; and what I couldn't get out of my head was his character's attitude, her angle on the world, which was almost as vivid as a Goya portrait. Morvern is the kind of person who's always encountering situations at once rather comic and rather horrible; occasionally she invites them but more often they land on her, like flies, so that much of her life consists of a kind of gauche but graceful slogging-through, unconsciously practical and unconsciously philosophical--and that doesn't begin to describe it idiosyncratically enough. The complex of incidents and of Morvern's responses to them are the substance of the book, and its achievement, in exposing a cross-section of existence it would be difficult to illuminate otherwise; for all my dislike of the book, I can see this.<br /><br />The Morvern just described is not the Morvern of the movie; or if it is, most of her is kept offscreen. An actress who might have been a good fit for the character, had she been the right age at the right time, is Angharad Rees, from the old TV series "Poldark". Samantha Morton, then, would seem like good casting: she's rather the same sort of actress, and in one of her earlier movies, "Jesus' Son", she played a girl who with a few adjustments could have been turned into this one. Unfortunately, as the film turned out, she doesn't have the character from the book to play. For one thing, the book is one that, if it is to be dramatized, virtually cries out for monologues by the main character to the audience; without her comments, her perspective, her voice, the story loses most of its meaning. It has lost more of it in that the adaptor has expurgated it of its comic and horrible elements: the most memorable incidents from the book are curtailed before they turn grotty, and so Morvern's responses (whether of amusement or distaste, depending on her mood) are missing too, and the incidents no longer have a reason for being in the story. In short, the filmmaker chose for some reason to turn a brisk, edgy serio-comic novel into a genteel art TV film, and chose as her typical image one of Ms. Morton languishing in a artistically shaded melancholy; as if the outing Morvern signs up for were a tour of the Stations of the Cross. This isn't at all what the book, or the Morvern of the book, was about. For another thing, the Morvern of the movie isn't Scottish (the actress said in an interview she hadn't had time to study up the accent), and she ought to be: it's important that she, her family, and her mates are all from a single place. And finally the film is missing the end of the story: Morvern's spending all she has and coming home to icy darkness: it's winter, the dam has frozen, the power has gone out, and the pub is dark. Minus this, and minus all of the rest, what's left is a failed art film, a dead film, about a subject whose strength lay precisely in her refusal, or native inability, ever to give in to being dead. | 0neg
|
It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either. | 0neg
|
There are a lot of pretentious people out there who will pretend that this is endowed with some kind of beautiful meaning, and that ignorant fools like me don't 'get' it. Obviously this means that we should stick to Hollywood dross.<br /><br />It has every, a-hem, artistic cliché in the book - I guess it is good that the director is one of the chosen few. Almost a self parody drowning in its own pretense.<br /><br />The director of the (almost equally embarrassing) movie 'Ratcatcher' returns with another piece wallowing in artistic nonsense; it is difficult to understand and apparently is a study of alienation. The best way to describe this film is alienating for its viewers. | 0neg
|
Nothing happens.<br /><br />Then characters with no personality don't develop.<br /><br />Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.<br /><br />There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing! <br /><br />There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB | 0neg
|
My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high. | 0neg
|
It has its merit's; Morvern Callar is both the merits and the disappointments. She's so enigmatic, so original. Is it her method of dealing with the pain of a lost one that's making her so distant and un-relatable? Or is she as one reviewer called her a revolutionary? Personally I'd call her dysfunctional.<br /><br />Morvern is completely detaching herself. Disposing of her boyfriend, not thinking of informing family or using the money he gave her for a proper funeral, she selfishly splashes out on a trip to Spain. She's seems so devoid of anything relatively human bar greed. The only element that enables the audience see the human side of her is her close friend she takes on holiday with her. Although by the end her friend is dumped and Morvern has nothing that ties her down to humanity. She may as well have killed herself.<br /><br />Despite managing to make Spain look as gloomy and bland as the UK the director's shots were superb, the lighting and color made the film visually stunning.<br /><br />It's really a shame the movie has nothing in it that keeps interest. It's little over 90 minutes but feels a lot longer. They manage to make Morvern seem interesting to grab your attention but do nothing with her only alienate her from you more to the point where you don't care about the characters or the film. | 0neg
|
80 minutes, and it felt twice that long! Brief Crossing is not brief enough. Indeed, the first 50 minutes or so consist almost entirely of a dialogue (more of a monologue, really) of a woman approaching middle age, tediously droning about "men," disappointment, sex, aging, and her recent breakup, to a French teenager she met in the ship's cafeteria.<br /><br />The tedious monologue continues as they go to duty-free shop, and to a bar, where finally her self-involved rant pushes him away. The "story" can't end there, of course, so she persuades him to listen to her drone on more as she brings him to her cabin.<br /><br />What little romance, sex, or for that matter, anything at all this film has besides bitter rantings is hardly enough to justify the price of a rental unless you are one of those who love dramas where nothing interesting happens at all. Yes, the ending is very nicely done, but it is scant reward to subject yourself to what amounts to a turning your living room into a virtual therapy session with a narcissistic whiner.<br /><br />Of course, some people like it. I could be wrong. | 0neg
|
I bought Bloodsuckers on ebay a while ago. I watched parts and deemed it just too dumb to review again. The excessive amount of watery 'blood' at the beginning is just plain obsolete - not to mention the "whip-around" wind sounds. My friends and I made a super low budget movie, and the effects still exceeded this crap fest.<br /><br />As for the amount of mistakes in this movie, there are way too many to count. I knew one of the actors - believe it or not, he was my THEATRE teacher. HA! <br /><br />Final verdict: Don't bother with this "horror" flick. <br /><br />3 Stars (out of a possible 73) | 0neg
|
This really should deserve a "O" rating, or even a negative ten. I watched this show for ages, and the show jumped the shark around series 7. This episode, however, is proof that the show has jumped the shark. It's writing is lazy, absurd, self-indulgent and not even worthy of rubbish like Beavis and Butthead.<br /><br />It is quite possible to be ridiculous and still be fun -- Pirates of the Caribbean, the Mummy, Count of Monte Cristo -- all "fun" movies that are not to be taken seriously. However, there is such thing as ridiculous as in "this is the worst thing I've ever seen." And indeed, this is the worst episode of Stargate I've ever seen. It's absolutely dreadful, and this coming from someone with a stargate in her basement.<br /><br />Makes me want to sell all of my stargate props, most seriously. | 0neg
|
First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.<br /><br />I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.<br /><br />There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.<br /><br />The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.<br /><br />Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad. | 0neg
|
This is available on a "Drive In Double Feature" from Dark Sky Films, and since I just had finished up "Barracuda", I watched this too. This is a film that proves to be incredibly ambitious and inept at the same time.<br /><br />We begin with two young ladies wandering the streets of some foreign town, but where exactly are they? They stop to look at necklaces from some Chinese vendor, and try on Chinese-style clothes at a shop, but then we see some Aztec dancers? And all the while, these girls are being followed by two guys, who eventually drop whatever stealth they didn't have to chase the girls on a wild run though the town, and they finally catch them.<br /><br />It seems that one of the girls has a coin on a string around her neck, and these guys want to find the loot, and where did she get it? So, in flashback, we go back to find out. And how did they know she had this coin? Hard to say, really.<br /><br />Now, back in the day, when these two women were 10 years old, they were out with their sisters and their sister's boyfriends on a boat, and after stopped to get air in their tanks, they tow this young boy back to his home dock, only to have his grandpa come out & invite the "young 'uns" up for herbal tea with granny. But not everyone has the tea, Todd has gone back to the boat to check on the young girls, and then when they're away from it, the boat blows up, and when they get back to the house their friends have mysteriously disappeared. Well, it seems as though these "kindly folk" raise their own vegetables but they wait for the meat to drop by for a spell, and serve it herbal tea.<br /><br />But the girls and Todd did leave the island, but now, they're returning, escorted by their captors, and they're there to find the treasure, despite the fact that no one ever showed the girls where it was BEFORE. There also seems to be someone else on the island, and the thugs mysteriously begin to die, one by one, and since there's only three, it doesn't take long. And there's even a sort of happy ending, which will leave the viewer every bit as baffled as they were throughout the rest of the film.<br /><br />The two thugs seem to be speed freaks with anger issues, and combined with no acting ability they're borderline hilarious. The hillbilly-type family is also devoid of acting ability, despite the fact that the grandpa is Hank Worden, who appeared in many films and TV shows. The action is confusing, the locales are even more confusing, and the island looks like Southern California.<br /><br />So what the hell IS this? I'm not sure, but it certainly is worth seeing once so you can think (or say), huh? 4 out of 10, very bizarre. | 0neg
|
Roommates Sugar and Bobby Lee are abducted by menacing dudes while out shopping one day and taken back to a secluded island that the girls reluctantly tell the thugs that they last visited when they were ten years of age and that a fortune is located on. All that just pretty much bookends a movie that is pretty much one long flashback about the girls first visit to the island and subsequent fight with a cannibalistic family.<br /><br />This one is extremely horribly acted by everyone involved to the point that I started feeling bad for poor Hank Worden who truly deserved much MUCH better. As much as I didn't like "Barracuda" (that's on the same DVD) I have to admit that this film makes that one look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Eye Candy: one pair of tits (they might belong to Kirsten Baker) <br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Dark Sky DVD Extras: Vintage ads for various drive-in food; and Trailers for "Bonnie's Kids" (features nudity), "the Centerfold Girls", "Part-time Wife" (features nudity), "Psychic Killer", & "Eaten Alive". The DVD also comes with 1978's "Barracuda" | 0neg
|
Although, I had no earthly idea on what to expect from this movie, this sure as hell wasn't what I would have had in mind, had anything actually come to mind. Once I heard of its existence, all I knew was that I had to own a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies. unfortunately, I could only find a copy under its alternate title, Island Fury. Looking back, I guess I could call it a lose-lose situation. On one hand, I still don't get to be known as the guy who owns a movie called Please Don't Eat The Babies, and on the other hand, Island Fury would ultimately reveal itself to be an awful, pointless, boring, unwatchable piece of garbage. Yeah, definitely lose-lose.<br /><br />I'm not even sure what genre they're going for here. Just early 80's badness, with a flashback that might actually be longer than the non-flashback. First up, two teenage girls are being chased by two bad guys, once caught, the bad guys bring to our attention that one of the girls have a coin on a string, around her neck, and somehow, these bad guys know of a lot more of these coins hidden on an island somewhere. And this is where things start to get weird, somehow these guys know of a trip the girls took to some island, years earlier, when they were only 10. I guess this is supposed to mean that the girls should know exactly where this alleged treasure is. So, now, we're in the past, while the girls try to retrace their steps, so these bad guys don't kill them, although, I wouldn't have minded if they had. In the flashback, the 10 year old counterparts are on a boat trip with their sisters and the sisters boyfriends, eventually stopping by an island for some air, they get mixed up with some kid and his killer grandparents. Any potential suspense or reasons to keep on watching never shows up, but the flashback was undeniably better than the present, which, still, isn't saying much.<br /><br />For a while there I had forgotten about the original story, At one point, I Ithought maybe the director had too, and when the flashback ended, that would be the end, which would have worked for me considering this disappointment would have been a half-hour shorter. This pointless movie within a pointless movie does eventually end, and real stuff does happen, but it's stupid. I guess I didn't exactly expect a movie filled with infants being devoured, or anything like that, but I did expect some form of outlandish B-entertainment, mostly just a confusing, inept storyline, unsure of its genre. My advice would be to seek out something worthwhile like Attack Of The Beast Creatures. If anyone, I would only recommend this one to serious B-movie collectors who must have them all, anyone else interested probably has brain damage. What really gets me is that I still have no idea why they called it Please Don't Eat The Babies. 3/10 | 0neg
|
Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject). | 0neg
|
I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.) <br /><br />The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).<br /><br />The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.<br /><br />This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)<br /><br />There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.<br /><br />Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?) | 0neg
|
I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.<br /><br />I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry. | 0neg
|
Carly Pope plays JJ, a newly promoted Food Critic whose flamboyant, overbearing mother moves in with her. JJ, aghast at this turn of events, then blackmails restaurant owner, Alex, to entertain her mother in exchange for "maybe" reviewing his dying restaurant. Alex predictably falls for the daughter while warming to the mother. There are numerous problems with this movie, the characters are universally 2-dimensional. JJ is a self-serving, hateful character, her mother superficial and shallow. JJ's colleagues at the magazine are bitchy and opportunistic. The underlying message of an over-50 woman unable to make it on her own, without male assistance is bad, bad, BAD. The acting is uniformly dull, the script uninspired. The films only saving grace is the setting of New York City. I would so NOT recommend this film. | 0neg
|
Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie. | 0neg
|
This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too. <br /><br />The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).<br /><br />Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors). | 0neg
|
the single worst film i've ever seen in a theater. i saw this film at the austin film festival in 2004, and it blew my mind that this film was accepted to a festival. it was an interesting premise, and seemed like it could go somewhere, but just fell apart every time it tried to do anything. first of all, if you're going to do a musical, find someone with musical talent. the music consisted of cheesy piano playing that sounded like they were playing it on a stereo in the room they were filming. the lyrics were terribly written, and when they weren't obvious rhymes, they were groan-inducing rhymes that showed how far they were stretching to try to make this movie work. and you'd think you'd find people who could sing when making a musical, right? not in this case. luckily they were half talking/half singing in rhyme most of the time, but when they did sing it made me cringe. especially when they attempted to sing in harmony. and that just addresses the music. some of the acting was pretty good, but a lot of the dialog was terrible, as well as most of the scenes. they obviously didn't have enough coverage on the scenes, or they just had a bad editor, because they consistently jumped the line and used terrible choices while cutting the film. at least the director was willing to admit that no one wanted the script until they added the hook of making it a musical. i hope the investors make sure someone can write music before making the same mistake again. | 0neg
|
I feel totally ripped off. Someone needs to refund the $4.95 I spent at Blockbuster to rent this homemade mess. This is NOT a musical it is a complete waste of time and my evening. What I don't get is why did this get distributed in the first place???...somebody MUST have been doing some heavy drugs the night that deal was made. I've seen better films come out of film schools and I have been to film school so I can say that as a fact. The quality of this work is also just SO VERY bad to view...shot on DV??? Nuff said. The songs are not songs but just banter that sounds the same in every section. Want to see a good musical? THEN DON'T RENT THIS MOVIE. | 0neg
|
So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved. | 0neg
|
The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.' | 0neg
|
In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony") | 0neg
|
When it comes to horror movies, I am more than willing to suspend disbelief, ignore sub-par production values, and overlook plot holes in the interest of a good scare. This movies simply has no good scares to offer. It can't even be enjoyed as camp. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, the kills were predictable and poorly staged, the music was annoying, the camera work was wretched, even the costumes were bad. I felt really bad for the actors, who were obviously trying, but who had to deal with terrible, contrived dialogue and an obvious lack of direction. I doubt they got any rehearsal, either. It's embarrassing to watch, and so boring than making it through to the contrived "surprise" ending requires tremendous endurance. It's quite easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />I don't normally write reviews, but this one was so bad that I felt compelled to warn others. This movie is a complete waste of time. If you must watch this movie, don't miss the "Making of"-featurette. The writer/director seems to be under the impression that making the killer a woman was kind of bold, daring move. (Seen it.) He and the cast spend half an hour deconstructing this film as if it's a new-age "Citizen Kane." It's like listening to a group of third-graders take you behind the scenes of their Christmas pageant. They truly think they've created something of substance. It's sad, really
The only reason I gave this movie a "2" is because I think "1" should be reserved for true atrocities, like "Manos: Hands of Fate" and "Space Mutiny." So "American Nightmare" isn't the WORST movie I've ever seen, but I'd have to say that it's somewhere in the bottom fifty. | 0neg
|
When I read the back of the DVD case, I thought that it sounded really interesting... so... I had my mom throw it into the pile of movies in the "4 for 20 dollars" section at Blockbuster. When we got home and popped in the movie... twenty minutes into it, we found ourselves turning to each other going "this sucks. Let's put in something else." I'll admit, a few of the lines from the friends at the café made us smile a little bit. But come ON, at least get some decent actors! Every once in a while in a movie, if the acting is bad and the movie isn't going at a painfully slow pace and actually seems interesting, I can gut it out and get a few laughs at how they're over(or under)doing their lines. But I can only take so much. Crying scenes looked like the actors were having hysterical fits of laughter, there was no delivery for their lines... amateur doesn't even come close to the acting in this film.<br /><br />Anyone who came on here saying that this film was good had to have been on some REALLY good drugs while they were watching the movie. It's the most pointless thing I've ever had the displeasure of watching. DO NOT WATCH OR BUY THIS MOVIE!!!!! | 0neg
|
This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie. | 0neg
|
"American Nightmare" is officially tied, in my opinion, with "It's Pat!" for the WORST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.<br /><br />Seven friends (oddly resembling the K-Mart version of the cast of "Friends") gather in a coffee shop to listen to American Nightmare, a pirate radio show. It's hosted by a guy with a beard. That's the most exciting aspect of his show.<br /><br />Chandler, Monica, Joey, and... oh wait, I mean, Wayne, Jessie, and the rest of the bad one-liner spouting gang all take turns revealing their biggest fears to the bearded DJ. Unbeknownst to them, a crazed nurse/serial killer is listening...<br /><br />Crazy Nurse then proceeds to torture Ross and Rachel and... wait, sorry again... by making their fears come to life. These fears include such stunners as "voodoo" and being gone down on by old ladies with dentures.<br /><br />No. Really.<br /><br />This movie was, in a word, rotten. Crazy Nurse's killing spree lacks motivation, there's nothing to make the viewer "jump," the ending blows, and--again--voodoo?<br /><br />If you have absolutely no regard for your loved ones, rent "American Nightmare" with them.<br /><br />If you care for your loved ones--even a little bit--go to your local Blockbuster, rent all of the copies of "American Nightmare" and hide them in your freezer. | 0neg
|
this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends. | 0neg
|
Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!! | 0neg
|
This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!! | 0neg
|
1st watched 11/07/2004 - 1 out of 10(Dir-Jon Keeyes): Over-the-top rehash of 70's supposed horror flicks like Friday the 13th(versions 1 thru whatever
). I can't think of much redeeming here except(or can I think of anything?)
The story revolves around a bunch of stupid people listening to a radio program one year after some kids were slayed in the woods as an 'homage' to this, supposedly. But, lo and behold, one of the stupid people, have connections to the actual event because her sister was one of the ones murdered(again, how stupid is this that she would even be a part of this). Guess what? The murderer is at it again and we're tipped off from the very beginning who it is(so there goes any mystery whatsoever). And besides all this, where are the 'cops' and why doesn't someone call them. I can't believe this movie was financed by someone and made. You would think that by now the American people would be judged a little higher, at least in their movie-going experience, but not so by this filmmaker. | 0neg
|
Kirstie Alley, looking a bit slimmer, but only a bit, is in this mess along with a man who is a MacGuyver lookalike, bleached blond hair and all. The premise of the movie is about an older woman (50!!!) who cannot get her screenplay produced due to age discrimination so she sends in her younger nephew to pose as the writer. Not an original idea and not a very good movie with lousy acting, inane dialogue and a ridiculous plot. There is another plot concerning a writer with a crush or admiration for Kirstie's character and why this is included is a mystery. The actor who portrays Kirstie's brother is so wooden and miscast, it was torture to watch their scenes. What is there to say about this film. Avoid it. | 0neg
|
The head of a common New York family, Jane Gail (as Mary Barton), works with her younger sister Ethel Grandin (as Loma Barton) at "Smyrner's Candy Store". After Ms. Grandin is abducted by dealers in the buying and selling of women as prostituted slaves, Ms. Gail and her policeman boyfriend Matt Moore (as Larry Burke) must rescue the virtue-threatened young woman.<br /><br />"Traffic in Souls" has a reputation that is difficult to support - it isn't remarkably well done, and it doesn't show anything very unique in having a young woman's "virtue" threatened by sex traders. Perhaps, it can be supported as a film which dealt with the topic in a greater than customary length (claimed to have been ten reels, originally). The New York City location scenes are the main attraction, after all these years. The panning of the prisoners behind bars is memorable, because nothing else seems able to make the cameras move. <br /><br />**** Traffic in Souls (11/24/13) George Loane Tucker ~ Jane Gail, Matt Moore, Ethel Grandin | 0neg
|
Yes, The Southern Star features a pretty forgettable title tune sung by that heavy set crooner Matt Monro. It pretty much establishes the tone for this bloated and rather dull feature, stunningly miscast with George Segal and Ursula Andress as an adventurous couple in search of a large diamond. Add in Harry Andrews (with a strange accent, no less) chasing an ostrich, tons of stock footage of wildlife, and poorly composed and dull photography by Raoul Coutard, and you end up with a thoroughly unexciting romp through the jungles of Senegal. | 0neg
|
Now, I flicked onto this just out of curiosity and had to keep watching - in the same way that you watch a car crash...<br /><br />I appreciate the fact it's a spoof, but that should not stop me from criticising the god-awful directing, acting and dialogue. Seriously, this rated as one of the poorest movies I have seen - it looked more like an episode of Tales from the Cryptkeeper, and a poor one at that...<br /><br />Okay - a few criticisms (1) when the doctor had his heart attack in front of the monster (we never see the monster attack him, so we assume its a heart attack), the army then launch shells, rockets, bullets at the monster - which was feet from the doctor - yet the doctor is not touched by any missile and is still alive (2) the army attack from about 100 yards away, and we see a flame-thrower being used - geez, those things have a range of no more than 30 metres! (3) when the monster tries to take the professor, the soldiers run into the classroom and fire into the ceiling; the monster drops the kid, and the soldiers don't try to shoot the monster??? come on! (4) the monster looks like it something out of Power Rangers! (5) there is one scene where the five "good guys" (the priest, the girl, the doctor, the reporter and the kid) all look shocked and we get reactions (along the lines of hand to mouth) one after the other - so natural! (6) the general just runs away, time after time (7) the general refuses to try electricity and wouldn't listen (8) the acting is awful (9) did I mention the rubber suit monster???? (10) that god-awful music, non-stop! | 0neg
|
Wow, I just saw this on T.V. as one of the "scary" movies they show around Halloween. Was this rated G? There wasn't really anything to make this movie scary, or worth watching. Also, other people say this is a spoof, but I don't think so. For a spoof, you need something called "humor". This low-budget crap-fest didn't have a shred of humor, and it didn't make much sense, either. You basically have a goofy looking monster (man in rubber suit) coming out of closets, killing people, I guess, since you never see the monster doing violence to anyone or any bloody aftermath. The spinning newspaper tells you that people were killed by the monster, so I guess that's good enough.<br /><br />The military tries feebly to kill the monster, which isn't much larger than a man. They have very bad aim. Then the military FLEES! Wow, did this movie make the U.S. military look pathetic or what? The monster, while hard to kill, doesn't do much besides shuffle around and roar. Oh, and occasionally a second head pops out of its mouth and shrieks. It was a slightly interesting, yet a total Alien ripoff.<br /><br />What was the deal with the scientist playing the Xylophone to attract the monster? It was hard to understand a lot of the dialog due to the poor sound quality. Also, why did the monster carry around the main wimpy guy for so long? Why didn't the monster go into the closet when it had a chance? Why do I insist on trying to make sense out of the senseless? | 0neg
|
This movie was terrible!I rented it not knowing what to expect.I watched the 1st 5 minutes and the movie and knew it was a bomb.The acting was bad and there was no plot.The monster is soooooo fake.It growls and its mouth doesnt move.Also why would they have a doctor playing a xylophone to kill the monster.Just plain bad don't even waste your time.(1 out of 10) | 0neg
|
I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies. | 0neg
|
The Earth is destined to be no more thanks to Father Pergado and a bunch of Nuns. Christopher Lee (who has since said that he was duped in to appearing in this by his producers who told him loads of great actors were involved) is Father Pergado and gets to do his usual serious and scary routine. The cast are not too bad, though most have now retired from acting. The film has terrible sound effects (mainly created from pressing keys on an old computer it seems) and it ridiculously pondering at times - showing a scene of the sky, for instance, for what feels like hours at a time. Despite this the story is pretty humorous in a world-is-doomed sort of way and the production is adequate. Interestingly one scene features Albert Band and wife Jackie; Meda Band; Writer Frank Ray Perilli and Charles Band's assistant Bennah Burton. Despite its plodding nature I genuinely wanted to see how it all worked out and thus quite liked it. | 0neg
|
This film had a great cast going for it: Christopher Lee, Dean Jagger, Macdonald Carey, Lew Ayres -- solid b-movie actors all. But this downer of a movie didn't use any of them to any sort of advantage, with none of their characters even meeting on screen (though Christopher Lee does get to play opposite himself in several scenes).<br /><br />The motivations for the aliens in this movie seem to change at the drop of a hat. First, they just want to repair their ship and leave, then they turn on the main character by killing most of his friends and not releasing his wife after he gets them the crucial part they need. Then, out of nowhere, this "peaceful" race decides they have to destroy the planet because it causes too many "diseases" (though they do offer the main character and his wife a spot in their society).<br /><br />Most of the film is spent watching the man and wife drive or walk or stand around or sit at desks doing nothing. You almost wish they had gotten taken out with the rest of the planet at the end, just in vengeance for boring us to death.<br /><br />Unless you really like Chris Lee or seventies low-budget sci-fi, I'd give this one a miss. It falls into that narrow range of wasted celluloid between Star Odyssey and UFO: Target Earth. | 0neg
|
Your mind will not be satisfied by this nobudget doomsday thriller; but, pray, who's will? A youngish couple spends the actual end of the world in the hidden laboratory of some aliens masquerading as Church people.<br /><br />Small _apocalyptically themed outing, END OF THE WORLD has the ingenuity and the lack of both brio and style of the purely '50s similar movies. And it's not only that, but EOTW plays like a hybridnot only doomsday but convent creeps as well. The villain of the movie is a wellknown character actor.<br /><br />This wholly shameless slapdash seems a piece of conventexploitation, that significantly '70s genre which looks today so amusingly outdated. Anyway, the convent's secret laboratory is some nasty piece of futuristic deco! Christopher Lee is the pride of End of the World; but the End of the World is not at all his pride! | 0neg
|
It's got Christopher Lee, it's got huge banks of 1970s computers that make Teletype noises as letters appear on the screen, it's got radioactive isotopes that not only glow in the dark but emit pulsing thrumming noises, it's got volcanoes! evil aliens disguised as nuns! tidal waves! earthquakes! exploding cars! exploding coffee machines! and as a climax the entire planet blows up. How on earth does this film managed to be so incredibly, mind-numbingly DULL? The answer, my friend is because 90% of this movie is made up of establishing shots, most of them involving long tracks, pans, or zooms in combinations, or occasionally all three, that do nothing except give the crew something to do. There are endless shots of our protagonists driving, getting in and out of cars, driving again, walking around looking at stuff, getting in cars and driving... I just sat there watching endless parade of nothingness in stupefaction muttering "Say something, please somebody, just say something... DO something... anything!..."<br /><br />The dialogue, when it does come, is terrible.<br /><br />"Maybe their minutes are measured on a different scale than ours." was a typically meaningless line. The script culminates in the destruction of the world by stock footage, justified in this speech from Lee as the head alien:<br /><br />"The planet Earth has emitted an over-abundance of diseases, they are contaminating the Universe. All the planets light years away from here will suffer unless it is destroyed!" <br /><br />This is is Neanderthal SF script writing. This is the sort of motivation you find in the sort of 1950's Japanese monster suit movies aimed at 7 year olds. It is, and I collect such things, the most god-awful line from an English language SF movie since Buster Crabbe retired. It beggars belief that this movie was released in the same year as Star Wars and Close Encounters.<br /><br />Lee, who always struck me as a smart, useful actor with a sure knowledge of his limits, delivers his lines as if he is going to kill his agent for getting him into this pile of drek. I don't blame him. | 0neg
|
Spoilers<br /><br />Wow, END OF THE WORLD is a singularly underwhelming cinematic experience.<br /><br />Here is the full story: a scientist is getting messages from space (a la INDEPENDENCE DAY). The messages say stuff like a massive disaster is about to happen and then the scientist hears later on the radio that a huge earthquake just happened in China. He starts thinking that the messages have something to do with the disasters around the world so he's trying to figure out who's receiving the messages (and who's also sending out messages in space). He and his wife eventually figure out that the messages come from a convent. They visit it. Everything looks normal, including the priest played by a bored Christopher Lee. But the scientist is adamant and really believes that the messages are coming from and going to that convent. So he and his wife secretly go back to the convent where they are caught snooping around by the aliens, disguised as priests and nuns. They are held against their will and the alien played by Lee forces the scientist to get something they need in order for them to return to their planet. Once the alien get the special element, the aliens all depart one by one to their home planet in some sort of tacky looking transporter platform. Lee, being the last alien left, tells the couple that the earth will be destroyed because of some sort of hokey decision by the aliens. Lee walks in the transporter and he's gone. The couple, looking at the monitors that show stock footage of natural disasters occurring all over the world, decide to follow the aliens. Because earth is doomed, the couple doesn't see any point of staying behind so they walk in the transporter and disappear. The last shot of the movie is a papier mache planet earth exploding. The end.<br /><br />That's it. <br /><br />I've never seen such a dull movie in my life. It's the most underwhelming movie I've ever experienced. The scientist and his wife are two of worst heroes or protagonists ever put on screen. They don't care about anything. They see the earth disasters on the monitors and decide "what the heck, who needs earth anyway?" They don't even try to stop them or do something to make things better. This kind of story might have worked if the film had an overwhelming sense of doom to everything but the action and atmosphere are nonexistent. The actors and the folks behind this dull flick are going through their paces, so much so that you can almost feel when they punched their cards when they got off and returned to work. I wasn't expecting much with this movie because it IS a Charles Band production, but I didn't expect it to be this bad.<br /><br />Christopher Lee was once asked what was his worst film he ever made and he mentioned STARSHIP INVASIONS. Well, I'm sorry Chris but STARSHIP INVASIONS was actually goofy fun. STARSHIP INVASIONS is terrible but terribly entertaining. END OF THE WORLD is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH worst: it's beyond dull and inert, with NO entertainment value whatsoever. | 0neg
|
Christopher Lee is one of my favorite actors! I'm trying to view all of his work. He has been known to single-handedly save movies with his presence. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. This movie suffers from a low budget and it's production values are disturbing. Please...for the love of Christopher....avoid this film! | 0neg
|
"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull. <br /><br />*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee | 0neg
|
A good deal of running around. A badly conceived adversary with very little complexity. A scientist who works in communications sending off signals into space and receiving them, gets caught up with aliens. Along with his pretty wife, he invades their territory and is given secrets about them. He becomes rather traitorous in the process. Granted, he is given little choice anyway. There is a scene where he gives them everything they want. This is a dull movie with lots of long stretches where little happens. The plot isn't technically bad. It's just that we are usually following a car, a trip through a woods, investigating a building. This is what editing is all about. I suppose the story wouldn't technically support much more. Not much here. | 0neg
|
Dull, cheap sci-fi thriller, made with an almost total lack of conviction (a control room full of computers and other devices used to receive and decipher messages from outer space is run by only ONE MAN, and is VERY poorly guarded at night), and full of campy sound effects. Christopher Lee is not only wasted, but he also gives one of his few "I'm here strictly for the money" performances. (*1/2) | 0neg
|
What can I say about this film other than "don't see it". I waited and waited and WAITED for someting (or anything) to happen and it just didn't come. Watch amazingly as two people walk around while setting the record for most filler screen time in a single movie. What are they doing? Are they solving a mystery? Are they gathering clues? Possibly, it's just hard to tell. At the end of the movie, after a lot of radio signals are decoded (illegibly on some sort of PET monitor) and this guy gives some lectures, the plot is finally revealed and tossed aside as quickly as possible. Some aliens want to get back to their home world utopia and are so happy there that they want to blow up the earth (I guess they don't like sharing the wealth). My guess is they finished filming and saw their 35 minute work or art (garbage!) and decided that they'd let the editing crew turn it into an 88 minute feature film. Watch at your own peril, it's not even funny because it's so bad, it's just bad. | 0neg
|
end of the world looks like a good movie on the box cover but be warned its bad.being a big fan of mega star actor Christopher lee i was fooled. like tentacles(77)a good cast does not mean it'll be a good film.the beginning looks promising then it turns to tedium,many parts of the movie are too dark to see whats going on.the rest of the cast is shown briefly like;Lew ayres,dean Jagger,and MacDonald Carey as a security guard.i would expect better from Charles band who made good fun movies like the re-animater and dolls.i heard Christopher lee was tricked into making this film.he was told his co stars were going to be Jose ferrer,john carridine,and dean Jagger.well dean Jagger is there but the other two never made it(lucky them)if you make a movie about the end of the world use a bigger budget and better storyline.dean Jagger went on to do two good movies afterwards;alligator(80)and game of death(79) sue Lyon(Lolita)is also in the movie minus her lollipop.if you are a glutton for punishment then watch end of the world i dare you to say awake during the whole movie.1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
This is one of the most boring movies I have ever seen, its horrible. Christopher Lee is good but he is hardly in it, the only the good part is the opening scene.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the title. "End of the World" is truly a bad movie, I stopped watching it close to the end it was so bad, only for die hard b-movie fans that have the brain to stand this vomit. | 0neg
|
End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed. | 0neg
|
I expected alot from this movie. Kinda like Lee as a Naustradamous like caracter but instead all I got was a waste of time and a boring movie. I can't even explain this movie. It had wooden acting, terrible script from pieces from the Bible like hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes. But that was at the end! The rest of it I had to wait and hope that something meaningfull would happen but it didn't. This movie is about a couple that tries to find out the changes going on in the world like places in China where there was an earthquake and end up at a convent run by eight nuns and a priest. The convent end up being the key to the misshappenings. The whole movie is missleading and boring. One of Lees worst. | 0neg
|
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.<br /><br />This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments. | 0neg
|
This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost. | 0neg
|
This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.<br /><br />The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.<br /><br />I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.<br /><br />At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure. | 0neg
|
This is an incomprehensible horribly low budget piece of awfulness.<br /><br />I don't even have the vocabulary to say how dire, turgid, boring, confusing, and just plain strange this effort is (Hey what d'ya know I do....) Set in a post-Apocalyptic America some guys meet on a beach and slaughter and chaos ensue - it was all so incomprehensible I couldn't make head or tail of any of it.<br /><br />Seriously how this got picked up by National Lampoon totally defeats me: it really is awful.<br /><br />And not in a its so bad it's good cult way.<br /><br />It is just awful, awful, awful, awful.<br /><br />Honestly. If you still don't believe me then watch it with every intention of loving it then come back here and tell me what you think. Even gerbils on acid couldn't hope to understand this.<br /><br />Avoid or even better destroy... | 0neg
|
I love all types of films, especially horror. That being said, Survival does not live up to ANY of the hype surrounding it.<br /><br />I can't give it any points on originality. There is nothing wrong with exploring the same themes, or remaking what others have done. It has just become a cop out for indie films to take us on a slasher journey through the woods, a crazed killer, and as of lately, throw in some crazy family. On those lines I have to compare it with the likes of Texas Chainsaw, Wrong Turn (though the twist in that one is obvious), and others. Survival falls up way short against comparable films. The plot was just not original in ANY way. Some films can get by with a weak (and way over-done) plot with superb acting, special fx, or a slew of other factors. Survivial doesn't have any of that to bank on. If you will, note the following: The acting in the movie never took off. I don't knock or blame the actors for that, nor the director. The dialogue was at best mediocre, and the actors involved never showed (not saying didn't HAVE) the talent to pull it off. I mention 2 standouts. The leading man in this film certainly has the look, but I seriously thinks he needs to consider more training before he is ready to carry a film. The actor who portrayed Greg also had potential, but we never got to see any of it (watch the movie to see why, you won't believe it..).<br /><br />The grainy film look. Ah yes, that little tid-bit of film making magic designed to take us to the glory days of "Grindhouse" films. In today's film making, that has become a gimmick. It either works or it doesn't. In this case it just does not work. There are too many other flaws going on, so it winds up distracting from the film, not adding to it. That being said, I think they did a good job of adding that grain. That is some good, quality grain. I think with a different script, better direction, and possibly actors, they should try another "Grindhouse" attempt. They will probably pull it off.<br /><br />As far as the tech aspects, in my opinion, they never quite gelled for me either. Better care could have been taken with audio (sounds like it was fed directly into the camera, but there is nothing wrong with that) and for being shot on DV, it was too soft for my taste.<br /><br />That is all I have to say about that..... | 0neg
|
I think the Croc Hunter is a pretty cool guy! I know I wouldn't have the nerve to go even 5 feet away from a croc.<br /><br />But, everything in this movie is bad. Farting jokes, people getting eaten, and the skit about the President all make the movie one of the worst of all time.<br /><br />It's a really bad film that you have to stay away from. All the "jokes" are so juvenile that you will find yourself laughing because they are so stupid. The plot is so bad that you wonder if the screenwriter is 4 years old.<br /><br />I'm surprised the Croc Hunter did not beg the crocodile to eat him after he saw this. | 0neg
|
On Steve Irwin's show, he's hillarious. He doesn't even try to be funny and he just is but his movie wasn't even what I would call a movie-I mean when that guy on his car is trying to kill him he's just saying 'Oh, this is one nasty bloke!' and looking straight into the camera. He put his face in the camera too much! And then when the guy falls off the car wouldn't you expect him to be dead? And Terri had the worst acting I'd ever seen! Like when the crocodile almost ate Steve she just says 'Steve'. She didn't sound scared or anything, it was just 'Steve'. I mean I hate to sound mean but that was not worth seeing. I love Steve Irwin but his movie was just too stupid. | 0neg
|
A difficult film to categorize. I was never giving it 110% concentration & consequently as simple as the plot appeared I couldn't say for certain exactly who was doing what amongst the American FBI characters & what their roles were. Nor could I take the Irwins seriously as film characters when their lines & scenes were all in the style of one of his shows, not acted out.<br /><br />This is nothing more than a glorified episode of a Discovery TV show, with a largely insignificant sub plot going on, which just seemed to get in the way. However as any Irwin show is always worth a watch, this film is well worth a look too, but not on Christmas Day. Talking of which, I've better things to do too than be on here.<br /><br />A high 4/10 | 0neg
|
I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ... | 0neg
|
If you like bad movies, this is the one to see. It's incredibly low-budget special effects (you'll see what I mean) and use of non-actors was what gave this film it's charm. If you're bored with a group of friends, I highly recommend renting this B movie gem. It's mulletrific! | 0neg
|
I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more? | 0neg
|
I have absolutely no knowledge of author Phillipa Pearce or any of her novels and if TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN is typical of her work I probably would have had little interest in her books as a child . When I was a child I wasn`t really interested in litreture unless it had soldiers fighting monsters complete with a high body count <br /><br />Judging by this film version of TOM`S MIDNIGHT GARDEN I guess Pearce writes for lower middle class kids since much of the story of revolves around protagonist Tom Long moving to a house with no garden then suddenly finding a metaphysical one . Having a garden of your own was no doubt something that working class people didn`t have in the 1950s so I guess there`s some political class ridden subtext there somewhere . There`s also a romance involving a young girl called Hattie but again are cynical kids amoured by love stories ? Perhaps the worst criticism is that very little in the way of excitement or adventure happens within the narrative <br /><br />This is a childrens film that seems dated by its source . It`s inoffensive but I`m surprised by its high rating by the IMDB voters . I wonder how many of them would have given it so many high marks if they were 10 year olds who`d just seen the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy ? | 0neg
|
Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie. | 0neg
|
OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie... | 0neg
|
My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by
.what else
.extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.<br /><br />When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.<br /><br />It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one
Don't say I didn't warn you! | 0neg
|
Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from **** | 0neg
|
Being an Elvis fan, I can't understand how this proyect could be done. Is by far the worst Elvis related movie of all time, totally unfunny, silly and plenty of mistakes about The King. Come on, Elvis' grave in a public park? A mention about Suspicious Minds in 1958?...and these are just two examples. Some people in the cast tries to do their best, Mike Starr is funny (specially as an impersonator), the Tom Hanks cameo is a surprise, but the guy playing the young Elvis sucks.Overall the movie lacks fun and becomes more boring minute after minute. If you want to see an ultra cheap, insane but absolutely funny little film related to Elvis, I truly recommend you "Bubba Ho-Tep" instead of this mess. | 0neg
|
I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs. | 0neg
|
One of the worst films I have ever seen. How to define "worst?" I would prefer having both eye balls yanked out and then be forced to tap dance on them than ever view this pitiful dreck again. Somehow, One-Hit Wonder Zwick manages a film that simultaneously offends Elvis fans, Mary Kay saleswomen, Las Vegas, gays, FBI agents and the rest of humanity with any intelligence with a shoddy, sloppy farce so forced it deserves to be forsaken ed. How Elvis Presley Enterprises could allow the rights of actual Elvis songs to be used in a film with a central premise that seems to be "The only good Elvis Presley Imitator is a dead one" is beyond me. The worst part of this mess - and that takes some work - is the mangled script: In 1958, Elvis' words and songs that he would speak/perform in the 1970's are quoted! Worst special effect? That Oscar would go to the moron who decided that Elvis' grave, potentially the most photographed/recognizable grave in the world, resembles a pyramid with a gold record glued atop and is situated in the middle of a park somewhere. Potentially, this film's biggest audience would be Elvis fans. However, the rampant stupidity (Nixon gave Elvis a DEA badge, not FBI credentials...and I could go on and on) actually undercuts THAT conventional wisdom. Ugh. I used the word "wisdom" to describe this stupid movie. This is truly a horrible, horrible film. | 0neg
|
The film is poorly casted, except for some familiar old Hollywood names. Other performances by unknown names (i.e., Jennifer Gabrielle) are uninspiring. I have seen other films by this director, unfortunately this is one of his worst. Perhaps this is a reflection of the screenplay? <br /><br />In a positive note, Kim Bassinger's and Pat Morita's performance saved the movie from oblivion. I enjoyed Pat more in Karate Kid, though. There are many good movies to see, and in short, this one is not one of them. Save your money and the celluloid. <br /><br />Jason Vanness | 0neg
|
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka | 0neg
|
I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "
hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??"
and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.<br /><br />When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.<br /><br />...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about. | 0neg
|
I sincerely consider this movie as another poor effort of Dominican Movie Industry. The first 30 minutes of the movie are a little funny but then when they switch their role in the society (men doing what women usually do and women doing what men usually do) the movie falls. Becoming boring and not funny at all. They let many things without explanation and the end of the movie is predictable. I didn't like the way as a Roberto Angel played his character and his little either. I went to the movies theater hoping to see a good work but I went out really disappointed.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />I would highly recommend seeing this movie. After viewing it, you will be able to walk out of every other bad movie EVER saying "at least it wasn't The Omega Code."<br /><br />Forget my money, I want my TIME back! | 0neg
|
I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind. | 0neg
|
I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door. | 0neg
|
The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best. | 0neg
|
I went to see the Omega Code with a group of other Christians totaling about 15 people. We all expected a good piece of Christian film-making. What we got was an excruciatingly painful, drawn-out, and pretty boring attempt at a film. It has good looking production values but also has poor acting, a weak script with lousy dialogue, and no real sense of direction. From the first 15 minutes we all knew it would be a long night. We all hated it, and some people in our group placed this movie as reeking of more cheese than "Anaconda." None of us could believe that the movie lasted less than 2 hours. Flashy effects and crisp looking cinematography can't save this bad, bad movie. I'd give it a 3 out of 10, and the rating is only that high because I rented the abominable "movie" Werewolf (1996) the night before I saw this movie. | 0neg
|
I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time. | 0neg
|
Quite honestly, The Omega Code is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time. During the first 30 minutes I sat stunned in my seat, trying to decide if I should demand a refund. But since I hadn't paid to see it in the first place (passes), I figured I might as well stay. And I didn't think it could possibly get any worse.<br /><br />It did. I will quickly run through the low points (includes some spoilers): The horrible miscasting of Casper Van Dien as Gillen Lane, a motivational speaker with two PhDs. The characterization was inconsistent; for example, Lane, despite his credentials, is a complete nitwit. Then there's the lame-o depiction of the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecies; we see a bunch of sensational news soundbites accompanied by ridiculous computer print outs of the translated Biblical Code. Also, terrible "action" sequences: Lane escapes from tough situations without explanation, and the one time Lane actually does seem to be in danger, it turns out to be a dream sequence! That's cute for grammar school writing assignments, but it's an inexcusable plot device in a motion picture. The pacing was bad: after a long opener, the first third of the movie changes scenes every 90 seconds. Later, the pacing improves, but there is still far too much unnecessary jumping around. And as someone else mentioned, years pass yet no one (not even Lane's young daughter) ages. That was disconcerting.<br /><br />There are a few good things, though. The quality of the film (e.g. lack of graininess) is high and very attractive. The outdoor shots were well done and the location shooting added a touch of realism. Also, there are a few moments in the last part of the film when Lane calls on God (finally) to help him - this proved to be quite exhilarating - even to me, someone who does not accept Jesus as a personal savior. But I liked this because it struck me as being the only genuine scene in the movie. Unfortunately, it was followed by major incomprehensibility.<br /><br />The characters, dialogue, direction and acting were ALL poorly done. Michael Ironside had nothing to do, and Michael York was just weird. I think the producers wanted to do too much; if the plot had been tighter and more focused, and the characterization more fleshed out, the film would have been far better. <br /><br />In a nutshell, The Omega Code disappoints. Definitely do not pay to see this. I give it ** out of ten stars.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
What else is left to say?<br /><br />I've read all the reviews here and most are right on. . However, one person even went so far as to call this movie evil and that Satan tainted it (or something along those lines). Evil?! Wow, what a shocker. . I mean, TBN basically made this film. Open your eyes please.<br /><br />Anway, this was the very lowest grade of propoghanda nonsense that has come along in years.<br /><br />The most terrifying thing about Omega Code is how much money they spent to make it. If this movie can be made, there are no limits, and therefore, we have no choice but to get ready for "Yentl 2", and "Ernest Loses the Omega Codes."<br /><br />For those of you who are into the biblical stories, the new movie Dogma will pickup where Omega Code never started. | 0neg
|
Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.<br /><br />The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.<br /><br />I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it. | 0neg
|
I didn't know what to expect from the film. Well, now I know. This was a truly awful film. The screenplay, directing and acting were equally bad. The story was silly and stupid. The director could have made a smart and thought provoking film, but he didn't. I squirmed in my seat for the last half of the movie because it was so bad. Where was the focus to the film? Where was anything in this film? Christians should boycott this film instead of promoting it. It was shabbily done and a waste of my money. Do not see this film. | 0neg
|
If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be? <br /><br /> The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job. <br /><br /> This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray.<br /><br /> There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful. | 0neg
|
The more I analyze this film, the worse it becomes. First of all, why a motivational speaker? That part was just stupid. I mean, why would a megalomaniac trying to control the world rely on a motivational speaker? Is Alexander Stone really that disorganized? First he can't decide what he wants to do to control the world, so he looks to the Bible for ideas. Many of these ideas, I might add, really have no reliability(For example, the part of the "The houses of Ishmael and Isaac shall scream out in terror" could have already happened. It could have been have been the synagogues burned during Krystalnacht and the mosques could very well have been the mosques blown up in Baghdad or something.) And Gillen Lane's family! They had no part except to provide a family values platfrom and dab their eyes with water! I might add that since Casper van Dien/Gillen Lane is only in his twenties(or that's the impression that I had)and has a ten year child, he had his child during high school. Yeah, there goes TBN's family values. Also, why did this film have to be so damn propaganda-like? I'll repeat what an earlier reviewer said. The Indiana Jones flicks use Christian mythology as a plot dvice and manipulate it well so that we are intoxicated. This film doesn't do that. The beginnig starts off well, with Michael Ironsides playing a priest who murders a scholar off some sort and steals the dead guy's Omega Code. Then when confronted by two men who he is obviously afraid of, the two prophets tell him "Tell your master that we are here!". Dominic(Ironsides) replies "He already knows" and points to a small surveillance camera. That part sent chills up my spine. Had only it gone on like that one scene I would have loved this film. I'll give Michael York credit: he does a fine job of acting out his character, as does Michael Ironsides. But the good guys are horrible. I've already went on about Lane's family<br /><br />. Now that I'm over the acting, I'll get on to plot. This is obviously a Baptist film, since our beloved Pope of the Vatican is portrayed as an oaf. The world domination plot I liked and found plausible and subtle, as were the action sequences were also thrilling and well-done. Also another diatribe against the Vatican, their leaders are seen as dogmatically minded, since Gillen explains to the Pope that it's not the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one Also, the Vatican (or Israelis)says their going to secede from the World Union aince they used the Omega Code to control the world. Whoever it was, they wouldn't just secede, they'd send over commandoes and kill them. This is the equivalent of America knowing about the KGB going to kill the President and simply saying "We're not going to talk to you any more!". Come on! I did enjoy the scenes where we see bombers headed towards Israel and see them again on the monitor. Mediocre in short. | 0neg
|
I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere... | 0neg
|
This movie is not based on the bible. It completely leaves Christ out of the movie. They do not show the rapture or the second coming of Christ. Let alone talk about it. It does not quote from scriptures. The end times are called the great tribulation. The movie does not even show bad times. The seven bowls, seven viles and seven trumpets of judgements are boiled down to a 15 second news cast of the sea changing it's structure. The anti-Christ was killed 3 1/2 years into the tribulation and that is how the movie ended. The only part they got correct was there was two prophets. The did not use there names of course because that would be too close to the truth of scriptures. The worst part of it was I really wanted it to be a good movie. I wanted to take unsaved people to it. I feel that the movie is evil. It is a counterfeit just like everything the devil does. I just hope it does not take away from the upcoming movie based on the left behind books.<br /><br />The second problem with the movie is it was just bad. Bad acting, bad special effects, bad plot and poor character development. I have seen better episodes of Miami vice. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits