text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good. | 0neg
|
What was this about ?? Pre-destination, you can not change the future cause it has already been written ??<br /><br />I'll give it this much. I did want to see what happened next and therefore watched the whole movie. This movie took a concept and made it watchable.<br /><br />If you're looking for a recommendation, See it at matinee prices. No thrills but an interesting concept. They should have left the Y2K reference out.... | 0neg
|
Interesting to read comments by viewers regarding Omega Code... many of the overwhelmingly positive comments were lifted almost word for word from TBN broadcasts... the movie looks as if it were made to go directly to video, to be stocked besides the three-part rapture series that was done by some other religious group in the 70s.. dont remember it? You wont remember this one either in a year or two. This is the first movie I have ever seen where it was implied that it was your religious duty to go to it and buy as many tickets as possible to save souls... very shameful... this just goes to show that if you are a televangelist's son, you too can play high-roller Hollywood producer with lil ole ladies tithe money... | 0neg
|
The idea had potential, but the movie was poorly scripted, poorly acted, poorly shot and poorly edited. There are lots of production flaws ... for example, Dr. Lane's daughter who never ages despite the passing years. Wait for video, but don't expect much. | 0neg
|
Disjointed, unclear, bad screenplay, poor photography and direction...all in all very obviously an ill-conceived first effort at commercial film-making by the good people at TBN.<br /><br />TBN Pictures has had great success in the past by helping to bring "China Cry", the story of Nora Lam, to the big screen. But "The Omega Code" is an unfortunate miscue. As a Christian who supports TBN and a lot of its programming and who loved "China Cry", I still find it impossible to recommend this film to anyone. They do much good with their ministry, but this isn't an example of it. Don't waste your money...go rent "China Cry" instead. | 0neg
|
I went into this film with expectations, from the hype, that it would be insightful and uplifting. Certainly something more than a cheap promotional for the band "Wilco."<br /><br />Instead we get a lot of moping and whining about "the process," a dishonorable and no doubt one-sided portrayal of one band members who was kicked out by the prima donna lead singer/songwriter, a gut-wrenching confession by the fallen member's friend -- for like 18 years -- saying the "friendship had run its course," and this whiny, uncompelling story about how one record label "hurt their feelings" by dumping them, only so that the band could immediately get 50 offers from other labels (oh, the tension...not!) They tried their best to make it look like it was a strain, but I suspect it was all smoke and mirrors to generate a tragedy that didn't exist. This doesn't even take into account the long stretches where we get many of their newest songs shoved at us in full without any storyline, insight or even a decent job at cinematography. The strained attempts at emotional sincerity or reasonable perspective on life made me sick to watch.<br /><br />From the film, this band sounds like a bunch of vile little babies who poke around to find a voice they don't have and think they're some kind of guardians for the art of music, which they most definitely are not. And I thought the music sucked, and I couldn't even understand the lyrics due to the mumbling style of the lead singer.<br /><br />I give it a 2/10. | 0neg
|
What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.<br /><br />There are three potential draws to this film: The comedy of the situation; The horror; and The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane. <br /><br />Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.<br /><br />Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.<br /><br />Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".<br /><br />I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap? | 0neg
|
I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating. | 0neg
|
$25,000 Pyramid Clues: Deep Blue Sea. Tremors. Slither. Eight Legged Freaks.<br /><br />Pyramid Category: Movies that were funnier and more thrilling than Snakes on a Plane.<br /><br />Hell, with that definition I'd have to include the relatively harrowing journey of Ted and Elaine in Airplane! as superior to Snakes in both laughs and thrills.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this isn't even close to the mother of all unintentionally intentional funny snake movies: Anaconda! Besides the never to be seen again casting of JLo-Cube-O.Wilson-Stoltz-Wuhrer in the same flick, you had Jon Voight pulling off the all-time cinematic heist. His final scene alone represents everything SOAP tried and failed to do as a "so-ludicrous-it's-fun" movie.<br /><br />In the end, Snakes on a Plane is definitive proof that studio execs and fanboys make the worst collaborators possible. Every big scene had been discussed and dissected so much the last year, all that was left to amuse by opening night was the amount of fanboy flop-sweat that had to be mopped up at my theater. I heard more forced laughs here than at a studio taping for "According to Jim". | 0neg
|
when discussing a movie titled 'snakes on a plane', we should point out early that the snakes are pretty darn important to the plot.<br /><br />what we have here are very bad cgi snakes that neither look nor move like real snakes. snakes are scary because they appear to be slimy, they crawl they slither. these snakes do nothing of the sort. they glide along like they would in a video game. they are cartoon snakes. i would go as far to say that even someone that had a major phobia against real snakes would not find these ones scary<br /><br />why on earth then would you want to include extreme close ups of these cgi failures? why not rely on suspense.. the whole 'less is more' ethic. or better still, why not just make them look good in the first place? and then maybe still use them sparingly<br /><br />take one look at john carpenters 'the thing'. here we have real slime, and gore of eerie proportions. 20 years go by and we get this pile of stinking sfx crap 'snakes on a plane'. when are these people going to wake up and smell the coffee? special effects are going backwards!<br /><br />sure you could say.. but the movie is a joke, get it? sure i'm with that idea, but do it well! in addition to the above, this movie has crap dialogue. and the music and sound effects are not creepy or memorable in any way.<br /><br />i could handle every other actor being part of this movie, except for jackson. what was he doing there? the man who starred in pulp fiction 10 years ago. is this career progression? are you offering people value for money? no. i'd like to know what Tarantino thought when he was half way through this stinker of a movie<br /><br />the current generation seem to have very low expectations. and Hollywood seems to be offering them just what they want. on leaving the cinema i saw a number of advertisements for some truly horrendous looking future releases including... DOA: dead or alive, (another) cgi animal film called 'flushed away', and another crap looking comedy named 'click'. in addition to that i saw some awful trailers, including one for (another) crap British horror/comedy. i've truly not seen the movie industry in a mess like this for a long time<br /><br />expect to see this movie for sale in the DVD bargain section for £1 in 6 months time. and if you're expecting to see a black comedy with tonnes of great looking snakes, and some bad ass cool dialogue coming from samuel l jacksons lips. forget it. | 0neg
|
This movie deserves more than a 1. But I'm giving it a one because so many fricken fan boys have given it a 10 resulting in it getting a rating that'll take it into the top 100 list. Seriously it's not that great its not that bad. Its a stupid cult classic with so many fricken fan boys it's ridiculous. These are the types who probably still laugh at Chuck Norris jokes and still say "I'm rick james b!tch" No matter how old or annoying it gets. I dread having to hear "I'm tired of MFn snakes on this MFn plane" months from now from idiots trying to be funny. Its crappy plot crap acting etc. Its Okay to love a bad movie, but you still gotta admit its a bad movie.<br /><br />Wait for the Marine starring John Cena if you wanna see a real movie | 0neg
|
I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.<br /><br />Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months. | 0neg
|
I am sick and tired of all these little weenies going on about how this movie "rocked". It is pure CG over-acted CRAP! Don't send an Assassin, it's much more sensible to smuggle hundreds of brightly colored, aggressive, venomous Snakes on a Plane! The only reason people like this movie because they feel they have to. It is not "so bad it's good" It's so bad I'd rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick then be subjected to this again. I honestly thought was going to be a COMEDY like AIRPLANE! A spoof! Was I wrong. It's that whole "It sucks, get it!" Or Samuel A. Jackson yells "Snakes on the Plane! thing. Well I'm sorry, I don't get it. It looks like a bunch of wimps gave the movie industry more money to make more movies like Triple X and Die Hard. If you what spend money to watch a movie in the company of the same people who bought William Hung's CD, still live in their mommies basement, and stink of plastic chair sweat from days on the computer playing online games and looking at porn, then rush to the theater and ask for one (since I doubt you have a girlfriend) ticket for Snakes on a stupid-butt Plane. To hell with movies like Full metal Jacket, Pulp Fiction, True Romance, 12 Monkeys, Clerks, etc. There's no irony in watching good movies. The true decline of the western civilization. Calling this a cult film is an Insult to true Cult classics like Repo man, or even Orgazmo. I've said enough here. | 0neg
|
This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it. | 0neg
|
This is not a film you can really analyse separately from it's production. The audience became the film-makers to an extent unprecedented in the history of the American film industry; we felt so involved that viewing it becomes like watching the work of a friend. How is it possible to be objective? This is our movie, isn't it? Or is it? There may be nothing more disingenuous than a film-maker who promotes himself as the audience's friend, giving them all the naughty treats that the nannyish critics would deny them. Just look at that prime self-publicist Eli Roth, promising gore-hounds all the viscera missing from literally gutless mainstream horror films, only to churn out a watered down and technically incompetent piece of work like 'Hostel'.<br /><br />David R. Ellis may not have spawned the monster that was the internet response to his film, but he was, quite understandably, quick to engage with it. He took the carnival-huckster school of film-making to a new level, getting the fans to build what they would eventually buy. So many have enthused over this interactive, democratic approach to film-making that they seem to have missed the point - that this is the most cynical form of film-as-marketing. Nothing is included that the film-makers know the fans won't buy, and any old suggestion that will get bums on seats is incorporated. The fact that the pitch became the title tells you all you need to know.<br /><br />Isn't this just the evolution of the focus group approach? Individual creativity, talent, craft, ideas, all are sacrificed before the inane chatter of the masses. It's a critical commonplace that focus groups and test screenings don't make for good movies - why should the preemptive intervention of internet enthusiasts be any different? Because we happen to be film fans? Well, thank god for us, because otherwise I might not have seen a topless woman get her nipple bitten by a snake.<br /><br />So, yes, I had fun at the movie - a midnight showing, fresh from the pub and with a bucket of ice-cream - but it actually had relatively little to do with the film, and quite a lot to do with the atmosphere. Like Christmas, everyone seemed determined that they would have fun, no matter what. There was laughter, but I don't know if it was with the film, or at the film. With a film as calculated as this one, is that even a meaningful distinction? There are some genuinely good aspects to the film. Samuel L. Jackson gives a well-judged performance, pure self-parody but with a real sense of pleasure. Rachel Blanchard and Lin Shaye are decent in limited roles, and there are one or two inspired moments - the fate of the lap dog is genuinely funny black comedy that the rest of the film fails to emulate.<br /><br />The stock characters are to be expected, but the total lack of suspense isn't. What's the point of a film that combines two great phobias if there's no creeping menace? There are several snake-jumps-out moments, but they're incredibly badly staged. Only the annoying British man gets a decent pulpy death scene - the other killings are oddly flat. The demise of the honeymoon couple, for instance, is shamefully botched. Most of the actors fail to make an impression; it's a shame that a charismatic actress like Julianna Margulies should seem so tired (when she tells two kids to close their eyes and pretend the turbulent flight is a roller-coaster, she could be talking to the audience - the film falls far short).<br /><br />There are worse movies, but there are many, many better; another reviewer on this site compared this film with 'Lake Placid', and it's as apt a contrast as any I can think of. That film worked so magnificently because the performances were excellent, the jokes were funny, the suspense sequences were scary, and it wasn't devised by committee. That the characters had a little depth and shading was an unexpected bonus. I don't need a post-pub midnight showing to have a good time with that film.<br /><br />This film will, in time, fade to become a mere footnote in film history. If it sets a precedent, however, I'm genuinely worried about what might be crossing our screens in a couple of years time. In all probability, nothing much will come of it. Perennial popcorn favourites - 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', 'Alien', 'Halloween' and of course, 'Star Wars' - just aren't produced by group-think.<br /><br />In the mean time, I'll tell you what - I haven't half got a craving for some Ingmar Bergman. | 0neg
|
Oh Dear Lord, How on Earth was any part of this film ever approved by anyone? It reeks of cheese from start to finish, but it's not even good cheese. It's the scummiest, moldiest, most tasteless cheese there is, and I cannot believe there is anyone out there who actually, truly enjoyed it. Yes, if you saw it with a load of drunk/stoned buddies then some bits might be funny in a sad kind of way, but for the rest of the audience the only entertaining parts are when said group of buddies are throwing popcorn and abusive insults at each other and the screen. I watched it with an up-for-a-few-laughs guy, having had a few beers in preparation to chuckle away at the film's expected crapness. We got the crapness (plenty of it), but not the chuckles. It doesn't even qualify as a so-bad-it's-good movie. It's just plain bad. Very, very bad. Here's why (look away if you're spoilerphobic): The movie starts out with a guy beating another guy to death. OK, I was a few minutes late in so not sure why this was, but I think I grasped the 'this guy is a bit of a badass who you don't want to mess with' message behind the ingenious scene. Oh, and a guy witnesses it. So, we already have our ultra-evil bad guy, and wussy but cute (apparently) good guy. Cue Hero. Big Sam steps on the scene in the usual fashion, saving good guy in the usual inane way that only poor action films can accomplish, i.e. Hero is immune to bullets, everyone else falls over rather clumsily. Cue first plot hole. How the bloody hell did Sammy know where this guy was, or that he'd watched the murder. Perhaps this, and the answers to all my plot-hole related questions, was explained in the 2 minutes before I got into the cinema, but I doubt it. In fact, I'm going to stop poking holes in the plot right here, lest I turn the movie into something resembling swiss cheese (which we all know is good cheese). So, the 'plot' (a very generous word to use). Good guy must get to LA, evil guy would rather he didn't, Hero Sam stands between the two. Cue scenery for the next vomit-inducing hour - the passenger plane. As I said, no more poking at plot holes, I'll just leave it there. Passenger plane. Next, the vital ingredient up until now missing from this gem of a movie, and what makes it everything it is - Snakes. Yay! Oh, pause. First we have the introduction to all the obligatory characters that a lame movie must have. Hot, horny couple (see if you can guess how they die), dead-before-any-snakes-even-appear British guy (those pesky Brits, eh?), cute kids, and Jo Brand. For all you Americans that's an English comic famous for her size and unattractiveness. Now that we've met the cast, let's watch all of them die (except of course the cute kids). Don't expect anything original, it's just snake bites on various and ever-increasingly hilarious (really not) parts of the body. Use your imagination, since the film-makers obviously didn't use theirs.<br /><br />So, that's most of the film wrapped up, so now for the best bit, the ending. As expected, everything is just so happy as the plane lands that everyone in sight starts sucking face. Yep, Ice-cool Sammy included. But wait, we're not all off the plane yet! The last guy to get off is good guy, but just as he does he gets bitten by a (you guessed it) snake (of all things). Clearly this one had been hiding in Mr. Jackson's hair the whole time, since it somehow managed to resist the air pressure trick that the good old hero had employed a few minutes earlier, despite the 200ft constrictor (the one that ate that pesky British bugger) being unable to. So, Sam shoots him and the snake in one fell swoop. At this point I prayed that the movie was about to make a much-needed U-turn and reveal that all along the hero was actually a traitor of some sort. But no. In a kind of icing on the cake way (but with stale cheese, remember), it is revealed that the climax of the film was involving a bullet proof vest. How anyone can think that an audience 10 years ago, let alone in 2006 would be impressed by their ingenuity is beyond me, but it did well in summing up the film.<br /><br />Actually, we're not quite done yet. After everyone has sucked face (Uncle Sam with leading actress, good guy with Tiffany, token Black guy with token White girl, and the hot couple in a heart warming bout of necrophilia), it's time for good guy and hero to get it on....In Bali!!! Nope, it wasn't at all exciting, the exclamation marks were just there to represent my utter joy at seeing the credits roll. Yes, the final shot of the film is a celebratory surfing trip to convey the message that a bit of male bonding has occurred, and a chance for any morons that actually enjoyed the movie to whoop a few times. That's it. This is the first time I've ever posted a movie review, but I felt so strongly that somebody must speak out against this scourge of cinematography. If you like planes, snakes, Samuel L.Jackson, air hostesses, bad guys, surfing, dogs in bags or English people, then please, please don't see this movie. It will pollute your opinion of all of the above so far that you'll never want to come into contact with any of them ever again. Go see United 93 instead. THAT was good. | 0neg
|
I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.<br /><br />Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.<br /><br />To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away! | 0neg
|
B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.<br /><br />"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."<br /><br />"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."<br /><br />"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"<br /><br />Dr Price is the snake expert.<br /><br />Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area. | 0neg
|
This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.<br /><br />I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute. | 0neg
|
the only thing great about the movie is its title. In this case, "Snake On a Plane" is example of not judging the book by its cover, the title says nothing about the movie. When I went to the theater, I wasn't expecting Citizen Kane, I was expecting Independence Day, a movie that's pure popcorn fun, but instead, I got that horrible Roy Liotta movie called " Turbulence" Yes, this is how bad SOAP is. The only thing make SOAP better is its title. And it's not even the apporiate title for the movie, the wasn't even a glimpse of "snake" or "plane" 40 minutes into the movie! What a false advertising! If it wasn't for its title, SOAP would be just another unforgettable cheap B-grade summer movie. And the R rating? It has to be the most undeserved R rated movie of all time! The makers of the movie only add a few f word to make this a R, All of the violence are kept pg-13 level. You know what's really R rated? The R rated superstar Edge! See him at Summerslam instead of waste your money on a snake! | 0neg
|
I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless. | 0neg
|
All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog. | 0neg
|
I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.<br /><br />At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more! <br /><br />Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.<br /><br />This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.<br /><br />If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash. | 0neg
|
Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.<br /><br />Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.<br /><br />No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.<br /><br />I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10 | 0neg
|
I'd like to think myself as a fairly open minded guy and it takes a lot(!) for me to dislike a movie but this one is without a doubt one of the suckiest, crappiest movie I've ever seen!<br /><br />I have no idea what's wrong with the people who gave it such a good rating here (imdb is usually pretty reliable when it comes to ratings)... the only thing I can imagine is that people must've voted during one or more conditions:<br /><br />1. While being shitfaced / stoned out of their minds 2. They've received hard cash for the votes 3. Under gunpoint<br /><br />I can't believe I wasted a good 1 h 45 min of my life for this pathetic excuse for a movie. | 0neg
|
the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...<br /><br />the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel. | 0neg
|
Admirably odd, though mean-spirited comedy-drama about a strange young man who hopes to fly like a bird through the Houston Astrodome. Robert Altman-directed quasi-comedy with eccentric characters is so overloaded with weirdos that it starts to creak early on from the weight. Some of the cinematography is evocative, Shelley Duvall is a stitch in her debut as a tour guide, and Sally Kellerman looks every inch the glamourpuss as Bud Cort's vision of a "mother bird" (imagine Altman and producer Lou Adler explaining that role to her!). In the lead, Bud Cort is--once again, after "Harold & Maude"--a true original; not off-putting like, say, Michael J. Pollard, Cort manages to be geeky, wacky and inoffensive, a tough act to pull off. Unfortunately, this is one of Altman's misfires. He can put together a cast and a showpiece like no one else, but let him get fired up with some misguided inspiration and he spirals downward. ** from **** | 0neg
|
The 1930s saw a vogue for documentary films about remote corners of the world, with an emphasis on wild animals, exotic terrain and primitive people with unusual cultures. Despite the logistics of transporting a film crew to a distant and dangerous place, and then bringing 'em back alive (with the film footage), such films were often much cheaper to make than were conventional Hollywood features ... because there were no expensive sets, costumes, or high-priced movie stars.<br /><br />The most successful makers of such films (artistically and financially) were the team of Martin E. Johnson and his wife Osa, who made several documentaries (sometimes with blatantly staged events) in Africa and Asia. The Johnsons' safari films were extremely popular, inspiring several parodies ... most notably Wheeler & Woolsey's "So This is Africa", in which the very sexy Esther Muir plays a character named Mrs. Johnson-Martini (instead of Martin E. Johnson, geddit?). Although several other filmmakers were producing safari documentaries at this time, the Johnsons' films were the most popular in this genre because they relied heavily on humour. Viewed from our own more enlightened (I hope) standpoint, this is a serious flaw in the Johnsons' documentaries: there are too many scenes in which the funny little brown or yellow people are made to look complete idiots who are easily outsmarted by the clever white bwana Johnson and his wife.<br /><br />One definite asset of these movies is the presence of Osa Johnson. Ten years younger than her husband, she manages to seem young enough to be his daughter. While certainly not as attractive as the shapely blond Esther Muir, Osa Johnson was a pert brunette who gave ingratiating performances in front of the camera in all the films she co-produced with her husband.<br /><br />'Congorilla' is probably the best of the Johnsons' films. The shots of the Congo are interesting and have some historical value as evidence of what this environment looked like in 1930. The shots of the Pygmies and other natives are also interesting, although these suffer from the Johnsons' penchant to stage events in a manner that makes the natives look 'wild' and alien.<br /><br />The best (and funniest) scene in 'Congorilla' is an improvised sequence in which Osa Johnson attempts to teach a jazz dance to some Pygmy women. (The dance is the Black Bottom, no less ... the same dance which Bob Hope famously taught to Daisy and Violet Hilton, the conjoined twins.) Wearing jodhpurs, riding boots, and a pith helmet, Osa Johnson starts scat-singing while she does high steps and slaps her knees in her attempt to teach this dance to the African women. Meanwhile, they just stand there staring at her, apparently wondering what this crazy white woman is trying to accomplish. It's a very funny scene, but it has unpleasant undertones. Osa Johnson is doing a dance that was invented by black Americans: the implication seems to be that black Africans should instinctively be able to perform this dance after a brief demonstration (using natural rhythm, I guess) because it's in their blood, or something.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Congorilla' 4 points out of 10. This film says a little bit about African life in the 1930s and rather more about American cultural perceptions in that same decade. | 0neg
|
With these people faking so many shots, using old footage, and gassing animals to get them out, not to mention that some of the scenes were filmed on a created set with actors, what's to believe? Old film of countries is nice, but the animal abuse and degradation of natives is painful to watch in these films. I know, racism is OK in these old films, but there is more to that to make this couple lose credibility. Portrayed as fliers, they never flew their planes, Martin Johnson was an ex-vaudevillian, used friends like Jack London for financial gain while stiffing them of royalties, denying his wife's apparent depression, using her as a cute prop, all this makes these films unbearable. They were by no means the first to travel to these lands, or the first to write about them. He was OK as a filmmaker and photographer, but that's about it. | 0neg
|
Did I step in something or is that bad smell coming from Daybreak 1 + 2? God was behind everything? What has God got to do with Sci-Fi? God is only the answer when you can't think up a sensible explanation for something. In fact, this is exactly the problem with the series finale - they obviously couldn't think up sensible explanations for the multitude of big questions that were raised throughout the series such as how Kara Thrace come back from the dead in a brand new viper, how her old viper and charred body ended up on Earth 2, why Baltar has an imaginary 6 in his head, why 6 has an imaginary Baltar in her head, etc. so they explain it with "angels" or just don't explain it at all.<br /><br />The plot of the last 2 episodes had holes big enough to fly a Basestar through. For example, why does Galactica and its crew go on a suicide mission to rescue one girl (Hera), particularly after Adama said there was no way he'd attempt a rescue? Because they found out the location of the Cylon base? That's not a good reason to sacrifice the crew's lives. And how did Anders know the location? And what was the point of the flashbacks to the major characters' lives before the war? It's like they forgot to do it earlier so they threw something in at the last moment.<br /><br />The people who wrote the last two episodes could not have been the same writers who created what has been so far a sensational series. Feels like the script writing was take over by evangelical Christians on a mission to spread 'The Word'. Forget trying to tie up the loose ends in the plot, the important message the writers wanted to get across is: don't put your faith in technology as it will lead to your destruction; God is your ultimate salvation (tough luck if you have an illness that needs medical treatment).<br /><br />Imagine in the final movie of the Star Wars series they tell you there is no "force"... instead, a Jedi actually gets his power from Jesus. Then they fly their spaceships into the nearest star and go live in the forest with the Ewoks. Would this be a good ending? No it frakken' wouldn't. | 0neg
|
The fight scenes were great. Loved the old and newer cylons and how they painted the ones on their side. It was the ending that I hated. I was disappointed that it was earth but 150k years back. But to travel all that way just to start over? Are you kidding me? 38k people that fought for their very existence and once they get to paradise, they abandon technology? No way. Sure they were eating paper and rationing food, but that is over. They can live like humans again. They only have one good doctor. What are they going to do when someone has a tooth ache never mind giving birth... yea right. No one would have made that choice. | 0neg
|
Horrible ending - and I can't believe Moore spent a year coming up with it. Smacks of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetitcs, which Hubbard claimed to pen in just three weeks. This was actually disappointing enough for me to toss my discs from the first 3.5 years. Now, the first 1.5 hours were action packed, though absurd in the premise, and then it deteriorated into a slow, painful, sophomoric dissolution of the series. Unbelievable how slow and drawn out that last hour was. Were we to think more deeply? If I wanted a lesson in a-materialism, I would reread Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Absurd to think 38K people would give up everything for a "fresh start". Absurd to throw in a disappearing Kara, and a reappearing Baltar and Six. Absurd to throw in the Mitochondrial Eve. Just absurd. | 0neg
|
I loved the first season. The quality went down a little bit in the second season, which however had a great middle (Pegasus!). Third season was fairly novel and original and was OK. Fourth season started going downhill fast, because they never even began giving us any explanations, when by now we were really starting to need them. What the hell was the Cylon plan? Why were there two Cylon factions? What was the point of Angel-Kara leading the fleet to a devastated Earth-1? What kind of a past did the last five Cylons have, and how did they survive, or were they reincarnations? Questions everywhere, answers nowhere.<br /><br />And then comes the end. Earth-2 (our Earth) in the past. Well, okay. But destroying the fleet?! Giving up technology and giving up any kind of urban life, and spreading a few thousand people paper-thinly across the planet?! That's not only anti-science, it's anti-reason and anti-life. And the philosophy of the show then seems to be that humanity is forever trapped in a cycle going from nature romanticism to a decadent capitalist society inventing destructive A.I. that ruins everything. It is without vision, without hope for a grander future for humanity, and it is antithetical to proper science fiction. And don't even get me started on the angels! Religious claptrap of the worst kind! The ultimate disappointment!!<br /><br />The whole "all this has happened before and will happen again" thing should have related to the previous incarnation of the series, not just to Earth as we know it. Making the new show somehow consistent with the old would have been the definitive stroke of genius. Frakkin shame.<br /><br />1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
There are many good things about the new BSG: There's the multiple Cylon roles for Model 8 and 6, for example, which the two actresses played superbly. There's the old school feel of industrial design aboard Galactica ("My ship will not be networked, over my dead body!") Also, all the space battles, the special effects (even though the seasoned sci-fi watcher will acknowledge the cartoonishness of it all) The darkness of the characters, their essentially flawed nature.<br /><br />That makes it all the more bitter that the ending was so childish.<br /><br />Yes, the first part, the scenes in space, the raid on the Cylons and all that was very good. But the mushy ending? I always watch films and shows these days with the timer hidden, so I never know how much time is left until the end. So for me it was a special kind of torture, to see the end happen over and over again. Every time I thought, oh this is the final scene, the final shot, I got one more. Every frakking character got its complete ending! That wasn't really necessary.<br /><br />What really highlighted the schoolboy amateurishness of it all: The young Roslin scenes. Why is important for us to know that: {a} she lost her sisters and father in a horrible accident and {b} that she has a one night stand with a former pupil/student? What does that bring to the story? Where was the linkage? Now, I'm all for a more European-ish style approach, and a random acts of whateverness in films and shows, and all that, but this was just ridiculous. This didn't bring anything meaningful to the story.<br /><br />Also, I've seen the "Last Frakkin special" and in it Ron revealed his own cluelessness about the plot: he couldn't come up with a good ending for the story, so .... he just didn't! It's never as much about the characters as they made the last episode to be. The whole "this was thousands of years in the past" idea, the mitochondrial Eve thing, was also used in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and believe you me, there are a lot of BSG watchers who know that particular H2G2 storyline. And speaking of Hera, now there's a storyline that WAS NOT worked out well, AT ALL. Instead we get Roslin is doing her former pupil who's 20 years younger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for older women with younger men. The more power to them. But this ... just made no sense.<br /><br />All in all, (the writing in) this series is as flawed as they intended its characters would be. That goes even moreso for the last episode. I hope Lost and 24 do better, with their series finales. | 0neg
|
The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb. | 0neg
|
Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending. | 0neg
|
Well, they say nymphomania leaves you unsatisfied. I don't know if Stella James (Sean Young) qualifies as a clinical nymphomaniac, but she certainly is in to sexual relations with men. She's still exploring, trying to find "more data" so she can see what she wants from life and the men in it, though it seems like at her age she should have a pretty good idea by now. (I can't agree, however, with anyone who says Young is too old for the role. If she is, we should all age so nicely.) For the most part this film left me cold, though it's by no means the worst of its type you'll ever see. And unlike the recent 'Eyes Wide Shut,' at least something happens in this one. | 0neg
|
I hate this movie. It is a horrid movie. Sean Young's character is completely unsympathetic. Her performance is wooden at best. The storyline is completely predictable, and completely uninteresting. I would never recommend this film to anyone. It is one of the worst movies I have ever had the misfortune to see. | 0neg
|
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting. <br /><br />Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me. <br /><br />This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash. | 0neg
|
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you | 0neg
|
so... it's really sexist, and classist, and i thought that it might not be in the beginning stages of the movie, like when stella tells steven that she would really like to change herself and begin speaking in the right way and he tells her not to change. well, he certainly changed his tune, and it seems that the other reviewers followed suit. what at the beginning appears to be a love story is really about social placement and women as sacrificial mothers. the end of the movie does not make her a hero, it makes the whole thing sad. and its sad that people think it makes her a hero. perhaps that is the comment of the movie that people should take away. positive reception reflects continual patriarchal currents in the social conscience. yuck. | 0neg
|
Firstly, I am not easily scared by... Anything except for my few phobias, but this movie is absolutely horrific. This is not appropriate for children at all! I had my mouth open the whole time it just shocked me I. Couldn't believe how gory it was for a children's movie, bunnies being brutally murdered! It's just unnecessary to be so horrifying and be rated G. I recommend being over 8 to see this. But don't get me wrong, it was probably a good movie if I wasn't scarred mentally as a child. I cannot believe a parent would allow a, let's say, 4 year old child to watch this. It's just to intense and complicated, not to forget gory, for young kids. I'm wayy over 4 and I was shocked by the violence. I don't recommend | 0neg
|
I saw this movie as a very young girl (I'm 27 now) and it scared me witless for years. I had nightmares about every aspect of this film from the way it was drawn to the music to (obviously) the violence. My parents still argue about who allowed me to watch it and both of them say that they would never let me watch such a movie. I think they only say that knowing that I have such strong feelings about it ;0) I am currently reading the book (out of morbid curiosity and the fact that it's a classic) and it is really a great story. However I don't think that it should have been made into a cartoon. Ever. Well, maybe kids nowadays would find it quaint but it gave me nightmares for weeks and weeks and I still have a hard time seeing rabbits drawn in a similar way. Gives me a little heart palpitation every time. Yah I am a wuss but I strongly suggest that any parent looking to show this movie to their kids, read them the book instead or watch it first to make certain that they approve of the content. Not everyone finds it as disturbing as I did but we are out there ;0) | 0neg
|
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.<br /><br />We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.<br /><br />I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.<br /><br />If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.<br /><br />So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.<br /><br />Hope this helps. | 0neg
|
Probable reasons why so many people on this site have enjoyed this:<br /><br />1. They might not have read the book. 2. They might enjoy gore and violence in a film. 3. They might be very young and therefore not understand the violence. 4. People might not understand how somehow more scary and more violent it is compared to the original book. 5. There are sure to be many other reasons not covered here.<br /><br />The only thing I liked about this film is the song "'Bright Eyes".<br /><br />If perchance, you happen to be one of those people who has read the book, enjoys calm and peaceful films without violence and are quite old and understand scariness and violence, you are sure not to like this. Otherwise you will almost definitely enjoy this.<br /><br />Like in the book, a rabbit called Fiver in an unsuspecting warren warns of terrible danger to come. Only a few rabbits - including his brother Hazel - believe him and they set out on a dangerous journey to find a new place to live... | 0neg
|
THIS IS NOT A CHILDREN'S MOVIE!!!<br /><br />This movie is like a "bad acid trip" for kids under the age of 5. For a month my 4 year old from time-to-time would ask me "Why was that rabbit bleeding from its mouth" or "Why did the bulldozer bury all the rabbits?". (And that wasn't the worst of it). We stopped it about a 1/2 hour in but the damage had been done. Intensely morbid, oppressive, violent. Fortunately he's finally forgotten about the whole wretched thing. Whomever decided this movie should be marketed to children should be brought up on charges. ... (Go ahead censure me, my conscience is clear.). | 0neg
|
This would've been a *great* silent film. The acting really is good, at least in a Look Ma, I'm Doing Really Big Acting! sort of way.<br /><br />Everything is HUGE. Every line is PROFOUND! Every scene is SHATTERED BY HUMAN TRAGEDY!<br /><br />Mostly, I felt like gagging. Yet, like any train wreck, I couldn't tear my eyes away. This dialogue might've worked on the stage, although I doubt it. On the screen, it was cluttered, haphazard, hackneyed and pretty much every other stereotypical negative adjective you can come up with to describe a really bad dramatic work.<br /><br />If you enjoy your melodrama in huge, heaping doses, you *might* enjoy the movie. Be prepared to wait, however. For all that melodrama, this thing sure plods along at its own pace.<br /><br />This script must've sounded a lot different when the actors involved were reading it to themselves. It simply doesn't work once they get around to delivering it in front of the camera.<br /><br />IMDB does us a great disservice, at times, when it uses its goofy computer-controlled "weighted score". Curse of the Starving Class deserves less than a 1.<br /><br />Character-driven fiction is great, but when you develop your characters by simply pushing them through hoops with no plausible explanation for their maturation or evolution, it isn't character development! Your characters must have a motivation. Being drunk for a while and waking up in a field is *not* character development. That's a plot contrivance.<br /><br />Stay away from this movie. Or at the very least, watch it muted. Perhaps you'll get some amusement from all the arm-waving the characters do.<br /><br />Oh, and word to the wise -- to prove that this is truly an artsy film, you see James Woods in all his dangly male "look-at-me, I'm-the-figurative-and-literal-representation-of-the-naked-vulnerability-of- man" glory.<br /><br />Don't say you weren't warned. | 0neg
|
Before seeing this movie, I would've said that I loved everything Kathy Bates has done. Now it's everything-minus-one. James Woods is pathetic...not his character, his acting. Someone should've told him that "poor" is not synonymous with dirty, nor ignorant, nor cliche. Ditto for Randy Quaid's stereotyping. The only redeeming feature is Henry Thomas, who isn't a strong enough actor to carry this sodden mess. If you enjoy the country, you'll enjoy the scenery. That's the best I can give it.<br /><br />I'm a serious fan of both independent and quirky films, but this is simply terrible. | 0neg
|
2 stars out of a possible 10 - and that is being overly generous.<br /><br />I thought with a cast of James Woods, Cathy Bates, Randy Quaid, Lou Gossett, Jr., and Henry Thomas - how could it miss. I was wrong.<br /><br />I can only wonder what drugs Sam Shepard was on the week-end he cranked out this piece of dribble. I'd long suspected Sam S. of being kind of nuts, this film, based on his play, confirms it.<br /><br />This is the kind of artsy b.s. that actors LOVE to sink their teeth into as it gives them a chance to endlessly emote. However, for the viewer who sits through this nonsensical trash, there is absolutely NOTHING to love about this movie.<br /><br />You haven't seen dysfunctional families until you've seen this bunch. Pa is crazy, Ma is crazy, the son is crazy and the daughter is, oh yeah, crazy. They also have mouths on them that utter words that would make a sailor blush, especially the teenage daughter.<br /><br />In addition to the above, as if that weren't enough, the plot--and it's so thin you could read thorough it--has a hole in it the size of Alaska.<br /><br />Ma is conspiring to sell their rundown farm. As it turns out so is Pa. Now I don't claim to be a real estate expert, but the last time I checked, property jointly owned must have both of the owners signatures in order to be sold. If only one of them owned the property, then the other could not legally sell it, so it would be pointless for that person to do so. Mr. Shepherd prefers to ignore this basic fact, and therefore, his plot does not work.<br /><br />Not that anything else was really working anyway.<br /><br />The only possible reason anyone could have for watching this film is if they are absolutely desperate to see James Woods in full frontal nudity, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to. | 0neg
|
This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel. | 0neg
|
There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that! | 0neg
|
this film is in the MANDINGO & DRUM type<br /><br />they were both dreadful BUT they are 100% better than this tripe,<br /><br />Badly acted & made Oliver Reed is the main name & Eartha Kitt also is in it. Tis a pity. Rating is 1/2* about as low as yu can get<br /><br />as always<br /><br />jay harris | 0neg
|
It's funny. I've seen a bunch of Fassbinder films and I have found some to be extremely creative and interesting, while others are repellent and self-indulgent messes--like this film. For me, it ranges from great to crap--without much in the middle. I know he has a lot of fans among the "sophisticated", but I can't help but think that a lot of his appeal is pure hype. From my point of view (and I know I will get a lot of negative ratings for this), he made too many movies too quickly and was too self-indulgent. His gay or gender-bending films (like this one) tend to be really bad--sloppily done, sometimes quite boring (such as QUERELLE and THE BITTER TEARS OF PETRA VON KANT) and sometimes just gross (like this film). Couldn't his message about acceptance of a person's gender-confusion be handled better than showing him get slapped around or watching cows being gruesomely slaughtered? Show some sensitivity for the subject matter and make your characters more human and sympathetic--then, maybe, I'd care about the films. <br /><br />I'm honestly at the point after watching this film that I might not bother with any more Fassbinder films--the bad seems to be out-weighing the good. | 0neg
|
This is a confused and incoherent mess of interminable scenes of boring dialogues and monologues. That is no exaggeration: you have to make a tremendous effort to even try to become involved with it.<br /><br />I sincerely thought Fassbinder would make something interesting in order to tell why does Erwin/Elvira suicides at the end, but instead of this, in every scene somebody is trying to explain: "when he was young, this happened..." and "he just came back from Casablanca and ordered to cut everything down there...", etc.<br /><br />Soon in the movie, Erwin/Elvira is in a slaughter house talking with a friend prostitute (certainly a slaughter house is the best place for a pleasant little chat), and while telling her the story of Elvira's life, Fassbinder shows the killing of one cow after the other. It is difficult to choose between giving attention to the disturbing images or what the transvestite is saying. Of course we come to the very forced and coarse symbolism of "I have suffered much in my life, and am about to die".<br /><br />In one of the sparse moments where actually happens something, Erwin/Elvira encounters a former lover, that only after performing a extremely gay choreography with two other guys (as if going for the necessary level of homosexuality) is that he recognizes Elvira.<br /><br />There are some interesting shots and ideas, I must admit (such as when the nun tells the story of the young Erwin), but everything on the movie is wasted due to Fassbinder's self- indulgence. | 0neg
|
As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really? | 0neg
|
If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste. | 0neg
|
I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense. | 0neg
|
Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.<br /><br />Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids??? <br /><br />Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute. <br /><br />On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.<br /><br />I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.<br /><br />I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.<br /><br />Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10. | 0neg
|
The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".<br /><br />This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.<br /><br />**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago | 0neg
|
This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother. | 0neg
|
Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies. | 0neg
|
Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well. | 0neg
|
Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!<br /><br />The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.<br /><br />What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.<br /><br />But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there. <br /><br />So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that. | 0neg
|
Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.<br /><br />Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. <br /><br />Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage. | 0neg
|
One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies. | 0neg
|
There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.<br /><br />Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel? | 0neg
|
Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining! <br /><br />I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena. | 0neg
|
Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.<br /><br />The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.<br /><br />The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.<br /><br />To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.<br /><br />The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi. | 0neg
|
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.<br /><br />A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.<br /><br />So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.<br /><br />Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.<br /><br />There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased. | 0neg
|
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements. | 0neg
|
Okay, you have:<br /><br />Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!<br /><br />Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.<br /><br />Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)<br /><br />David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.<br /><br />and finally:<br /><br />Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.<br /><br />Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.<br /><br />So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?<br /><br />Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)<br /><br />First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"<br /><br />Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."<br /><br />Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.<br /><br />Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)<br /><br />And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."<br /><br />When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.<br /><br />To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.<br /><br />OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)<br /><br />Great drama. | 0neg
|
I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.<br /><br />First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.<br /><br />The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.<br /><br />Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.<br /><br />I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.<br /><br />This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation. | 0neg
|
I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.<br /><br />This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.<br /><br />B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve. <br /><br />The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.<br /><br />(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?<br /><br />Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those
| 0neg
|
I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.<br /><br />************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.<br /><br />Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.<br /><br />Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.<br /><br />I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.<br /><br />These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.<br /><br />Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer. <br /><br />Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?<br /><br />I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************<br /><br />But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!' | 0neg
|
Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.<br /><br />The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.<br /><br />No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.<br /><br />Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.<br /><br />Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.<br /><br />BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece. | 0neg
|
From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.<br /><br />"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.<br /><br />I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.<br /><br />To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10. | 0neg
|
Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie. | 0neg
|
This could have been interesting a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.<br /><br />The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department a giant crab attack is merely silly as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup! <br /><br />At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing. | 0neg
|
At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.<br /><br />Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba. | 0neg
|
..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.<br /><br />Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.<br /><br />Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.<br /><br />Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.<br /><br />Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.<br /><br />Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie. | 0neg
|
This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs? | 0neg
|
The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives. <br /><br />Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster. | 0neg
|
Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred. <br /><br />Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall. <br /><br />One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.<br /><br />There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud. | 0neg
|
I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.<br /><br />This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career. | 0neg
|
Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.<br /><br />Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.<br /><br />As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film. | 0neg
|
While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them: <br /><br />1. The Acting When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.<br /><br />2. The Ghosts The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.<br /><br />3. The Plot How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.<br /><br />4. The Convenient Priest What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.<br /><br />5. Everything Else It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.<br /><br />I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible. | 0neg
|
Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie." | 0neg
|
I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.<br /><br />Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.<br /><br />If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.<br /><br />It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring. | 0neg
|
This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10 | 0neg
|
A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those<br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond<br /><br />My Grade: F-<br /><br />Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version. | 0neg
|
I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".<br /><br />Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look. | 0neg
|
Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail. | 0neg
|
I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s. | 0neg
|
As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure. <br /><br />The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.<br /><br />The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie. <br /><br />Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow. <br /><br />Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD. | 0neg
|
This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie". | 0neg
|
"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married? <br /><br />Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film. | 0neg
|
I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.<br /><br />The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.<br /><br />The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.<br /><br />Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre. | 0neg
|
I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.<br /><br />Very improbable orphanage on Bala.<br /><br />Cushing and Lee at their height.<br /><br />Some nice scenery.<br /><br />Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".<br /><br />Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.<br /><br />Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.<br /><br />Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort. | 0neg
|
In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.<br /><br />Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.<br /><br />Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.<br /><br />Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits